your MP
Dr Liam Fox
 

Your local Member of Parliament 

 

Dr Liam Fox has been the Member of Parliament for Woodspring since the General Election in April 1992.

 

He was born in East Kilbride in 1961, grandson of a miner, educated at the local St Bride's High School, went to Glasgow University and qualified as a doctor. He is a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners and has previously worked as a Civilian Army Medical Officer, as a divisional surgeon for St Johns Ambulance, and later as a GP in Buckinghamshire and Somerset.

 

He has had a varied political career. In June 1993, he was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In July 1994, he was appointed an Assistant Government Whip, and promoted to the position of Senior Government Whip the following year. He was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1996 until the 1997 General Election.

 

In June 1997, Liam was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs. For four years from May 1999 to November 2003 he served as Shadow Secretary of State for Health before being appointed Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party in 2003. Subsequently, from May 2005 to December 2005, he served as Shadow Foreign Secretary.  His current role is as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence.

 

He has lived in Somerset for 16 years and recently moved within the constituency with his wife Jesmé from Bishop Sutton to Tickenham.

 

 

 

 Liam meets British Troops in Afghanistan

Liam’s work in Parliament

 

 

 

Liam has been Shadow Secretary of State for Defence since December 2005. Throughout the course of this year he has visited our Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to meet with troops and gain first hand experience of the challenges they face.  There have been a number of important debates in the House of Commons in which Liam, as the opposition Defence spokesman, has been involved.

   

 

Trident   

In early 2007 Liam participated in a number of debates in support of replacing Britain’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent. He believes that maintaining a sovereign nuclear deterrent is a vital part of ensuring our national security. He said “We live in a risky and unpredictable world. Threats, including those of a nuclear nature, can emerge and re-emerge with little warning. It was both right and responsible for the Government to ensure that our nuclear deterrent would continue.”

  

Iran Hostage Crisis

In April 2007 Liam questioned the Secretary of State over the Iran hostage scandal which led to the illegal abduction of 15 Royal Navy Sailors and Royal Marines by the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the subsequent permission he granted to allow serving personnel to sell their stories to the press. He said “One of the great things about our armed forces is their professionalism and dignity. Many people who shared the anxiety of the hostages' abduction will feel that selling their stories was somewhat undignified and falls below the very high standard we have come to expect from our servicemen and women.” During his response to the official statement he said “The eventually return of the captives was not a shock, and the shambles around the media handling is inexcusable.”

  

Lost Ministry of Defence Computers

In January 2008 Liam pressed the Defence Secretary Des Browne for further details regarding the stolen Ministry of Defence laptop which contained more than 600,000 personnel details on our brave men and women in uniform. We now know that 68 MoD laptops were stolen in 2007, 66 in 2006, 40 in 2005 and 173 in 2004. During the debate Liam said: “This Government has been shown to have a cavalier approach to the confidential details of UK citizens. The security aspects make it much worse in this case. This will have a damaging effect on confidence and morale of our forces and will do nothing to solve the crisis in recruitment and retention. This mess requires a total commitment to put it right.” The Defence Secretary has written to Liam and assured him that his department is conducting a full investigation of all missing laptops.

 

 

  

The Lisbon Treaty

In February Liam participated in a debate on the foreign policy and defence aspects of the Lisbon Treaty.  The Lisbon Treaty makes sweeping changes in the area of European Union defence integration. In the debate Liam said “The Lisbon treaty threatens to undermine the defence assumptions that our nation has had for 60 years, and to drive a wedge between us and our transatlantic allies.” He concluded “We want the EU to work in partnership with NATO, not compete with it. The provisions of the treaty move in the wrong direction—for Britain, for the EU and for NATO. That is why we oppose them.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Released by:  Dr Liam Fox

Date:  12/12/08

 

Brown’s ‘tax bombshell’ of higher National insurance, council tax & VAT

Dr Liam Fox) expresses concern at effect of Labour’s tax plans on Woodspring

 

Dr Liam Fox, MP for Woodspring today responded to the Government’s new tax and spending proposals – the so-called Pre-Budget Report – by warning of Labour plans for higher taxes and record levels of public debt included in the small print.

 

·          Above-inflation hikes in council tax are to be forced on local authorities. The Government is planning for a 4.5% increase in council taxes, which would push up the typical bill up by £62 a year on family homes from this April.

