Virtually Naked

Undressing the Issues


Archive for May, 2011

May 31st, 2011

David Cameron at the G8

by admin

Rather lost in the glamour of the Obama visit last week was the meeting of the G8, and the decisions that came form that meeting, many of which were cited by David Cameron in his final press conference of the event last Friday.

The first thing to note, and something that seemed to be underreported over the bank holiday weekend, was the decisive move form the G8 towards removing Colonel Qadhafi from power in Libya. Cameron said:

“ 

The Communique says that Qadhafi has “lost all legitimacy. He has no future in a free, democratic Libya. He must go.

Every G8 nation has signed up to this.”

 

 

This is probably accurately reflects the practical reality of the situation. Having accused him of massacring his own people, how could the allies implementing the ‘No Fly Zone’ in Libya simply go home with Qadhafi still in Tripoli? Cameron also reiterated the reason for going into Libya – the imminent threat to the people of Benghazi. However, his words and the Communique will do little to reassure doubters.

 

Earlier in the speech, the Prime Minister got very Blair-ish when discussing the Arab spring:

“Be in no doubt. Get this wrong, fail to support these countries and we risk giving oxygen to the extremists who prey on the frustrations and aspirations of young people.”

He is also once again passionately made the case for continuing international aid, declaring that 

“I remember as a young politician watching the Gleneagles summit and the Live8 concerts and thinking it was right that world leaders should have made those pledges so publicly”.

He proudly reiterated that Britain “

will be the first G8 country to hit the 0.7 per cent target by 2013.”

His right-wingers don’t like it. Apparently his Defence Secretary doesn’t like it. David Cameron though seems determined to stick to his aid pledge.

 

 

The full transcript of the press conference delivered by David Cameron is below:

[Check against delivery]

This is the second G8 I’ve attended. The first focused very much on tackling deficits and getting the economy growing and this Summit reaffirmed the importance of that – including of course the need to complete the Doha trade round.

But this G8 focused predominantly on North Africa and the Middle East, while also reporting back on aid.

Middle East and North Africa

The big test for this G8 was whether we could respond to the momentous events we have seen in North Africa and the Middle East.

And I would argue that we have responded.

I said at the outset it was essential for us to give a clear message to those countries.

We will help you develop your democracies. We will help you achieve greater freedom. We will help you build your economies and develop the political parties, free media, and the fair and reliable courts that are the building blocks of what I call an open society.

That is exactly what has been agreed.

We agreed the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development should for the first time start lending to private enterprise in that region. The institution that helped to transform Eastern Europe now has a new mission.

Every G8 country now stands ready to open its markets to countries in the region committed to reform. This has been one of the most closed regions of the world to trade and investment. That is now going to change.

And we promised the leaders of Egypt and Tunisia that the international community would support their plans to create economic stability and prosperity for their people.

This support will initially be available to Egypt and Tunisia but will ultimately be there for any country in the region that embraces the path to democracy and reform – including, for example, Libya.

The Partnership we agreed today has taken months to put together and it has been a very personal mission for me.

Back in February I was the first leader to visit Cairo after the uprising. And I was the first to go the European Council to argue that the current European Neighbourhood Policy simply wasn’t working. I called explicitly for greater market access and for helping thoe countries that really try to reform rather than simply handing out money as Europe has done in the past.

This week the European Commission has responded to that call. More resources and more trade access for countries moving fastest towards reform.

Now there are those who argue these North African countries are not the poorest in the world, and that we should concentrate on our own affairs.

I reject this.

Be in no doubt. Get this wrong, fail to support these countries and we risk giving oxygen to the extremists who prey on the frustrations and aspirations of young people.

We would see more terrorism, more immigration, more instability coming from Europe’s southern border. And that affects us right back at home.

But get this right – support the Arab people in their aspirations and their hope for a better future will be our hope too…

…their security will mean greater security for us…

…and their prosperity, a more prosperous world for us all.

So this is an investment in success on which I believe the British people will see a return.

The Americans have made a big offer on relieving debt. We’re not a major creditor for the region, so we are making an offer focused on developing the institutions of genuine democracy and the know-how to create an open economy.

So, in addition to the assistance we’re making available through Europe, at this Summit, the UK has also made its own bi-lateral offer of £110 million over 4 years.

Today we have laid the foundations for an enduring partnership for the region. But it is the beginning of a process and the work must now go on in the weeks and months ahead to make sure it delivers.

Aid

In North Africa we are focused on the impact of aid to stabilise countries – much as we are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Elsewhere it’s vital that we focus aid on things that are measurable, verifiable, results-driven and we target those things that people back home can clearly see making a difference.

Bednets to stop malaria. Vaccines to stop preventable diseases. Clean water. Making sure mothers don’t die in childbirth.

I remember as a young politician watching the Gleneagles summit and the Live8 concerts and thinking it was right that world leaders should have made those pledges so publicly.

I think when you make a promise like that to the poorest people in the world, you should keep it. And I am proud of the fact that Britain is doing just that.

But the reality is that as a whole, the G8 has not.

The Communique is clear on this.

