Speech by Sir Menzies Campbell to the South Central and South East Liberal Democrat Conference.
It is a pleasure to be here in Maidenhead today.
You know, it was not so long ago that our party was peripheral to the politics of the South of England.
But that has changed. You have changed it.
Between the South Central and South Eastern regions, the Liberal Democrats can now count six MPs, two MEPs and control of nine local councils.
And why have you worked so hard to achieve that?
Why do all of us strive to ensure the success of our party in this country?
For me, and for you, it is because politics is about determining what is right, and acting upon it – and doing so with determination, seriousness and vigour.
Liberal Democrats should always see politics in this positive way.
We should see political challenges not as obstacles but as opportunities.
An opportunity to win seats and lead councils. And an opportunity to increase the influence of liberal democracy throughout the United Kingdom.
At our Conference in Harrogate I made clear that I am not content to lead a party whose sole purpose is opposition.
I did so because it is only by governing that we have the opportunity to make the changes that will benefit people.
And our experience of governing across the United Kingdom is testament to that fact.
In Scotland the Liberal Democrats have been the driving force behind radical reform in government: the abolition of tuition fees, free personal care for the elderly, and proportional representation for local government.
In Wales the Liberal Democrats provided the progressive ideas for which the first term of the Welsh Government is remembered. We implemented one hundred policies for the benefit of Welsh citizens.
And in local government throughout the United Kingdom, the Liberal Democrats have provided leadership that is both radical in outlook and responsible in power.
And Liberal Democrat led councils in the South provide that leadership.
Waverley Council has increased recycling rates from 14% under the Conservatives to 40% under the Liberal Democrats.
Southampton Council has increased its investment in roads, pavements and street lighting in order to build a safer public environment.
Eastleigh and Oxford councils have kept their council tax rises below inflation.
And the Vale of White Horse expects to maintain one of the lowest council tax rates in the country.
These are Liberal Democrat councils providing value for money for local people.
No other party shares our ambitions for what local government can achieve.
Because no other party shares our understanding of what localism means.
A commitment to devolving power so that those who are entrusted to take decisions are the very people who will be affected by them.
Government should be shaped around the priorities of those it serves.
It is a fact that Conservative and Labour governments alike have drawn power into the centre, rather than dispersed it to the people.
To reverse this, we need a courageous government.
A trusting government.
A liberal government.
I have long said that Britain’s traditional divide between left and right is being replaced.
The central fault line now lies between liberalism and authoritarianism. Our positions are clear; we are liberals to the core.
The Conservative leader’s position is a little more ambiguous.
Mr Cameron tells us that he is a liberal Conservative. Apparently he does not understand the contradiction between these philosophies.
Being liberal is about more than sound bites and photo opportunities. It’s about the decisions you take, not the phrases you craft. It’s about policies, not posturing. Deeds, not words.
When I speak to people on the doorsteps they tell me that they see in David Cameron a politician who would say anything to win power.
Certainly, he is trying to erase his past misdemeanours in order to pursue his current ambitions.
After all, this is the man who worked for Mrs Thatcher at Conservative Central Office. This is the man who stood behind Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday. And this is the man who wrote Michael Howard’s 2005 Conservative manifesto: one of the most reactionary and right wing manifestos of our time.
How for example would the Tories promote freedom for this country?
They say we should promote Britain’s interests by being solid, but not slavish in our friendship with America. I agree. But they were not promoting freedom when they voted for an illegal war in Iraq, and they are not promoting it now when they say it was the right thing to do.
And how would they promote fairness for this country?
They say that they value different lifestyles and life choices; that many single parents are doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances. I agree. But they are not promoting fairness when they toy with the idea of a tax cut for married couples – the details of which they cannot provide. That tax cut would be paid for with the hard earned money of every unmarried tax payer –
Including those single parents who are struggling most.
And how would they protect the environment in this country?
They say that they recognise the threat of climate change. That individuals and organisations must change their behaviour for the sake of the planet. I agree. But they are not protecting the environment when their leader’s bicycle rides are accompanied by an overhead helicopter and a chauffeur who’s carrying his shoes.
They are not promoting the environment when they keep their options open on a new generation of nuclear power stations – with all the waste and cost that they would entail. And they are not promoting the environment when they continue to look at green tax “options†rather than making the hard choices necessary to tackle global warming.
Why the obfuscation and delay? Why the reluctance to put meat on the bones of policy-making?
Political parties are more than their leaders. And if the Conservative Party aspires to liberalism, Mr Cameron must convince his members of it. He must ensure that they are ready to leave behind the baggage of Europhobia, homophobia, and xenophobia. Not just in policy, but in language and instinct too.