·          National Insurance will be increased for workers and for local firms. This jobs tax will discourage businesses from hiring staff, and mean anyone earning £20,000 a year or more will be worse off under the Pre-Budget Report.

·          National debt will hit £1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion pounds), forcing even higher taxes in due course to pay back the nation’s overdraft.

·          Plans are being drawn up by the Government to increase VAT to 18.5% after the next general election, with Gordon Brown even considering a hike to 20%. This would add £500 a year to the shopping bills of families.

 

By contrast, Conservatives are advocating a series of alternative measures to help beat Labour’s recession, including:

·          Freezing council tax for two years by cutting wasteful Government spending.

·          Reducing employment costs for small businesses by cutting National Insurance and through a tax break for new jobs.

·          Getting credit flowing by guaranteeing lending to business.

 

Dr Fox said:

“Labour’s Pre-Budget Report is stuffed full of tax cons rather than tax cuts. Gordon Brown’s tax plans aren’t about helping our economy, they’re just intended to help him cling on to power. I am very concerned of the effect of record levels of debt, higher council tax and higher National Insurance on families and firms in (area), with the prospect of large hikes in VAT around the corner.”

 

 

Notes to Editors

 

LABOUR’S TAX ON JOBS

 

·          In the Pre-Budget Report, the Government announced that employee and employer National Insurance contributions will rise by 0.5% from April 2011.

 

·          The Institute for Fiscal Studies have confirmed that more than half of all workers (anyone earning over £20,000) will be worse off by 2011. Comparing the 2008-09 tax system to the 2011-12 tax system, the IFS confirmed that anyone earning over about £20,000 would be worse off as a result of the PBR, because of the planned increase in national insurance.

 

·          In addition, there are still half a million people who have lost out as a result of the abolition of the 10p tax rate.

 

SECRET PLANS TO INCREASE VAT

 

Government documents have revealed that Labour is planning to increase VAT after the general election to 18.5%. Gordon Brown has even admitted that the Government has considered increasing it as high as 20%.

 

Official Treasury documents, signed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Timms, show that Labour intend to increase the rate of VAT to 18.5 per cent in 2011-12: “VAT is a tax on the final consumption of goods and services, production and distribution. It is charged on the majority of standard rate of 17.5%. The proposed changes will reduce 2008 until the end of 2009. The standard rate will then return 2010, and subsequently increase to 18.5% in 2011-12” (Explanatory Memorandum to the Value Added Tax (Change of Rate) 2008, original version).

 

£1 TRILLION OF GOVERNMENT DEBT

 

The Government’s own forecasts admit that by 2012-13, national debt will reach 57.1% of GDP (Pre-Budget Report 2008, p.192). GDP in this year is forecast to be £1,735 billion (p.186). This means national debt will be £991 billion – almost one trillion pounds of government debt.

 

ABOVE-INFLATION INCREASES IN COUNCIL TAX

 

·          The small print of the Pre-Budget Report shows that council tax receipts across Great Britain will rise by £1.1 billion (4.5%) from 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Pre-Budget Report 2008, p.203).

 

·          The change in tax receipts will mirror (but not exactly) the change in the Band D rate, especially given the fall in housebuilding will restrict the growth of the taxbase. A rise of 4.5% would push up council tax bills by £62 a year, taking the total Band D bill to the equivalent of £120 a month in England.

 

 

·          In 2008-09 the average Band D council tax is £1,374. A 4.5% rise would push it to £1,436 from April 2009. By contrast, RPI inflation in 2009-10 is forecast to be minus 2¼% (Pre-Budget Report 2008, p. 186).

 

CONSERVATIVE PLANS TO STOP LABOUR’S RECESSION

 

Conservativese have proposed practical, immediate and targeted measures to help families and businesses through Labour’s recession – none of which would increase Government borrowing and store up tax rises for the future. These include:

 

·          Freezing council tax for two years, in partnership with local councils.

 

·          Helping first-time buyers facing higher mortgage costs by taking 9 out of 10 out of stamp duty altogether.

 

·          Reducing energy bills for millions of people by enabling them to set up direct debits through their post office accounts.

 

·          Preventing people being ripped off by introducing a cap on store card interest rates.

 

Conservatives have also called for a package of measures to help the economy and local businesses:

 

·          Cutting tax on businesses that create jobs. The Government should give £2.6 billion of tax breaks to employers that create jobs. This scheme uses money that would otherwise be spent on welfare payments to give tax cuts to employers who hire new workers who have been unemployed for three months or more.

