Ed Miliband's speech to the TUC: full text

The Labour leader says his trade union reforms mean Labour could become a party "not of 200,000 people, but 500,000 or many more."

Frances, thank you so much for that introduction.

And let me pay tribute to you, as the first female General Secretary of the TUC, for the fantastic job that you do.

But I am sure you would agree that it would be wrong not to also remember those who did so much before you.

And I want to pick out one particular individual.

In a speech I remember reading, he argued that the problem of British politics had been that the “voices of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, all the other important centres of...industry have been unheard.”

He went further.

He praised that trade union march through the centre of London.

He talked evocatively of its “immense organisation, with marshals and sub-marshals, scarves, banners and an exhibition of almost perfect military discipline.”

Yes, I am talking, believe it or not, about:

The Conservative Prime Minister of 1867.

The Fourteenth Earl of Derby.

The longest ever serving leader of the Conservative Party.

The man who first legislated to allow trade unions in this country.

His real name: Edward Stanley.

Or as he would be called today:

Red Ed.

I tell this story to make a serious point.

The Earl of Derby and Benjamin Disraeli who succeeded him were One Nation Conservatives.

They knew the Conservative Party had to represent the whole country.

They couldn’t write off whole swathes of people if they were to be worthy of governing Britain.

It seems extraordinary to have to even talk about this historical lesson.

But I do.

We have a Prime Minister who writes you and your members off.

Who doesn’t just write you off, but oozes contempt for you from every pore.

What does he say about you?

He says the trade union movement is a “threat to our economy”.

Back to the enemy within.

Six and a half million people in Britain.

Who teach our children.

Who look after the sick.

Who care for the elderly.

Who build our homes.

Who keep our shops open morning, noon and night.

They’re not the enemy within.

They’re the people who make Britain what it is.

How dare he?

How dare he insult people - members of trade unions - as he does?

How dare he write off whole sections of our society?

The Earl of Derby, Benjamin Disraeli, and other One Nation Conservatives, would be turning in their graves if they could hear the nasty, divisive, small-minded rhetoric of the leader of their once great party.

But friends, just remember this.

We know from recent experience what happens to political leaders who write off whole sections of a country.

That’s what Mitt Romney did when he talked about the 47 per cent of people who would never vote for him.

And look what happened to him.

They didn’t.

Friends, my job is to make sure that’s what happens to David Cameron as well.

A One Nation Party.

Unlike Mr Cameron, I am a One Nation politician.

And One Nation is about governing for the whole country.

To do this we are going have to build a new kind of Labour Party.

A new relationship with individual trade union members.

Some people ask: what’s wrong with the current system?

Let me tell them: we have three million working men and women affiliated to our party.

But the vast majority play no role in our party.

They are affiliated in name only.

That wasn’t the vision of the founders of our party.

I don’t think it’s your vision either.

And it’s certainly not my vision.

That’s why I want to make each and every affiliated trade union member a real part of their local party.

Making a real choice to be a part of our party.

So they can have a real voice in it.

And why is that such an exciting idea?

Because it means we could become a Labour party not of 200,000 people, but 500,000 or many more.

A party rooted every kind of workplace in the country.

A party rooted in every community in the country.

A genuine living, breathing movement.

Of course, it is a massive challenge.

It will be a massive challenge for the Labour Party to reach out to your members in a way that we have not done for many years and persuade them to be part of what we do.

And like anything that is hard it is a risk.

But the bigger risk is just saying let’s do it as we have always done it.

It is you who have been telling me year after year about a politics that is detached from the lives of working people.

That’s why we have to have the courage to change.

I respect those who worry about change.

I understand.

But I disagree.

It is the right thing to do.

We can change.

We must change.

And I am absolutely determined this change will happen.

It is the only way we can build a One Nation party.

So we can build a One Nation country.

And most importantly a One Nation economy, one that works for all working people, not just a few at the top.

Now at the moment you hear the Tories congratulating themselves on the recovery.

George Osborne was at it again yesterday.

And it is welcome that the economy is growing.

But we have to ask: “whose recovery is it anyway”?

The million young people looking for work.

It is not their recovery.

The long-term unemployed, higher than at any time for a generation.

It is not their recovery.

The 1.4 million people, more than ever before, desperate for full-time work but only able to get part-time work.

It is not their recovery.

And all the millions of people who are seeing their living standards falling year on year under this government.

