Loading summary
Transcript6 lines
- [00:02]
A
Welcome to the LSE Events podcast by the London School of Economics and Political Science. Get ready to hear from some of the most influential international figures in the social sciences.
- [00:16]
B
Welcome to the LSE and welcome to this Morris Fraser annual Lecture hosted by the LSE's European Institute. My name is Simon Glendinning and I'm head of the European Institute and I'm also the LSE professor of European Philosophy. First, we've got to do a bit of housekeeping. I would ask those of you in the theatre to please put your phones on silent so as not to disrupt the event. The event's being recorded and will hopefully be made available as a podcast, subject to no technical difficulties. As usual, there will be a chance for you to put your questions to the speaker too, for our online audience. Welcome and you can submit your questions via the Q and A feature at the bottom of your screen. Please include your name on that and your affiliation. And for those of you here in the theatre, I'll let you know when we will open the floor for questions and when we do, please raise your hand and wait for the stewards with the roving microphone to get to you. And please also let us know your name and affiliation. Also, please, no speeches. We're only having one. So just questions and keep them short so that we can get in as many as possible. I want to try to ensure a range of questions from both our online audience and our audience here in the theatre. I'm going to introduce our guest in a moment, but before I do, I would like to say something about my former colleague and friend, Morris Fraser, in whose memory this annual event is held. In tonight's audience, we have many of Morris, former colleagues, friends and family. But for those of you in the audience who didn't know him, you should know that Morris ties to the LSE stretch over a long period. He was an undergraduate here and in the Government department and returned here to teach in 1995, eventually being promoted to professor in Practice in the European Institute. Morris became head of the European Institute in 2013, but was obliged to step down in 2015 due to ill health. I know that Morris was very proud to have led our department. It was a fitting finale to his life, A life of service. Before his time with us, Morris had served as Special Advisor to three successive British Foreign Secretaries during the extraordinary historical period between 1989 and 1995. Of special importance to him then was his work on Europe and in particular, Anglo French relations. He had been educated at the Lyce Francais in London, and he became Vice Chair of the Franco British Council. When he joined the European Institute here at lse, he was the program director for our double master's degree with Sciences Po in Paris, and he was made Chevalier de la Legion d' Honneur in 2008 and Cavalier del Ordin della Stella d' Italia in 2015. Rightly honoured. For a decade, Morris and I taught together in the European Institute, teaching a course called the Idea of Europe. And they were very happy days, despite the fact that we did not see eye to eye on everything. One among our differences was political. Moritz was a faithful party man, committed to the success of the Conservative Party. I confess that my own position is rather different. Not, I should say, a commitment to a different party. No. I follow a line of people who have argued that there should be no parties at all. Like Simone Weil, I advocate the abolition of all political parties. Well, on this, Maurice and I will have strongly disagreed. But at the lse, there is an ethos which not only accepts but affirms that that strong disagreement is a hallmark of democratic life. In fact, it's a key indicator that the society in which we live and work together really is democratic. Moreover, disagreement is one of the ways in which we come to understand positions, not only the views of others, also our own. It may lead you even to change your own position, and then your former antagonist may become your friend. Of course, one cannot always hope for such a happy ending. And we have to be prepared to make accommodations that work and are acceptable across unreconcilable differences. If that breaks down, the whole thing can fragment and fall apart. It can be difficult to sustain. We can see today that it is really difficult to sustain. So I have my differences with Morris, but they were not beyond reconciliation. And I should say at this point that I have my differences with our guest tonight, too. And I'm afraid that in one area, those differences may well be beyond reconciliation. As many of you will know, our guest tonight is a former president of Surrey County Cricket Club, a team that plays in the County Championship. Well, I am the wicket keeper and opening batsman for Oxenford Cricket Club, 3rd 11, playing in the lower divisions of the Charwell League. Some differences, sir, cannot be ignored, cannot be overcome. And on this cricket matter, there will be no phony reconciliation between us. I'm sorry, but there it is. On the other hand, as someone who has been steadfast in his commitment to making a personal contribution to the political life of this country, I have no quarrel with our guest whatsoever. Many today will, as I say, know him as the former President of Surrey Cricket Club. But it should not be forgotten that our guest tonight, Sir John Major, is also a former British Prime Minister. Appointed to that position in November 1990, a position he dutifully served until May 1997. He was Prime Minister therefore, through nearly all of Morris time as a Special Advisor. And throughout an extraordinary time in British, European and world politics. One can imagine few people better suited as a speaker for a Morris Fraser annual lecture. As Prime Minister, Sir John focused his efforts upon securing peace in Northern Ireland and upholding Britain's position in the world community as a political, social and economic leader. On New Year's Day 1999, Her Late Majesty the Queen appointed Sir John a Companion of Honor in recognition of his initiation of the Northern Ireland peace process. And on St. George's Day 2005, he was made a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the garter. St. George's Day. Also Shakespeare's birthday. Also my mum's birthday. So very good, Sir John. All's well that ends well. And now then, supposing that he will tonight mostly steer clear of the contentious subject of cricket, Please give a warm and generous LSE welcome to our speaker, Sir John Major.