 

·          Cutting payroll taxes for small companies. The Government should cut payroll taxes by 1p for small companies with fewer than 5 employees.

 

·          Cutting corporate tax for all small and medium firms, reducing the small companies’ rate of corporation tax from 22p to 20p.

 

·          Deferring small business VAT bills. Small and medium firms would be able to defer their VAT bills for up to 6 months.

 

·          Help businesses get the credit they need, by freeing up the credit market by creating a new state institution that underwrites lending from the banks to British businesses.

 

ENDS

 

 

 

 

 

Released by:  Dr Liam Fox

Date:    12/12/08

 

New blow to Woodspring’s housing market from new HIP fines and red tape

New Home Information Pack rules will hurt housing market

 

Dr Liam Fox, MP for Woodspring , expressed concern  today at the announcement by the Government that Home Information Pack regulations will be tightened, pushing up the costs for  Woodspring residents trying to sell their home. This will include forcing town halls to become more aggressive in issuing fines for breaching the burdensome rules. Home Information Packs became compulsory for all homes one year ago on 14 December.

 

Government research into Home Information Packs has recently found that there is minimal public knowledge and interest in HIPs; that the industry thinks they are a waste of time; that they duplicate costs and that buyers are not bothering to consult HIPs. Yet the Government has announced the following changes:

 

·          Heavy-handed fines: Town halls will be instructed to “identify specific cases of non-compliance and enforce the requirements”. This raises the prospect that North Somerset Council  will be forced to start fining home owners £200 a time who do not follow the rules.

 

·          Making it more difficult to advertise your home: From April 2009, the Government is cancelling the “first day marketing” provisions. These allow sellers to place their home on the market if a HIP has been ordered, but has not yet been completed. The cancellation will be mean that sellers will have to wait longer before they can put their home on the market. They will be fined if they advertise their property without a HIP.

 

·          Gold-plating the Packs: The time to complete a Pack will increase, as sellers must personally fill out a detailed new ‘Property Information Questionnaire’ as part of the Home Information Pack. Yet this will be of little interest to buyers, who will instinctively treat information provided by the seller with a touch of scepticism.

 

Dr Fox said:

“Home Information Packs have already harmed the market and discouraged sellers. The last thing Woodspring  needs is the prospect of heavy-handed fines being levied by town hall officials.

 

“The housing market is on its knees and Labour’s response is to make it more difficult and expensive to sell your home.

 

“Conservatives will scrap Home Information Packs. If anything, Ministers should be using their emergency powers to suspend HIPs and provide a shot in the arm to (area’s) ailing market.”

 

Notes to Editors

 

Home Information Packs became compulsory for all homes in England & Wales on 14 December 2007. The Government’s latest plans for Home Information Packs were announced on 8 December 2008.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm081208/wmstext/81208m0001.htm#0812089001094

 

HIPS ARE A “WASTE OF TIME” SAYS GOVERNMENT RESEARCH

 

Parliamentary Questions have compelled Ministers to publish opinion research into Home Information Packs provided by polling firm GFK NOP, at a cost of £60,000. Almost 4,000 buyers, sellers and estate agents across the country were surveyed. It shows:

 

Alarm over the worsening economy and rising cost of living: The report reveals:

·          “Uncertainty and lack of confidence in economy and housing market was top of mind for buyers and sellers” (p.6).

·           “Economic concern felt across South, Midlands and North: Caution – fear of negative equity; concern over ability to repay; Concern regarding economic climate, impact now being felt; recession anticipated; cost of everyday living increasing” (p.8).

 

Minimal public knowledge and interest in HIPs:

·          “Amongst buyers and sellers: awareness, knowledge and understanding of HIPs poor; lack of engagement, experience and interest in the HIPs process” (p.6).

·          “Superficial awareness of HIPS; minimal knowledge and understanding; not sufficiently aware / interested enough to ask to see HIP; rarely shown HIP; not seeing advantages of seller paying; In London, concern over HIP cost when selling property in future” (p.11).

·          “Dismissive: don’t see purpose… Neither buyers or sellers are proactively enquiring about HIPs” (p.13).

 

Packs are a waste of time:

·          “[Amongst estate agents] Attitude: resigned… Majority perceive no benefit / tend to be negative / waste of time” (p.15).

·          “Estate agents struggled to think of positive comments about HIPS” (p.17).