It is not their recovery either.

Living standards have been falling for longer than at any time since 1870.

About the time our old friend, the Earl of Derby, left office.

We know whose recovery it is.

A recovery for the privileged few in our society.

The City bonuses are back.

Up by 82 per cent in April of this year alone.

Helped along by David Cameron’s millionaire’s tax cut.

It is a recovery for a few.

It is an unfair recovery

An unequal recovery.

And an unequal recovery won’t be a stable recovery.

It won’t be built to last.

The only way we can have a durable recovery is with an economy that works for all working people.

Because what makes an economy succeed is not just a few people at the top, but the forgotten wealth creators.

The people who put in the hours, do the work, do two jobs.

Who get up before George Osborne’s curtains are open in the morning and come back at night well after they have closed.

They’re the people who make our economy strong.

They’re the people we have to support to make a recovery that lasts.

We know life won’t be easy under a Labour government.

We’ll have to stick to strict spending limits.

I know that means you ask:

What do we have to say to our members about what would be different under a Labour government than a Tory government?

The answer is we’d make different choices in pursuit of a fundamentally different vision of our economy.

One that works for all working people, not just a few.

These different choices start with young people.

On day one as Prime Minister, I would be mobilising all of Britain’s businesses behind the idea of getting our young people back to work.

If we were in government now, we would be saying to every young person out of work for more than a year, we will offer a compulsory jobs guarantee, funded by a tax on the bankers’ bonuses, for a job with proper training, paying at least the minimum wage.

A Labour government would get our young people working again.

And we need to get the best out of all of our young people.

It is time to end the snobbery in our country that says that university is always best and apprenticeships second best.

That’s why the next Labour government will get proper careers and qualifications for that forgotten 50 per cent who don’t go to university.

And we’ll say to any business: if you want a major government contract, you must provide apprenticeships to the next generation.

And to get a recovery that works for working people, we need proper investment in the future too.

Britain is currently 159th in the international league table of investment.

We’re not going to succeed in the future with a record like that.

Turning it round means changing our banking system.

We’ve still got businesses that serve our banks rather than banks that serve our businesses.

So we would have a new British Investment Bank to get finance to small businesses.

And regional banks too.

Banks that are legally obliged to invest in their region of the country and their region alone.

Not chasing a quick profit in the City of London.

But investment in the future doesn’t just come from our banks.

It needs to come from the government too.

I believe the way we get the best companies to come here is not on the basis of low skills and low wages.

But high skills and a decent infrastructure.

So we’d be doing something that hasn’t been done for decades.

Investing properly in housing in this country.

So, building a recovery that can last, one that works for working people and not just a few at the top, needs different choices on young people, on jobs, on skills, on investment and on infrastructure.

But it means something else too.

The Tories really do believe we get success through a few at the top.

So they say to get more out of the very wealthiest, you give them a tax cut.

But you get more out of working people, if you make them feel more insecure.

I disagree.

We can never build a recovery works for all, unless working people feel confident and secure at work.

That’s what other countries know.

And I think that’s what the British people know too.

Now I recognise, as do you, that both workers and businesses need flexibility.

It is how you unions and employers worked together to keep people working even during the most difficult moments of the recession.

Putting jobs above pay rises.

Working fewer hours in order to protect employment.

Flexibility yes.

Exploitation no.

And nowhere is that more true than when it comes to zero hours contracts.

Of course, there are some kinds of these contracts which are useful.

For locum doctors.

Or supply teachers at schools.

Or sometimes, young people working in bars.

But you and I know that zero hours contracts have been terribly misused.

I had the privilege last week of speaking to some people working on zero hours contracts.

One in particular in the care sector who said “You can’t build your life on what you get from a zero hours contract”.

Another told me of her experience: 23 years on a proper, regular contract and now had the nightmare of 2 years on a zero hours contract.

As she said, just imagine if you didn’t know from one week to the next whether your wages were going to halve.

That is the reality for so many people on zero hours contracts.

They don’t know how many hours they’re going to do from one week to the next.

They don’t know how much they’re going to be paid.

They have no security.

All of the risks in the economy which we used to believe should be fairly shared between employers and working people.

Now placed on the individual worker alone.

That’s why the worst of these practices owe more to the Victorian era than they do to the kind of workplace we should have in the 21st century.

It’s wrong.

And the next Labour government will put things right.

We’ll ban zero hours contracts which require workers to work exclusively for one business.