- [08:02]
C
Well, Simon, thank you very much for that unusual introduction. I was intrigued that you're in favor of the abolition of political parties. Don't worry, they're doing it. As for the difference about cricket, you're absolutely clear that is only resolvable in one way that I know. Imagine you're in the 18th century. The competing people would have decided it with a wager, perhaps a thousand guineas a side in which your cricket team, Oxenford Third, would play mine, Surrey. And the winner would scoop the wager. I make the offer to you if you wish to take it my great privilege to be here tonight and for the invitation to deliver the Morris Fraser lecture. Morris, as you just heard, was a Special Advisor at the Foreign Office during my brief tenure. A tenure that fed between that of two great public servants, my predecessor Geoffrey Howe, and my successor, Douglas Hurd. Morris worked there for six years, marking also, I was told at the time, and I believe it to be correct, the fact that he became the longest serving Special advisor in the post war history of the Foreign Office. And he was that near mythical creature, a round peg in a round hole. And not for nothing did he become a holder of the Legion of Honor for his work for international relations and France in particular. Morris had a formidable knowledge of world affairs, tireless enthusiasm, a wicked sense of humor and a total commitment to his country. When I moved to number 10 a little later than being at the Foreign Office, I asked him to join me there and Morris declined. He declined, not because he didn't wish to come, though had he known what it was like, he might well not have wished to come. But Morris's allegiance to the Foreign Office was too great to tempt him away from it. As you heard, he studied here at this university was where he chose to return towards the end of his career, first as a lecturer, then as a fellow, and finally as a professor. In many ways, the LSE was his spiritual home. So it's a great pleasure for me today to be here at the European Institute with his family, present friends and former colleagues to celebrate the life of this remarkable but too short life through this annual lecture. So what to talk about? I thought this evening, given the state of the world, we might talk about that and look at Britain's future role in the way the world is changing. It's undergone many changes in the last 50 years and a large number of those changes are welcome. But quite a few of them are not welcome at all. Globalization has retreated. Free trade has given way to protection. Tariff barriers have risen. Theft of international property has become much more blatant. The stability of the rules based post war system is crumbling dangerously so no country, no organization, no single European leader or leader anywhere has stepped forward to seek a new consensus on that rules based society to repair what is damaged and to replace what is lost. Adherence to the written and unwritten rules of international conduct has fallen away. The moral principles of politics are losing out to transactional relationships as power shifts and alliances are rearranged. Much that we once took for granted is no longer certain. Current American policy, for example, has even upset calculations once believed to be settled about our future security and economic well being. Our world today is not the happiest place. It's unsettled, grumpy, fractious, changing in character. As economic hardship bites, populism increases and I will return to that later, and America and her allies begin to grow apart. For nearly two decades now, democracy has been retreating and autocracy has been advancing. Basic expectations for the public have been broken. In the post war years, it was the experience of most people in this country, not all, but most people in this country, that improvements in their lifestyle had either been delivered or were on the horizon. Downturns came, of course, but these were overcome and better years followed. But slowly, if irregularly, democracy offered hope even to those on the back of every cue. Nations in the democratic west came to believe this improvement was an unbreakable trend. It wasn't. Since the financial crisis of 2007, too many people have seen little or no improvement in their living standards. Taxes have risen, pay packets buy less. National and personal debt has absolutely soared. And for many, hope has become anxiety. All of this has added to the disillusion with democracy. There is now added to that a significant war in Europe for which the outcome is uncertain and the aftermath even more uncertain. The very language of politics has changed. It's harsher, more aggressive, more focused on the battles of politics than the welfare of nations. A form of populism has taken root, A form that builds its support by condemning others. Its target could be migrants or minority religions, or people of another race, or any vulnerable group that fell adrift of public welfare. It seems as if anyone who is different in any way can be scapegoated. Then they are thought to be fair game by the populists. The late Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks noted this and I quote directly. Antisemitism is, is the best warning sign of a wider threat to a free and tolerant society. I agree with that. Venom directed at one source can be directed at others as well. And this lamentable mode of attack is not restricted to individuals or even to individual groups. Populists use it against all authority and so called elites. Elites are treated as if they were the enemy within. And governments are treated as if their shortcomings were the root of all ills. Even the judiciary is attacked as if it were a subversive body seeking to undermine the state. No one, no one should be complacent about this. If the law loses its authority, the bully walks tall and the lawless walk free. The objective of the populist is as old as time. If someone else is in the dock of public opinion, then those who denounce them must surely be on the side of the majority. And the outcome of all this is to set citizen against citizen. Such behavior debases all who practice is ugly, divisive and racist. And daily on display in this country, across Europe and elsewhere. Now, in the midst of our unsettled world, President Putin has turned nation against nation. The invasion of Ukraine had no credible or justifiable cause. Across Europe and within his own country, Putin's three day war, as he thought of it, is now over three years old. So far, over 400,000 Russians and Ukrainians have been killed and many, many more are suffering from life changing injuries. Only one man is responsible for this slaughter. The innocent civilians who have died under bombs and Drones are considered by Putin apologists to be simply collateral damage. They are not. They are victims of mass murder. And when the fighting is done, this should not be forgiven. There is a price to pay for mass murder. And if justice has any meaning, then Putin in due time will be brought face to face with is vital, vital for future peace in Europe, that President Putin does not gain from his war crimes, either on the battlefield or in an enforced deal brokered by whomsoever may broker it. Putin claims all of Donetsk knowing, absolutely knowing, that it is impossible for Ukraine to cede it to him. And President Zelensky must not be pressured to do so in return for promises that Putin is most unlikely to keep. Western support for Ukraine has suffered from not being quite full hearted. The allies generally have provided enough for Ukraine to fight on and keep Russia at bay, but not quite enough for Ukraine to to drive Russia back and end the conflict. There are three ways in which this war can develop. It can continue indefinitely in more or less a stalemate, if the democratic west holds back on increased support for Ukraine. But. But if Russia gains the upper hand because Western support has fallen away, then a compromise deal may be forced upon Ukraine. That would be a shameful outcome, and all of Europe and beyond would come to regret it. Putin would claim a victory and be likely to regroup and test Western resolve yet again. And elsewhere. A bad outcome could be the preliminary to another war on a future date and a wider terrain. The third option is that Western support increases, Ukraine advances and Russia retreats. If Putin loses or is forced to withdraw, he loses face. Conceivably, he may even fall from power. If so, we cannot know if a successor will be more tractable. But it would be surprising if he were not more cautious were Russia to lose. America and Europe must weigh these alternatives. Only one is likely to ensure peace, and they should take it for all our sakes. One final point worth noting. This conflict is not against the Russian people. It is against Putin and his regime and the way they behave. Putin has no scruples, no scruples about creating chaos in other countries. We should have none at all. In telling his people how he deceives them and loots their assets as he does so. The prize of Putin's departure would be a much safer, more stable Europe than we have had, and that Western democracy longs to have. Russia and China. Russia and China are allies against democracy and friends only when it is mutually convenient to be friendly. There's no doubt that China has usurped the influence of the former Soviet Union. And is the dominant state of the two today. There seems almost no limit to Xi Jinping's power or tenure of office. He is supreme in China and building up a more assertive China, both economically and militarily, especially in and around the South China Sea. He is very much aware that China is America's only superpower rival. China now boasts the world's largest navy, with more warships and submarines than the United States, and she is continuing to build them speedily. In the late 16th century, China was the preeminent global power. China has not forgotten this and nor should the world. President Xi is consolidating Chinese influence through diplomacy. China offers development finance through loans and grants to nations in every corner of the globe. Xi is presenting China as the champion of multilateralism, in sharp contrast