 

Buyers not consulting HIPs:

·          “First time buyers: Little knowledge / indifferent… Buyers and sellers: More knowledge / dismissive… Estate agents: High understanding / resigned” (p.19).

·          “Buyers/first time buyers: Majority not offered to see HIP; majority not asked to look at HIP; seen as … long, boring, technical” (p.21).

 

Duplicating costs

·          “Estate agents… Concern over houses being on market for an extended length of time and HIP becoming out of date before sale agreed” (p.26).

·          “Portability of HIPs raises potential problems… Sellers may have to pay for multiple HIPs, if they change estate agents” (p.34).

 

Full HIPs presentation: http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/SecretHIPsResearch.pdf

 

MORE WOES FOR HOME INFORMATION PACKS

 

·          The independent Carsberg Review in June warned that HIPs were the “worst of both worlds”, adding to red tape and costs, but not providing reliable information. It warned that they were duplicating costs, since “a substantial number of conveyancers ignore its existence and recommission searches on receiving instructions from their buyer client”.

 

RICS, Sir Bryan Carsberg’s Review of Residential Property, June 2008, p.42.

http://www.rics.org/Practiceareas/Property/Residential/Market/spotlight.htm

 

·          In May, property firm MDA estimated that over half of all buyers' solicitors ignore the HIPs searches and commission their own “to maintain due diligence for their client” and make up for the deficiencies in the HIP – much of the search information is voluntary, meaning the seller has no financial incentive to pay to include potentially negative information about the property.

 

MDA Press Release, 22 May 2008.

http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/May2008/22/c3008.html

 

·          The Council of Mortgage Lenders requires mortgage lenders to ensure that a search is not more than six months old at completion. Hence, any search in a HIP practically has an extremely short shelf-life, requiring buyers to commission their own, even if they did trust the selective information in the HIP. In a falling market, when it is takes longer to sell a home, this is a particular problem.

http://www.cml.org.uk/handbook/Overview.aspx

 

·          Analysis of the Government's own ‘area trials’ of the Packs, shows that a mere 8% of home buyers felt that HIPs had sped up the home buying process. Three-quarters of buyers felt that the Pack had no effect on their decision on what home to buy. The research by Ipsos-MORI reveals that buyers' solicitors felt that HIPs' “quality could not be trusted” and failed to offer buyers “sufficient protection”. This survey research was suppressed by embarrassed Government Ministers for months.

 

DCLG, Home Information Pack Area Trials - Research Report, March 2008.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/hipareatrials

 

·          HIPs increase the cost of moving home, acting as a disincentive to sell. Ministers were warned by Oxford Economic Forecasting back in 2006 that HIPs would deter sellers and curtail the number of housing transactions, harming the economy (OEF, The Impact of Home Information Packs, 27 June 2006).

 

ENDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

The South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) will be debated at Westminster on 7th October. Dr. Liam Fox, MP for Woodspring said:

“Targets for housing allocation for North Somerset in the strategy were always absurd. They represented a Whitehall -centred view of housing development and took no account of the impact on the local environment, the need for infrastructure development or the detrimental effects on the quality of life of the area in general.

 I wonder if any of those who thought up these numbers had ever previously visited Dundry or Long Ashton or Wrington or Clevedon or any of the other towns and villages whose well being would be so adversely affected.

Let’s just consider the size of the development in question.  In the census of 2001 Clevedon had a population of 21,957 representing 9271 households.  By 2006 it had grown to roughly the size of the proposed development. 

So what did Clevedon have in 2006 that a similar development would require? It had seven wards and seven ward councillors.  It had one secondary and six primary schools.  It had two leisure centres and one swimming pool.  It had seven places of worship, six pubs, two post offices, three supermarkets.  It had one hospital, three doctors’ surgeries, three dental surgeries and four vets’ practices.  It had one library, 16 community meeting places, 150 allotments, one youth club and around 100 bus stops served by six main services.   

This is the sort of extra infrastructure that would be required for the number of houses being suggested.  Yet we are witnessing a contraction of current infrastructure never mind that required for future development.  Across North Somerset we are seeing post office closures, rural surgeries at risk, swimming pools threatened with closure and inadequate public transport -especially in more rural areas.

This is not the special pleading of a NIMBY area.  In recent years we have accepted major developments in housing in North Somerset especially in Clevedon, Nailsea and more recently in Portishead where there has been a large and prestigious development of a former brown field site.  But we are already paying a heavy price for excessive house building without adequate infrastructure.