Britain ensured the accountability report published at this Summit clearly shows what each country has – and has not – done to meet its aid commitments.

That means numbers in real terms not just cash terms.

And it means highlighting – not hiding – the $19 billion gap between what’s been expected and what has been delivered.

Britain will not balance its books on the backs of the poorest. We will be the first G8 country to hit the 0.7 per cent target by 2013.

Britain will keep its promises. And I was tough in urging my counterparts to keep theirs.

It’s not just about handing over money.

It’s also crucially about outcomes and getting value for money, about promoting trade and growth.

That’s why I pushed G8 leaders to endorse an ambitious vision for free trade in Africa – including practical action to open trade corridors and remove obstacles to trade and growth.

And it’s why I pushed hard for the G8 to support next month’s London conference for the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation, which should stop millions of children dying from totally preventable diseases like diarrhoea.

Britain will be prepared to increase our funding significantly. And I look forward to other countries doing the same.

Libya

Finally, I talked late last night with the four countries here which are taking part in active operations in Libya.

Two months into the operation we are entering a new phase.

First, we turned Qadhafi’s forces back at the gates of Benghazi to avert a bloody massacre.

Then we rallied to assist the brave defenders of Misurata and Brega.

Now there are signs that the momentum against Qadhafi is really building.

So it is right that we are ratcheting up the military, economic and political pressure on the Qadhafi regime so that we can enforce Resolution 1973.

We are stepping up the capability of NATO operations. Yesterday, we made the decision in principle that UK commanders should prepare to deploy UK Apache attack helicopters.

We are ramping up the economic pressure, choking the Qadhafi regime’s ability to get money to finance these attacks.

And we are expanding the broad international consensus against Qadhafi and in support of the opposition – the Transitional National Council in Benghazi.

Crucially, the G8 nations have today reached a unanimous and final verdict on Qadhafi and his regime.

The Communique says that Qadhafi has “lost all legitimacy. He has no future in a free, democratic Libya. He must go.”

Every G8 nation has signed up to this.

And we have all made a commitment to “support a political transition that reflects the will of the Libyan people.”

This has been a timely meeting at a critical moment.

The world’s most powerful nations have sent an unequivocal message to all those in the Middle East and North Africa who want greater democracy, freedom and civil rights – we are on your side.

These things aren’t just good for the Arab nations. They are good for us too. And that’s why Britain will continue to play its full part in helping the Arab people to fulfil their economic and political aspirations.

 

Thank you.

Enhanced by Zemanta
May 31st, 2011

Cleggophobia

by Charlotte Henry

Nick Clegg, you may have noticed, has come in for a bit stick recently. To dismiss it as just about tuition fees, or just about working with the Conservatives, is too simplistic. While his decisions on both these issues undoubtedly made him unpopular with large parts of the electorate, in my opinion the ‘Cleggophobia’ goes a lot deeper. It is even more than being about building someone up, as was done after that famous 1st debate, in order to bring them back down. No, ‘Clegg bashing’ has now become a self-perpetuating vicious cycle, created, indulged and encouraged by our beloved mainstream media.

I do not want to use this post to once again to debate the merits, or otherwise, of decisions Nick Clegg has taken. I have made it clear elsewhere that I believe many of those decision to be good, and others to be wrong and/or disappointing. Pretty standard in politics really. The issue for me is the increasingly unpolitical, personalised, vilification of Clegg that has just casually sauntered in and placed itself in our popular culture.

Take this weekend’s episode of the Graham Norton Show for instance. In his opening monologue, Norton discussed Obama’s visit to the UK, building up to the punchline “It seems though any idiot can meet the President these days.” Cut to a picture of Clegg and Obama sharing a joke, while Norton laughs very proudly at himself. The joke just slipped out.  It was lapped up, unquestioned by the audience of a Friday night talk show that has nothing to do with politics, save for the appearance of the West Wing’s swoonsome Rob Lowe. That’s also ignoring the fact that, as is so often pointed out, Nick Clegg is Oxbridge educated, and far form an idiot!

The Graham Norton incident really stuck out to me, but it is hardly a 1 off. For example, Times columnist Matthew Parris(£) was “dumbstruck by the casual hostility to Mr Clegg” when he appeared recently on Radio 4′s News Quiz. On Sunday morning I turned on Radio 5Live to hear Nick Hancock drop some wisecrack about Nick Clegg. Then there’s Sally Bercow, Ann Treneman and other’s patronising reference to ‘Cleggie’ in their tweets. In fact, during the Obama visit you couldn’t navigate around twitter for all haggard hacks gleefully pointing out how useless, uninvolved, or unimportant Nick Clegg supposedly is.

Of course, Gordon Brown came in for a personal hard time whilst Prime Minister, which isn’t right either. However, Even at its worse I don’t remember an acceptance of an undercurrent of bile being directed at Brown in quite the same way.  Perhaps it is because I was less personally bothered by it, but I don’t think so. There may have been that rather vile story about supposed use of anti-depressants for instance, but the media just didn’t embed the notion into mainstream culture with Brown as has been done with Clegg.