We’ll stop zero hours contracts which require workers to be on call all day without any guarantee of work.

And we’ll end zero hours contracts where workers are working regular hours but are denied a regular contract.

Because I am determined to build an economy that works for working people.

And that means security, not insecurity at work.

Because that is how our country will succeed.

Let me end by saying this.

The next election is a high stakes election.

High stakes for your members.

High stakes for working people.

High stakes for our country.

We’re in the fourth year of this government.

We know who they stand for.

A privileged few at the top.

We know that they will never create an economy that works for working people.

It is not what they believe.

We know how they’ll try to divide our country.

For political advantage.

I stand for a different and better way forward for our country.

A vision that draws on the best of our traditions.

I think about the 1945 government.

We didn’t lower our sights in the face of difficulty.

We raised them.

That government was a One Nation government.

It listened to the voices of all.

Used the talents of all.

Built a country fit for all.

My vision: a One Nation Britain.

Let’s rebuild that country together.

Ed Miliband attends the launch of mental health charity MindFull at BAFTA headquarters on July 5, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

What is the EU customs union and will Brexit make us leave?

International trade secretary Liam Fox's job makes more sense if we leave the customs union. 

Brexiteers and Remoaners alike have spent the winter months talking of leaving the "customs union", and how this should be weighed up against the benefits of controlling immigration. But what does it actually mean, and how is it different from the EU single market?

Imagine a medieval town, with a busy marketplace where traders are buying and selling wares. Now imagine that the town is also protected by a city wall, with guards ready to slap charges on any outside traders who want to come in. That's how the customs union works.  

In essence, a customs union is an agreement between countries not to impose tariffs on imports from within the club, and at the same time impose common tariffs on goods coming in from outsiders. In other words, the countries decide to trade collectively with each other, and bargain collectively with everyone else. 

The EU isn't the only customs union, or even the first in Europe. In the 19th century, German-speaking states organised the Zollverein, or German Customs Union, which in turn paved the way for the unification of Germany. Other customs unions today include the Eurasian Economic Union of central Asian states and Russia. The EU also has a customs union with Turkey.

What is special about the EU customs union is the level of co-operation, with member states sharing commercial policies, and the size. So how would leaving it affect the UK post-Brexit?

The EU customs union in practice

The EU, acting on behalf of the UK and other member states, has negotiated trade deals with countries around the world which take years to complete. The EU is still mired in talks to try to pull off the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the US, and a similar EU-Japan trade deal. These two deals alone would cover a third of all EU trade.

The point of these deals is to make it easier for the EU's exporters to sell abroad, keep imports relatively cheap and at the same time protect the member states' own businesses and consumers as much as possible. 

The rules of the customs union require member states to let the EU negotiate on their behalf, rather than trying to cut their own deals. In theory, if the UK walks away from the customs union, we walk away from all these trade deals, but we also get a chance to strike our own. 

What are the UK's options?

The UK could perhaps come to an agreement with the EU where it continues to remain inside the customs union. But some analysts believe that door has already shut. 

One of Theresa May’s first acts as Prime Minister was to appoint Liam Fox, the Brexiteer, as the secretary of state for international trade. Why would she appoint him, so the logic goes, if there were no international trade deals to talk about? And Fox can only do this if the UK is outside the customs union. 

(Conversely, former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg argues May will realise the customs union is too valuable and Fox will be gone within two years).

Fox has himself said the UK should leave the customs union but later seemed to backtrack, saying it is "important to have continuity in trade".

If the UK does leave the customs union, it will have the freedom to negotiate, but will it fare better or worse than the EU bloc?

On the one hand, the UK, as a single voice, can make speedy decisions, whereas the EU has a lengthy consultative process (the Belgian region of Wallonia recently blocked the entire EU-Canada trade deal). Incoming US President Donald Trump has already said he will try to come to a deal quickly

On the other, the UK economy is far smaller, and trade negotiators may discover they have far less leverage acting alone. 

Unintended consequences

There is also the question of the UK’s membership of the World Trade Organisation, which is currently governed by its membership of the customs union. According to the Institute for Government: “Many countries will want to be clear about the UK’s membership of the WTO before they open negotiations.”

And then there is the question of policing trade outside of the customs union. For example, if it was significantly cheaper to import goods from China into Ireland, a customs union member, than Northern Ireland, a smuggling network might emerge.


Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.