The evidence suggests that he has some way to go to achieve that. There is chasm between the rhetoric of David Cameron’s metropolitan Conservatism and the reality of Conservative associations throughout the country.
And the policies and positioning of Conservative councillors here in the South provide plenty of evidence for that.
David Cameron has said that promoting real equality means saving special schools. So why has the Conservative County Council closed St Anne’s Special School in Lewes – in the face of opposition from the local community?
David Cameron has said that he wants a strong society where communities do not live parallel lives. So why has the Conservative majority on Oxfordshire County Council voted down a Liberal Democrat motion in support of the social and cultural events that would encourage social inclusion and community cohesion?
And we all know that David Cameron has said that the environment is a personal priority for him. So why has the Conservative group on the Vale of White Horse proposed cutting the budget for the Vale Energy Team which promotes energy efficiency in the domestic sector?
Until the Conservative leader ensures consistency between his words and his councillors’ policies he will send out a damaging message to his own party.
It is not so much “do as I say, not as I doâ€. Rather, it is “Do as you want, not that I careâ€.
Well, I care.
I care that voters here in the South – and throughout the United Kingdom – are presented with a clear and honest choice in May’s election.
A choice between a policy-lite Conservative Party, whose true values we do not know.
And a Liberal Democrat Party – with a clear commitment to liberal values and real policies to benefit local people.
We know that liberal democracy best serves the interests of the British people.
We know that liberal democratic policies can make Britain freer, fairer and greener – and we know that we are the true liberals.
Labour’s record in government has been one of centralism, timidity and missed opportunities.
Poverty and well-being is a case in point. The South of England includes some of Britain’s most affluent areas. But even here individual lives and communities are affected by poverty to an unacceptable extent.
How can it be fair that over a quarter of a million pensioners in the South East live in poverty under Labour?
How can it be fair that thousands of households in the South East still suffer from fuel poverty after ten years of Gordon Brown as Chancellor?
And how can it be fair that Britain languishes at the bottom of Unicef’s child well-being league table after a decade with Tony Blair as Prime Minister?
These are not rhetorical questions: they are a call to action.
Other parties may flinch when faced with these challenge of fighting poverty. But the Liberal Democrats will not.
Our party is ready to use tax policy to show our commitment to fairness throughout the United Kingdom.
Under the Blair-Brown administration, the lowest earning fifth of households in this country still pays more of their income in tax than the richest fifth. Is that Labour’s message for these forthcoming elections? That under Labour those who earn less should pay more? Is that what Labour means when they tell us that they are getting ‘tough’? Are they ready to take that message to the council estates where low pay remains prevalent, including here in the South?
Well let’s be clear – their way is not our way.
Our principle is simple. Those who earn less should pay less.
And by increasing green taxes and abolishing generous tax subsidies that benefit the rich, we can afford to cut taxes for lower and middle income families.
Remember what that means. We will cut national income tax for millions of people. Two million of Britain’s poorest tax payers will come out of national income tax and national insurance altogether.
And you can be certain that those cuts will go where they are needed.
Gordon Brown’s budget on Wednesday cut the standard rate of income tax – yes.
But he did so by abolishing the lower rate.
That means that lower earners will pay more in national income tax, in order that higher earners can pay less.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims these lower earners will be supported by tax credits, but childless families and single people will still be worse off. And even those who gain will be dragged into the complex means-tested system of tax credits – with all its associated administrative nightmares.
Given his past record the Chancellor’s decision is not surprising.
But it is appalling.
We say tax cuts are necessary, but not the cuts the Chancellor proposes.
So don’t whisper it softly – shout it out loudly – Liberal Democrats would cut national income tax for those who need it most.
And shout just as loudly that Liberal Democrats can cut crime.
That we can succeed where Labour and the Tories have failed.
Under Labour, there has been abject failure at the Home Office. The prison population is at record levels, and re-offending rates are the highest in Europe. This Labour government has given us twenty five new bills relating to criminal law since 1997. It has imposed on us some of the most authoritarian peacetime legislation this country has ever seen. More than 3000 new offences have been put on the statute book.
And yet the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour has not diminished one bit.
We deserve better than this; Britain deserves better than this.
To fight crime effectively, we don’t need to get tougher. We need to get smarter.
A liberal approach to crime is an honest approach to crime. It is based on what works rather than just what sounds good. Our approach targets the offender. And it has the courage to engage with the criminal and to reform their behaviour.
We know that the liberal approach works – because Liberal Democrat-led councils have used it to fight crime successfully at a local level throughout the United Kingdom.
In Liverpool, a Liberal Democrat council has slashed domestic burglary by 24%. In Newcastle a Liberal Democrat council has cut violent crime by 12%, after it doubled under Labour’s control. And in Islington, a Liberal Democrat council has reduced anti-social behaviour through the innovative use of anti-social behaviour contracts.