The point has been made eloquently by Olly Grender in the New Statesman, and by Matthew Parris in the aforementioned article, that the success of the coalition government, the Liberal Demcorats, and indeed the country, is not solely down to Nick Clegg. They’re right. The very definition of pluralist politics makes this so. For the media to be pretending otherwise is totally misleading.

Most importantly, what does this personal vilification actually do for our politics? What do the public gain by have a media-anointed pantomime villain? Nothing. Just increased apathy, dislike, and distrust of politics and politicians. The net effect of this just sets back on a path right back towards the status quo that, whisper it, Nick Clegg has spent an entire political career trying to break, and, surprise, surprise, rather suits those in the media taking cheap shots at him.

You don’t have to agree with everything, or indeed anything, Nick Clegg says, but surely it’s to all our benefit that he gets a fair hearing?

Enhanced by Zemanta
May 30th, 2011

Loved up Alexander and Letwin

by admin

VN just found this rather delightful offering on the Cabinet Office’s YouTube channel. The coalition-cross-party-love-in recorded by Alexander and Letwin is a reminder of just what the coalition is about. Ok, this video smells distinctly of cheddar, but the Government was so much better, such a breath of fresh air, when it was positive, and not bickering amongst itself like its predecessors.

Just look how they gaze so lovingly at each other:

 

This video also rather serves as a reminder, if it was ever in doubt, of just who pulls the Coalition strings behind the scenes.
Enhanced by Zemanta
May 28th, 2011

The Liberal Democrats, the NHS, and why time may be the best healer for reform

by Sam Phripp
Logo Liberal Democrats UK

Image via Wikipedia

The NHS is quite rightly the holy grail of British politics. What started as a twinkle in an old Liberal’s eye has survived recession, bureaucracy and more than one questionable Thatcherite regime. So why now – after the struggle and change that has spanned its existence – is the NHS suddenly under threat? That’s right, naughty Nick is back to his old tricks again, he’s a weapon of mass reformation.

The dire need for NHS reform seems clear to me, and clear to many Liberal Democrats. The very basic principle of free care at the point of use is one which must evolve for a new century if it is to survive, and one which must be protected from the smoke and mirrors dealership of the last administration.

The last Labour government should be applauded for cutting waiting lists. When Blair swept to power he rightly made note of the fact that people were living out their days at the bottom of yet another queue for life saving treatment. However, like their remedies for unemployment and low attainment in our schools, this was not the structural repair needed. Labour provided the polyfilla required to achieve a smooth surface despite, the crumbling brickwork beneath.

What we are left with is a system left weak and ailing by endless private finance initiatives, and what seems like a limitless credit account with private care providers. Common sense can easily reason that waiting lists will go down exponentially when you’re selling off a load of cases to private bodies. Similarly, paying someone smart to do your algebra leaves you with remarkably less homework. What private contracts have left us with however is remarkably less money for remarkably less service, much like the government that loved them so much.

Where the NHS is concerned, we must not forget that Labour was met with a perfect storm. They received not only the mandate to change what was even at that point a troubled system, but also the money to make it happen. The fact that they let that brief and wonderful opportunity slip through their fingers is one reason why I, and many like me, will never forgive them.

We, however, are faced with a very different situation. As far as I’m concerned, we have neither the mandate nor the money to give the NHS the massive help that it needs. Whilst the initial plans may or may not be privatisation by the back door, and whilst Clegg may or may not have ‘bounced’ Downing Street this week – the challenge that faces us should not be underplayed. If an extra six months provides time to shed light and reason on the proposals, we could very well leave government having achieved change tangible enough for the public to take note. If matters don’t play out as well, we could end up getting our fingers burnt.

Agony aunt, AIDS campaigner and nurse, Claire Rayner said shortly before she died last year that if David Cameron screwed up her ‘beloved NHS’, she would come back and haunt him. The path we take over the next few months could also decide whether this particular issue is one that comes back to haunt the Liberal Democrats. In the game of political football, this is one occasion where a draw may suffice; a loss however, would quite rightfully leave us in the drop zone.

Enhanced by Zemanta
May 27th, 2011

Tories on top

by admin

Ok so it’s Friday…you’re into politics, but you’ve already discussed last night’s Question Time ,and even This Week, with everyone in the office, so what do you do? Head over to www.sexymp.co.uk. Obviously.

The site, which looks a lot like Mark Zukerberg’s original conception of Facebook, makes visitors pick which MP they would rather sleep with. Don’t pretend you haven’t thought about before either.

So far the Conservatives are way out in front, with 8 of the top 10 last time VN checked. It’s worth noting that there is not a Lib Dem in sight.

Enjoy!

 

May 27th, 2011

Last night’s Question Time shows just why we should value the BBC

by admin

The BBC has to take a lot of flack. As it is publicly funded, people seem to expect that that they should like every programme on it. Last night’s Question Time though perfectly illustrated what a fantastic broadcaster Auntie is.

In the week President Obama made a historic address to Parliament, the BBC had secured for the hour long programme former US Ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer, in addition to Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne.