And who is going to live in these houses? My constituency has the lowest unemployment and amongst the lowest number of job vacancies in the whole of Britain. So there are no local jobs for anyone who moves there. They will have to drive to work- to Bristol or Weston Super Mare- against every one of the Government’s own transport and environmental projects.

Our road networks already struggle with chronic incapacity and peak time congestion.

Portishead remains the country’s biggest cul-de-sac with the chronic problems of junction 19 of the M5 exacerbated by the seeming endless and repeated work on the Avonmouth Bridge bringing protracted aggravation to those who have no rail alternative to their road misery.

Barrow Gurney is still waiting for its bypass a decade after it was initially agreed. Road traffic brought into the area by the expansion of Bristol International Airport causes congestion from Winford to Yatton, affecting villages from Backwell and Claverham to Tickenham and Felton. Getting in and out of Bristol on the A38 is a nightmare at peak times and residents of Long Ashton suffer from increased traffic through the village as well as delays at Ashton gate.

All of these problems require infrastructure investment to sort out the problems we already have, never mind ones that would arise from such a huge increase in housing density.  Yet, according to a letter from Baroness Andrews to Sir Simon Day “ the lack of a transparent, systematic and rigorous assessment, prioritisation and testing of infrastructure proposals significantly reduces the clarity and certainty that should be essential features of RSS and the development of planning process.  Furthermore, if the specific proposal for infrastructure provision were included at this stage, the RSS would be exposed to a substantial risk that, on further testing, those may be found to be undeliverable.”

Let me interpret this jargon. In other words, if we took into account the actual cost of these proposals and the real level of infrastructure required, their numbers do not add up. If we put in the genuine price of this strategy it becomes unaffordable. The only way to make it palatable is to be dishonest about the true costs and leave it to someone else to deal with the mess later. Doesn’t that sound like a familiar story!

We are currently witnessing a dramatic slowdown in the housing market if it is not in fact falling off a cliff.  House building activity is grinding to a halt as demand falls.

 To sign up to the sort of housing expansion envisaged by this strategy before we know the impact that the current economic crisis will have on the behaviour of homeowners would be complete folly.

 This is no time to grant speculative permissions which may be used in future entirely different circumstances.  With the possibility of a Conservative government being elected which will take an entirely different approach to housing targets there will be a temptation on the part of developers to get as many permissions as possible for future development.  It is essential that local councils do not wittingly or unwittingly played into their hands by seeming to go along with some of the underlying assumptions. 

For example in North Somerset we must not agree to the current scope of environmental impact assessment.  First of all, it implies wrongly that there is a consensus on the issue.  Secondly, it may well be argued that any future enquiry that such an agreement constituted a nod from the council in the direction of permitted development.

We face in our area an example of unimaginative planning at its worst that the answer to capacity shortage in South Bristol is simply to concrete over the adjacent countryside.  A backdoor extension to the city boundary is the least acceptable solution to some of the problems we face.

As the fields of Dundry are built upon I can easily imagine the argument. “ Now that we have this housing built we have lost co-terminosity.  We now have health services provided by the PCT in Bristol but social services provided by North Somerset” they will say. “Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if we simply extended the city boundary and brought them all under one roof?”

It is essential that we are all aware of the dangers that we face.  All those who can delay this strategy should do so wherever they can and should not agree to any elements of it which may be perceived as consent for development at some point in the future.

How convenient for developers if they can get permission for development now and are able to seek compensation at a later date if a future government’s policy were to change housing targets. We cannot allow local or national taxpayers to face yet more bills for the failings or greed of others.

The only planning permissions which should be granted are those which would have been accepted under current policy and which fit in with local priorities.

Elected councillors must give clear leadership to their officers to ensure that the wishes of those of us who live in North Somerset, and the South West as a whole, are given priority over the convenience of the bureaucracy or the financial benefits of speculative development.”

 

Dr Liam Fox MP – Honouring our Armed Forces

Speech to Conservative Party Conference 2008

Today we have seen in our servicemen and women examples of what our country can be.  Courageous, professional, self sacrificing.

Their stories have been astonishing, inspirational, and moving.

All too often the successes and the sufferings of our Armed Forces are distorted by the white noise of trivia that occupies so much of our celebrity obsessed media. 

Today we have had a chance to see the true role models for our young people and we are proud to pay tribute to them and to all their families who give so much so that we can all be safer. 