We have a five step campaign for a safer Britain.
First, we will use money ear-marked for an expensive, ineffective and unworkable identity card scheme to pay for more police officers instead.
Second, we will take back our town centres by making it easier for local communities and councillors to close pubs and clubs that create problems for local people.
Third, we will have honesty in sentencing. Sentences will mean what they say, and automatic early release will be abolished.
Fourth, we will make prison work. Prisoners who do not participate in education or training are three times more likely to go back to crime. Yet well over half of offenders receive no training. And only one in five of prisoners exceed the standards expected of an 11 year old in writing. Instead, we will treble the number of prisoners working, and make education and training compulsory. For those with serious mental health problems there will be increased provision of secure mental health services.
And fifth, we will introduce an entirely new approach to compensating victims of crime. It will be fairer, simpler and swifter. It is only fair that money raised by prisoners in employment should go towards compensating their victims. By making prisoners do real work for a real wage, we can also instil a sense of responsibility, enhance their skills and ensure that victims are properly compensated.
This is a package of positive measures that show that, together, we can cut crime.
And that is our clear message going in to this May’s local elections.
Tony Blair intends to step down from office this summer – so far as we know.
But if his domestic legacy is one of under-performance, his foreign legacy is one of spectacular failure.
Britain should have an independent foreign policy based on British priorities. It should have an ethical dimension with the promotion of human rights as its centre piece.
That is what Labour called for in opposition. But in Government it has delivered something different.
The alignment of the Bush and Blair foreign policies has sometimes been so close that it has been difficult to distinguish one from the other.
The war in Iraq is the prime example.
Our opposition to that war has always been clear and firm. It was an illegal war based on a flawed prospectus.
The failure to plan sufficiently for Iraq’s reconstruction has brought into focus the reality that this war was about regime change.
But what has the change of regime brought to Iraq?
A state of near civil war. With more than 34,000 civilians killed there last year. And with a degraded infrastructure where public services like water, electricity and sewerage are worse than they were under Saddam Hussein.
We have been there for four years now. And Britain’s position is no longer sustainable.
Britain’s most senior soldier, Sir Richard Dannatt, has said that our presence in Iraq exacerbates the security situation. A majority of Iraqis agree. They also think that coalition forces are legitimate targets.
Meanwhile President Bush dismissed the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Its sensible recommendations for a change in strategy, for regional engagement and dialogue with Syria and Iran were unpalatable to the administration.
The irony is that, having dismissed the report, the United States has now taken part in a security conference discussing Iraq’s future, in which both Syria and Iran were participants.
Against that background we would need overwhelming justification to remain in Iraq. I do not believe that justification exists. In truth it is time to go.
Of course we must continue to fulfil our obligations to the UN and the Iraqi people to assist reconstruction and regional engagement. But we can do that without a military presence.
What I have offered is a clear, structured and honourable framework for withdrawal from Iraq by the end of October this year.
The British-American relationship needs to be renewed, reviewed and rebalanced. And sooner rather than later. Because there are ominous signs that some in the United States might consider military action against Iran in response to its nuclear programme.
The regime in Tehran is authoritarian, nationalist and oppressive. But in spite of its distasteful characteristics it has interests and influence that cannot be ignored. Iran must be engaged rather than isolated if we are to stand a real chance of neutralising its nuclear programme. Already international engagement has led to a possible breakthrough in persuading North Korea to modify its nuclear programme.
This is an illustration of what can be done. Military action against Iran would buttress the regime, fan nationalism and further destabilise the region. The case against it is overwhelming. And the British government must not shy from making that clear.
By serving out the longest period of notice in British political history the Prime Minister is creating friction within his Government and uncertainty in the country.
He says that he is speeding up reform but his continued presence is holding it back.
But will a change in Labour’s leadership lead to better government for the United Kingdom?
Why should it?
The new Labour project was designed by the Chancellor every bit as much as it was by the Prime Minister.
He signed off the policies in the Cabinet and the cheques at the Treasury.
The legacy of new Labour – at home and abroad – belongs both to Tony Blair and to Gordon Brown.
A renaissance in British government, to decentralise power and emancipate local government will not come any closer if the Chancellor moves from Number 11 to Number 10 Downing Street.
But regardless of our opponents we know that ours is the party determined to address Britain’s needs at every level – local, national and international. We have the ambition. We have the policies. And we have the people too.
There is a great deal at stake on 3rd May. And that presents a great opportunity for our party. We can win more votes and gain more influence. Here in the South – and throughout the UK – we have the chance to provide a better future. A Liberal Democrat future.
Seize that chance.