In the week the twitter mob and John Hemming MP busted Ryan Giggs’ superinjunction, the BBC had secured Charlotte Harris, one of the the lawyers at the heart of new developments in privacy law, for the panel.

Whatever say the parties have in the politicians that appear, the pulling power of the BBC in general, and Question Time Specifically, is such that it could attract a panel that could expertly deal with the key issues of the day. This was not 3 minutes interviews on 24 hour rolling news, this was a relatively in depth look at the weeks developments from people that know. Sky News and Channel 4 undoubtedly provide excellent news coverage, but can you really imagine another channel putting on a programme like that?

Sometimes Question Time can be little more than party point scoring. Other times, like last night and the Paddy and Ken show a few months ago, it provides an excellent look at the week in current affairs, in a way no other broadcaster can support commercially.

May 26th, 2011

Internal split in UKIP as Andreasen calls on Farage to stand down

by admin
UKIP party logo

Image via Wikipedia

 

When it comes to UKIP most people only really know leader Nigel Farage, and if you’ve heard on anyone beyond that it’s Marta Andreasen. The former chief account to EU Commision has appeared on Question Time a few times, and is fairly prominent in UKIP terms.. It seems all is not well at the top of the party though, as The Parliament report that Andreasen yesterday called on Farage to resign!

Adreasen said:

“My disappointment started when Nigel announced he was standing down as leader eight months before the general election and with no advance notice. Buckingham’s results left me in doubt about his strategic ability, which up to that point I was convinced he had.

The results of this year, whatever the EU-style massaging of the figures, are bad without doubt: winning only 0.7 per cent of the seats contested is a dismal result.

And Nigel, who promised great success, should be the first one to recognise this.”

While it is clear that many members of the party were not happy with Farage’s ego-trip in Buckingham, it is equally clear that at the moment he is the only figure that can lead the party forward. As fellow UKIPer Godfrey Bloom put upon hearin Andreasen was sticking to her comments:

“Nigel was re-elected by a large majority of members. The election results were our best ever and I, and others, are stunned by what Marta is saying.

I fully support Nigel as leader and cannot understand why she is doing this.”

It will be interesting to see if this turns into a proper tussle, or if Marta Andreasen is quietly moved away from the frontline. If UKIP have established grassroots yet, it’s hard to imagine she has the support of them on this.

Enhanced by Zemanta
May 26th, 2011

Perhaps Guido could have made better use of his year

by Charlotte Henry

It seems that Guido isn’t quite what it was, and, with an apparent lack of anything better to do, Paul and Harry have taken to chasing Chris Huhne. Clearly bored with the slow developments over some speeding points, they have taken to going on about Huhne’s election expenses, something apparently they have been researching for a year.

Perhaps they should have used that time better, as along with the myths dispelled by Mark Pack on Lib Dem Voice:

  • The Chris Huhne website Guido refers to is still up and running, making it entirely justifiable to split the development costs over more than just the general election.
  • Local staff  in the Eastleigh constituency will have also been working on the local elections campaign and other work, so not all their time should be charged against Chris Huhne’s general election expenses.

Mark also rightly points out the Paul and Harry have form when it comes to over-excitedly making claims about Lib Dem MPs. Paul has responded by referring to Mark as “Lord Haw Haw” on twitter, rather suggesting he knows he might just have backed a loser this time.

Both Jonathan Calder on Liberal England, and Paul Walter have also pointed out that Guido might just be losing his powers….

Everyone in politics and the political blogosphere accepts a bit of banter and rough and tumble. Opinion, counter opinion, and exposing the ‘truth’ is what it’s all about. However this increasingly hysterical hounding of individuals is dull and degrading to everyone involved. (Remember it was Paul and Harry who chased after Huhnes SpAd on twitter when it was initially thought he was in someway involved in the speeding points saga. Another mistake on their record.)

Not every blog has to be written by wannabe leader writers, but fun and frivolous still needs to be factual Guido.

Enhanced by Zemanta
May 25th, 2011

Barack Obama becomes first US President to speak in Westminster Hall

by admin
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - MAY 25:  US President...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

President Barack Obama today became the first US President to address both House of Parliament in Westminster Hall. In a very impressive  and well received speech that last 35 minutes, the President touched on a variety of topics, including the ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US, foreign policy, and the economy. The high point, as far as the 1000 or so strong audience was concerned, was when he referred to himself as “the grandson of a Kenyan who served as a cook in the British Army to stand before you as President of the United States.” By the way American readers, the MPs and Peers were not being unappreciative by not interrupting Obama with applause, it’s just not….British.

Here, courtesy of the White House Press Office, is the full speech Presiden Obama made this afternoon:

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)
My Lord Chancellor, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, my lords, and members of the House of Commons:

I have known few greater honors than the opportunity to address the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster Hall.  I am told that the last three speakers here have been the Pope, Her Majesty the Queen, and Nelson Mandela — which is either a very high bar or the beginning of a very funny joke.  (Laughter.)
I come here today to reaffirm one of the oldest, one of the strongest alliances the world has ever known.  It’s long been said that the United States and the United Kingdom share a special relationship.  And since we also share an especially active press corps, that relationship is often analyzed and overanalyzed for the slightest hint of stress or strain.