I would also like to thank Freddie Forsyth, Simon Weston and all of their team on the fantastic work they have done on the Military Covenant Commission. And we should recognise our own MPs and Prospective Candidates in our Armed Forces some of whom are on the frontlines today even as we meet here in Birmingham.

To all those who have served and are currently serving our country we are proud of you and we thank you.  From all of us to all of you—thank you.

Russia

Make no mistake- we need our Armed Forces for we live in an increasingly dangerous world. We have seen in recent weeks what Russian bullying meant for the people of Georgia.  Russia is currently engaged in a $200 billion rearmament programme.  It has laid claim to 450,000 square miles of the oil and gas rich Arctic.  They are supplying a new high-tech missile defence system to Iran and talking of new defence deals with Venezuela and Cuba. 

What they had in mind in Georgia was clear.  They wanted to send a message to NATO that they would not tolerate Georgia and the Ukraine becoming part of the alliance.

They wanted to make it clear that they had control over what they call their “near abroad” –in other words a veto over the foreign and security policies of sovereign and democratic countries which they once dominated as the Soviet Union.

And they wanted to send a message to the broader West that Russia takes the competition over control of energy resources more seriously than anyone else.

 We in this party should be proud of the strong and robust response made by David Cameron, including his immediate visit to Tbilisi to make it clear that aggression should never pay.  What an impressive reaction it was and how it compared to the timid, almost invisible response of our dithering Prime Minister. 

Iran

Then we have the growing problems of Iran. There are those who say that we must accommodate a nuclear Iran. Let me give you three reasons why this is simply not acceptable.

First, the nature of Iran’s leadership.  Those such as President Ahmadinejad who talk about wiping Israel off the map simply do not belong in the civilised family of nations.

Secondly, the Iranian regime has shown itself to be, par excellence, a net exporter of terror and destabilisation. Do we really want to see nuclear weapons added to this mix? Do we really want to see Hamas or Hezbollah able to make a dirty bomb?

Thirdly, if Iran get a nuclear weapon then won’t Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt be next in the queue? Surely we do not want a new nuclear arms race in the world’s most unpredictable region. Surely we want to leave a better legacy behind us.

Al-Qaeda

And then there is Al-Qaeda. The cancer that is Al-Qaeda remains a consistent threat to our global security and our wellbeing here at home. These extremists hate us for who we are—our values, and our way of life.

In recent days the firestorm of this fury has found its way into Pakistan and India. No one, no where is safe. The contagion is spreading and must be eliminated. No nation can be under the false illusion that these people can be reasoned with or accommodated. They are violence and hatred personified —and they must be defeated. 

EU/NATO

In this dangerous world we have to choose our alliances carefully.  And for the United Kingdom that means that NATO not the EU must be the cornerstone of our defence. 

It is increasingly common for those on the European left to sneer at the United States with contempt and derision.  Yet the Special Relationship remains this country's most important strategic alliance.  When Winston Churchill first talked about the special relationship it was not some dewy-eyed Disneyesque emotional attachment.  As a wartime leader he saw the value of sharing military operations, training and intelligence with America. 

The relationship reached its peak at the height of the Cold War with the closeness of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. What giants they were and how much we owe them. 

For those who want to rewrite history let me just point out that the Cold War didn't simply end - it was won. 

The Berlin Wall didn't just fall down it was torn down by those who hated the inhumanity of the communist system and who sought a better future.

The end of the Cold War was a victory and a vindication of our values as well as a testament to the strength, consistency, and sheer grit of our leaders.  We will need these qualities again.  Once again our values, our security and our very way of life are under threat. 

Peace is not simply the absence of war. Peace requires security and the freedom to decide the future for individuals and nations alike. Peace does not come cheaply. There are those in the EU who say that the real role for Europe should be peacekeeping. Let me be frank- you cannot choose just to be a peacekeeper. You can only keep the peace if it is there to be kept in the first place. Sometimes you have to fight for peace. Sometimes you even have to die for peace.

Today, too many NATO countries seem to want to have the insurance policy without having to pay the full premiums. 

Of course, we are not without our own problems. Only two weeks ago, and some of you may have seen it, on the last night of the Proms, crowds in Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow and London joined in by singing the traditional words that —“Britannia rules the waves”.

I wonder how many of those present know that under New Labour our navy has been reduced to only 27 warships. Now we hear that they want to sell HMS Victory for some quick cash. I suppose that after selling the Navy it was only a matter of time before its history and heritage also went under the hammer. That’s New Labour.