Of course, all relationships have their ups and downs.  Admittedly, ours got off on the wrong foot with a small scrape about tea and taxes.  (Laughter.)

There may also have been some hurt feelings when the White House was set on fire during the War of 1812.  (Laughter.)  But fortunately, it’s been smooth sailing ever since.

The reason for this close friendship doesn’t just have to do with our shared history, our shared heritage; our ties of language and culture; or even the strong partnership between our governments.  Our relationship is special because of the values and beliefs that have united our people through the ages.
Centuries ago, when kings, emperors, and warlords reigned over much of the world, it was the English who first spelled out the rights and liberties of man in the Magna Carta.  It was here, in this very hall, where the rule of law first developed, courts were established, disputes were settled, and citizens came to petition their leaders.

Over time, the people of this nation waged a long and sometimes bloody struggle to expand and secure their freedom from the crown.  Propelled by the ideals of the Enlightenment, they would ultimately forge an English Bill of Rights, and invest the power to govern in an elected parliament that’s gathered here today.

What began on this island would inspire millions throughout the continent of Europe and across the world.  But perhaps no one drew greater inspiration from these notions of freedom than your rabble-rousing colonists on the other side of the Atlantic.  As Winston Churchill said, the “…Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”

For both of our nations, living up to the ideals enshrined in these founding documents has sometimes been difficult, has always been a work in progress.

The path has never been perfect. But through the struggles of slaves and immigrants, women and ethnic minorities, former colonies and persecuted religions, we have learned better than most that the longing for freedom and human dignity is not English or American or Western –- it is universal, and it beats in every heart.  Perhaps that’s why there are few nations that stand firmer, speak louder, and fight harder to defend democratic values around the world than the United States and the United Kingdom.

We are the allies who landed at Omaha and Gold, who sacrificed side by side to free a continent from the march of tyranny, and help prosperity flourish from the ruins of war.  And with the founding of NATO –- a British idea –- we joined a transatlantic alliance that has ensured our security for over half a century.

Together with our allies, we forged a lasting peace from a cold war.  When the Iron Curtain lifted, we expanded our alliance to include the nations of Central and Eastern Europe, and built new bridges to Russia and the former states of the Soviet Union. And when there was strife in the Balkans, we worked together to keep the peace.

Today, after a difficult decade that began with war and ended in recession, our nations have arrived at a pivotal moment once more.  A global economy that once stood on the brink of depression is now stable and recovering.  After years of conflict, the United States has removed 100,000 troops from Iraq, the United Kingdom has removed its forces, and our combat mission there has ended.  In Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum and will soon begin a transition to Afghan lead.  And nearly 10 years after 9/11, we have disrupted terrorist networks and dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader –- Osama bin Laden.

Together, we have met great challenges.  But as we enter this new chapter in our shared history, profound challenges stretch before us.  In a world where the prosperity of all nations is now inextricably linked, a new era of cooperation is required to ensure the growth and stability of the global economy.  As new threats spread across borders and oceans, we must dismantle terrorist networks and stop the spread of nuclear weapons, confront climate change and combat famine and disease.  And as a revolution races through the streets of the Middle East and North Africa, the entire world has a stake in the aspirations of a generation that longs to determine its own destiny.

These challenges come at a time when the international order has already been reshaped for a new century.  Countries like China, India, and Brazil are growing by leaps and bounds.  We should welcome this development, for it has lifted hundreds of millions from poverty around the globe, and created new markets and opportunities for our own nations.

And yet, as this rapid change has taken place, it’s become fashionable in some quarters to question whether the rise of these nations will accompany the decline of American and European influence around the world.  Perhaps, the argument goes, these nations represent the future, and the time for our leadership has passed.

That argument is wrong.  The time for our leadership is now. It was the United States and the United Kingdom and our democratic allies that shaped a world in which new nations could emerge and individuals could thrive.  And even as more nations take on the responsibilities of global leadership, our alliance will remain indispensable to the goal of a century that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more just.

At a time when threats and challenges require nations to work in concert with one another, we remain the greatest catalysts for global action.  In an era defined by the rapid flow of commerce and information, it is our free market tradition, our openness, fortified by our commitment to basic security for our citizens, that offers the best chance of prosperity that is both strong and shared.  As millions are still denied their basic human rights because of who they are, or what they believe, or the kind of government that they live under, we are the nations most willing to stand up for the values of tolerance and self-determination that lead to peace and dignity.

Now, this doesn’t mean we can afford to stand still.  The nature of our leadership will need to change with the times.  As I said the first time I came to London as President, for the G20 summit, the days are gone when Roosevelt and Churchill could sit in a room and solve the world’s problems over a glass of brandy  -– although I’m sure that Prime Minister Cameron would agree that some days we could both use a stiff drink.  (Laughter.)  In this century, our joint leadership will require building new partnerships, adapting to new circumstances, and remaking ourselves to meet the demands of a new era.
That begins with our economic leadership.

Adam Smith’s central insight remains true today:  There is no greater generator of wealth and innovation than a system of free enterprise that unleashes the full potential of individual men and women.  That’s what led to the Industrial Revolution that began in the factories of Manchester.  That is what led to the dawn of the Information Age that arose from the office parks of Silicon Valley.  That’s why countries like China, India and Brazil are growing so rapidly — because in fits and starts, they are moving toward market-based principles that the United States and the United Kingdom have always embraced.

In other words, we live in a global economy that is largely of our own making.  And today, the competition for the best jobs and industries favors countries that are free-thinking and forward-looking; countries with the most creative and innovative and entrepreneurial citizens.

That gives nations like the United States and the United Kingdom an inherent advantage.  For from Newton and Darwin to Edison and Einstein, from Alan Turing to Steve Jobs, we have led the world in our commitment to science and cutting-edge research, the discovery of new medicines and technologies.  We educate our citizens and train our workers in the best colleges and universities on Earth.  But to maintain this advantage in a world that’s more competitive than ever, we will have to redouble our investments in science and engineering, and renew our national commitments to educating our workforces.

We’ve also been reminded in the last few years that markets can sometimes fail.  In the last century, both our nations put in place regulatory frameworks to deal with such market failures — safeguards to protect the banking system after the Great Depression, for example; regulations that were established to prevent the pollution of our air and water during the 1970s.
But in today’s economy, such threats of market failure can no longer be contained within the borders of any one country.  Market failures can go global, and go viral, and demand international responses.

A financial crisis that began on Wall Street infected nearly every continent, which is why we must keep working through forums like the G20 to put in place global rules of the road to prevent future excesses and abuse.  No country can hide from the dangers of carbon pollution, which is why we must build on what was achieved at Copenhagen and Cancun to leave our children a planet that is safer and cleaner.

Moreover, even when the free market works as it should, both our countries recognize that no matter how responsibly we live in our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us.  And so part of our common tradition has expressed itself in a conviction that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security -– health care if you get sick, unemployment insurance if you lose your job, a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work.  That commitment to our citizens has also been the reason for our leadership in the world.

And now, having come through a terrible recession, our challenge is to meet these obligations while ensuring that we’re not consuming — and hence consumed with — a level of debt that could sap the strength and vitality of our economies.  And that will require difficult choices and it will require different paths for both of our countries.  But we have faced such challenges before, and have always been able to balance the need for fiscal responsibility with the responsibilities we have to one another.

And I believe we can do this again.  As we do, the successes and failures of our own past can serve as an example for emerging economies -– that it’s possible to grow without polluting; that lasting prosperity comes not from what a nation consumes, but from what it produces, and from the investments it makes in its people and its infrastructure.

And just as we must lead on behalf of the prosperity of our citizens, so we must safeguard their security.  Our two nations know what it is to confront evil in the world.  Hitler’s armies would not have stopped their killing had we not fought them on the beaches and on the landing grounds, in the fields and on the streets.  We must never forget that there was nothing inevitable about our victory in that terrible war.  It was won through the courage and character of our people.

Precisely because we are willing to bear its burden, we know well the cost of war.  And that is why we built an alliance that was strong enough to defend this continent while deterring our enemies.  At its core, NATO is rooted in the simple concept of Article Five:  that no NATO nation will have to fend on its own; that allies will stand by one another, always.  And for six decades, NATO has been the most successful alliance in human history.
Today, we confront a different enemy.  Terrorists have taken the lives of our citizens in New York and in London.  And while al Qaeda seeks a religious war with the West, we must remember that they have killed thousands of Muslims -– men, women and children -– around the globe.  Our nations are not and will never be at war with Islam.  Our fight is focused on defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies.  In that effort, we will not relent, as Osama bin Laden and his followers have learned.  And as we fight an enemy that respects no law of war, we will continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard -– by living up to the values, the rule of law and due process that we so ardently defend.

For almost a decade, Afghanistan has been a central front of these efforts.  Throughout those years, you, the British people, have been a stalwart ally, along with so many others who fight by our side.

Together, let us pay tribute to all of our men and women who have served and sacrificed over the last several years -– for they are part of an unbroken line of heroes who have borne the heaviest burden for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Because of them, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum.  Because of them, we have built the capacity of Afghan security forces.  And because of them, we are now preparing to turn a corner in Afghanistan by transitioning to Afghan lead.  And during this transition, we will pursue a lasting peace with those who break free of al Qaeda and respect the Afghan constitution and lay down arms.  And we will ensure that Afghanistan is never a safe haven for terror, but is instead a country that is strong, sovereign, and able to stand on its own two feet.

Indeed, our efforts in this young century have led us to a new concept for NATO that will give us the capabilities needed to meet new threats — threats like terrorism and piracy, cyber attacks and ballistic missiles.  But a revitalized NATO will continue to hew to that original vision of its founders, allowing us to rally collective action for the defense of our people, while building upon the broader belief of Roosevelt and Churchill that all nations have both rights and responsibilities, and all nations share a common interest in an international architecture that maintains the peace.