You know when New Labour started it was a charm offensive. But the charm resigned—now, it is simply offensive.

 Iraq/Afghanistan

Yesterday, I returned from a visit to Iraq. David Cameron and William Hague have just returned from Afghanistan. In both places the international community has had noble ambitions – to deny a safe haven to the men of terror and tyranny and to develop for their people the political and social opportunities that so many of us in the West take for granted.

But noble ambitions have to be tempered by realistic expectations. We cannot take a broken 13th century state and turn it into a thriving democracy in just a few years. We need patience and persistence.

Democracy is not simply the exercise of electoral mechanics. It requires foundations- a fair and impartial legal system that applies equally to the governing and the governed. It requires the ability to exercise your own economic liberty in a free market system and a concept of rights irrespective of gender, religion or race.

Ultimately, the fate of these nations will be decided by politics and economics. But our military can provide the breathing space needed for such states to develop if we plan properly.

In Afghanistan we must have a clear strategy and a clear means of implementing that strategy.  Our own country’s efforts need to be streamlined so that the Foreign Office, the MoD and DFID all know what they are supposed to be doing.

Internationally, we need to simplify the military command structure and coordinate it fully with the economic and reconstruction plans.

Above all we must give our troops whatever they need to do their job successfully and safely.

To this day it remains a national scandal that because Gordon Brown was never willing to fully fund Tony Blair’s military campaigns Labour cut £1.4 billion from the helicopter budget in 2004- in the middle of two wars.

Of course, it is not the Government politicians, but our servicemen who have paid the price for this betrayal.  But their time will come.

By contrast in Iraq we have seen profound improvements in the security situation with a dramatic reduction in terrorist attacks and the consequent death and injuries to troops and civilians alike.

Of course, further bloodshed and conflict are likely in a country with such a violent history. But less than 96 hours ago I was able to walk with the commander of our troops in the centre of Basra. We did it without helmets and body armour and were able to talk to local residents—young and old—about their hopes and plans for the future. Even a year ago this would have been unthinkable. Our service men and women contributed to that success and we should be proud of their achievement. 

What I found profoundly moving in Iraq was the selfless way in which so many of our troops are willing to serve our country. 

I came across a 52-year-old grandmother from Merseyside serving in the TA—how about that!  There’s still time for some of you yet!

And I met a Naval Reservist from Dumbarton who manned an air defence system against incoming rocket attacks.  Like those who share his job he sits for hours on end, isolated in a tiny cubicle watching a screen ready to react at a moments notice.  He told me “I’ve not often had to press the button and it can be very boring but I know that when I have done it I might have saved lives on the base”. 

I asked him what motivated him to stay in the reserves after more than 20 years. Do you know what he said? He said “I want to walk down the street wearing my medal and if anyone says anything I can say- I've done my bit-what are you doing?”

That is what this country can be.

Welfare

I don't know about you but when I hear people insulting our troops it makes my blood boil.  How dare anyone ask members of this nation’s Armed Forces to remove the Queen’s uniform in an airport in our own country?

How dare someone refuse to sell petrol to a soldier in uniform?  How dare they!

How dare someone refuse a room in a hotel to a young soldier visiting a wounded colleague? They claimed they had a policy not to give rooms to the Armed Forces.  What an absolute outrage! 

Being in uniform should open doors in our society not close them. Those who dishonour our Armed Forces deserve our contempt and to be shunned by decent society. 

We need to take this trend head-on and I am so pleased at the success of the Help for Heroes and other campaigns which have done so much to raise the public awareness of the sacrifices made by our troops. I was one of the 52,500 who were crowded into Twickenham last week for the Help for Heroes rugby match.  What a shame it didn't get more coverage on the BBC.  If half that number had been on an anti-war march in Hyde Park it would have got infinitely more airtime.

But charities can never be enough. Governments must honour their part of the covenant.

We must end the scandal of squalid accommodation.  

We must ensure that service families get the healthcare and education that they deserve.

We must make it easier to get onto the housing ladder.

We must make it easier for those who leave the Armed Forces to train for another career.

We need to understand that our duty of care lasts a lifetime and that in areas such as mental health we need to find ways of picking up problems which may take years to manifest themselves.

We need to ensure that we have happy service families if we are to recruit and retain for the future.

That is why my shadow cabinet colleagues will be setting out detailed plans in their own policy areas during this conference to achieve these objectives.