We also share a common interest in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.  Across the globe, nations are locking down nuclear materials so they never fall into the wrong hands — because of our leadership.  From North Korea to Iran, we’ve sent a message that those who flaunt their obligations will face consequences -– which is why America and the European Union just recently strengthened our sanctions on Iran, in large part because of the leadership of the United Kingdom and the United States.  And while we hold others to account, we will meet our own obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and strive for a world without nuclear weapons.

We share a common interest in resolving conflicts that prolong human suffering and threaten to tear whole regions asunder.  In Sudan, after years of war and thousands of deaths, we call on both North and South to pull back from the brink of violence and choose the path of peace.  And in the Middle East, we stand united in our support for a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine.

And we share a common interest in development that advances dignity and security.  To succeed, we must cast aside the impulse to look at impoverished parts of the globe as a place for charity.  Instead, we should empower the same forces that have allowed our own people to thrive:  We should help the hungry to feed themselves, the doctors who care for the sick.  We should support countries that confront corruption, and allow their people to innovate.

And we should advance the truth that nations prosper when they allow women and girls to reach their full potential.
We do these things because we believe not simply in the rights of nations; we believe in the rights of citizens.  That is the beacon that guided us through our fight against fascism and our twilight struggle against communism.  And today, that idea is being put to the test in the Middle East and North Africa.  In country after country, people are mobilizing to free themselves from the grip of an iron fist.  And while these movements for change are just six months old, we have seen them play out before -– from Eastern Europe to the Americas, from South Africa to Southeast Asia.
History tells us that democracy is not easy.  It will be years before these revolutions reach their conclusion, and there will be difficult days along the way.

Power rarely gives up without a fight -– particularly in places where there are divisions of tribe and divisions of sect.  We also know that populism can take dangerous turns -– from the extremism of those who would use democracy to deny minority rights, to the nationalism that left so many scars on this continent in the 20th century.

But make no mistake:  What we saw, what we are seeing in Tehran, in Tunis, in Tahrir Square, is a longing for the same freedoms that we take for granted here at home.  It was a rejection of the notion that people in certain parts of the world don’t want to be free, or need to have democracy imposed upon them.  It was a rebuke to the worldview of al Qaeda, which smothers the rights of individuals, and would thereby subject them to perpetual poverty and violence.

Let there be no doubt:  The United States and United Kingdom stand squarely on the side of those who long to be free.  And now, we must show that we will back up those words with deeds.  That means investing in the future of those nations that transition to democracy, starting with Tunisia and Egypt -– by deepening ties of trade and commerce; by helping them demonstrate that freedom brings prosperity.  And that means standing up for universal rights -– by sanctioning those who pursue repression, strengthening civil society, supporting the rights of minorities.

We do this knowing that the West must overcome suspicion and mistrust among many in the Middle East and North Africa -– a mistrust that is rooted in a difficult past.  For years, we’ve faced charges of hypocrisy from those who do not enjoy the freedoms that they hear us espouse.  And so to them, we must squarely acknowledge that, yes, we have enduring interests in the region -– to fight terror, sometimes with partners who may not be perfect; to protect against disruptions of the world’s energy supply.  But we must also insist that we reject as false the choice between our interests and our ideals; between stability and democracy.  For our idealism is rooted in the realities of history -– that repression offers only the false promise of stability, that societies are more successful when their citizens are free, and that democracies are the closest allies we have.

It is that truth that guides our action in Libya.  It would have been easy at the outset of the crackdown in Libya to say that none of this was our business -– that a nation’s sovereignty is more important than the slaughter of civilians within its borders.  That argument carries weight with some.  But we are different.  We embrace a broader responsibility.  And while we cannot stop every injustice, there are circumstances that cut through our caution -– when a leader is threatening to massacre his people, and the international community is calling for action.  That’s why we stopped a massacre in Libya.  And we will not relent until the people of Libya are protected and the shadow of tyranny is lifted.

We will proceed with humility, and the knowledge that we cannot dictate every outcome abroad.  Ultimately, freedom must be won by the people themselves, not imposed from without.  But we can and must stand with those who so struggle.  Because we have always believed that the future of our children and grandchildren will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren are more prosperous and more free -– from the beaches of Normandy to the Balkans to Benghazi.  That is our interests and our ideals.  And if we fail to meet that responsibility, who would take our place, and what kind of world would we pass on?

Our action -– our leadership -– is essential to the cause of human dignity.  And so we must act -– and lead -– with confidence in our ideals, and an abiding faith in the character of our people, who sent us all here today.
For there is one final quality that I believe makes the United States and the United Kingdom indispensable to this moment in history.  And that is how we define ourselves as nations.

Unlike most countries in the world, we do not define citizenship based on race or ethnicity.  Being American or British is not about belonging to a certain group; it’s about believing in a certain set of ideals — the rights of individuals, the rule of law.  That is why we hold incredible diversity within our borders.  That’s why there are people around the world right now who believe that if they come to America, if they come to New York, if they come to London, if they work hard, they can pledge allegiance to our flag and call themselves Americans; if they come to England, they can make a new life for themselves and can sing God Save The Queen just like any other citizen.

Yes, our diversity can lead to tension.  And throughout our history there have been heated debates about immigration and assimilation in both of our countries.  But even as these debates can be difficult, we fundamentally recognize that our patchwork heritage is an enormous strength — that in a world which will only grow smaller and more interconnected, the example of our two nations says it is possible for people to be united by their ideals, instead of divided by their differences; that it’s possible for hearts to change and old hatreds to pass; that it’s possible for the sons and daughters of former colonies to sit here as members of this great Parliament, and for the grandson of a Kenyan who served as a cook in the British Army to stand before you as President of the United States.  (Applause.)

That is what defines us.  That is why the young men and women in the streets of Damascus and Cairo still reach for the rights our citizens enjoy, even if they sometimes differ with our policies.  As two of the most powerful nations in the history of the world, we must always remember that the true source of our influence hasn’t just been the size of our economies, or the reach of our militaries, or the land that we’ve claimed.  It has been the values that we must never waver in defending around the world — the idea that all beings are endowed by our Creator with certain rights that cannot be denied.
That is what forged our bond in the fire of war — a bond made manifest by the friendship between two of our greatest leaders.  Churchill and Roosevelt had their differences. They were keen observers of each other’s blind spots and shortcomings, if not always their own, and they were hard-headed about their ability to remake the world.  But what joined the fates of these two men at that particular moment in history was not simply a shared interest in victory on the battlefield.  It was a shared belief in the ultimate triumph of human freedom and human dignity -– a conviction that we have a say in how this story ends.

This conviction lives on in their people today.  The challenges we face are great.  The work before us is hard.  But we have come through a difficult decade, and whenever the tests and trials ahead may seem too big or too many, let us turn to their example, and the words that Churchill spoke on the day that Europe was freed:

“In the long years to come, not only will the people of this island but…the world, wherever the bird of freedom chirps in [the] human heart, look back to what we’ve done, and they will say ‘do not despair, do not yield…march straightforward’.”

With courage and purpose, with humility and with hope, with faith in the promise of tomorrow, let us march straightforward together, enduring allies in the cause of a world that is more peaceful, more prosperous, and more just.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

 

 


Enhanced by Zemanta
May 25th, 2011

A strange e-mail from Simon Hughes

by admin
Spotted

Image by Steve Punter via Flickr

Members of the Liberal Democrats will now be used to getting e-mails signed by various key figures in the party – Farron, Clegg, Kennedy et al. Today it was the turn of deputy leader Simon Hughes, rightly highlighting how the presence of the Liberal Democrat’s in government has pushed the green agenda front and centre. However, there was some slightly bizzarre wording in the email:

“Two weeks ago, Chris Huhne, as Energy and Climate Change Secretary, led for the government when his Department’s Energy Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons.”

On first reading it seems quite innocence, but on closer inspection it sounds rather like Hughes (or whoever wrote the email,) was pre-empting that Chris Huhne would no longer be the Energy Secretary by the time it went out. The strange tone is particularly apparent when you read on, as the email later refers to Nick Clegg as ‘the Deputy Prime Minister’ and Vince Cable as ‘the Business Secretary’.

VN may be reading far too much into it, but the odd freudian slip can creep into e-mails too it seems….

If you are not on the mailing list, the full email reads as follows:

Dear…..,

It’s been a great month for Liberal Democrats who are setting the pace on the green agenda!

  • Two weeks ago, Chris Huhne, as Energy and Climate Change Secretary, led for the government when his Department’s Energy Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons. This creates the framework for the Green Deal, a comprehensive programme of energy efficiency improvements for housing and office buildings, cutting both energy bills and emissions. Householders and business will be able to see up to £10,000 invested in insulation, at no up-front cost, paying back the investment through the lower energy bills they will enjoy as a result.
  • Last week, Chris Huhne announced the government’s ‘carbon budget’ for the mid-2020s, setting a legal requirement for a 50 per cent reduction (from 1990) by 2025. This creates the certainty businesses need to put in place long-term investments in the expanding low-carbon industries – renewable electricity, electric cars, home insulation. This is the most ambitious legally binding carbon budget set by any government anywhere; and by putting the UK at the forefront of the international debate, we will be able to push the EU and the international community towards further emissions cuts world-wide.
  • And this week, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, and Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, revealed details of the Green Investment Bank, the world’s first green development bank. Up and running from April 2012, this will use an initial £3 billion of public money to lever an additional £15 billion in private investment towards the low-carbon opportunities that are opening up – particularly in offshore wind and energy efficiency.

I was this party’s first environment spokesman over twenty years ago. It makes me proud to see what so many of us campaigned for all those years ago being made a reality now we’re in government. This is a key part of what we Liberal Democrats bring to the coalition, and none of this would have happened without us. As Nick said yesterday, ‘the LibDems have long been the greenest of the main three parties – the difference now is that it is not just a green party but a green party of government’.

Simon Hughes

Enhanced by Zemanta