to President Trump's arbitrary increase in tariffs on imports from friends and allies that has caused caused a great deal of anguish. Seems, does it not, an upside down world in which America offends her allies while China embraces them. This embracing was very much the visual from the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization hosted by China and attended by India, by Turkey, by Egypt, all of whom are more generally considered as allies of the United States. A wise America would gather them together, not push them away. A friendship broken can be very hard to regain. China is a strong opponent of liberal democracy, believing it to be inefficient and a potential risk to China's authoritarian ways. Nevertheless, we must work with China. We must work with her, but set parameters to what we will accept. We should not overlook her shortcomings. Her treatment of the Uyghur Muslims, her failure to honour promises over Hong Kong, her repeated threats to Taiwan, her theft of Western technology. China will resent criticism, but she may respect it. She will certainly scorn weakness. And we should remember it is weakness that encourages enemies to overreach. Nor should we be gullible. China is a great power. That is a fact of life. But she can be chillingly repressive. Her philosophy isn't inhibited by democratic instincts or by individual human rights. If China believes actions taken are set against the interests of the Chinese state, Xi will crush whomsoever is acting in that fashion. As China says, and I quote, we believe no comments challenging national sovereignty and social stability fall within the scope of freedom of expression. That restriction is the very antithesis of democracy. It is a sentiment we should note and not ignore. In an act of collective folly, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Across the world, our enemies celebrated and our friends despaired. We left Europe on a minority vote of 37% of the electorate. After a referendum campaign that was packed with misinformation and misjudgment, it left our country poorer, weaker and divorced from the richest free trade market that history has ever seen. The national interest was brushed aside by false hopes and promises. False hopes and promises that even a cabinet dominated by frontline Brexit enthusiasts was unable to deliver the promises they made. Given the opportunity they were unable to meet. The gains from Brexit that were promised so confidently can now be seen to be illusory. While the forecast damage of leaving the European Union has become only too apparent, the nation saw Project Fear become Project Reality very speedily. It's no consolation that a majority of the public now overwhelmingly recognizes that it was misled. In their moment of triumph, Brexiteers predicted other countries would follow their lead and leave the European Union. None have. All saw only too clearly that Brexit was packed with disadvantages. As we meet far from others leaving the European Union as we meet nine further nations now wish to join the European Union. Which is an apt comment on how the world saw Britain's decision to leave. The United Kingdom once reveled not long ago within the memory of everyone present in this room once reveled in being a leading member of the European Union, with half a billion billion citizens and the undoubted first ally of the United States, the world's most eminent superpower. Today we know we are neither, and so does the world. As we plan for the future, we must see ourselves as we now are. And what we are is 70 million people in a world of 9,000 million. The UK has a proud history, a wealth of talents and a role in the world that continues to be significant. So we have much to offer any partners. Our national assets would make the European Union stronger and better equipped to face the uncertain future that now lingers in front of us. Our collective future demands a European that conducts itself as an economic superpower alongside America and China. The alternative. The alternative is to be ever subordinate to the political and economic whims of America and China. As I look to the future, the long term future, I have no appetite for that. I know the shortcomings of the European Union. I lived with them for many painful years. But in a dangerous and uncertain world with two unpredictable superpowers, I believe the UK's future is safer and more economically secure inside a powerful bloc of neighbour nations than outside. That is a matter most important for those who are young. Many present time tonight, who will live in a Different world from the one in which I grew up in. But we cannot suddenly knock on the door and say to the European Union, we'd like to rejoin again. Too much diplomatic and political blood was spilled for that to be an easy option for us. There are many barriers to a return to full membership of Europe that will be difficult to overcome, perhaps, perhaps for many years. That said, there are areas where we can make a start. And looking forward, the plain truth is that the European Union is too important for the United Kingdom not to be part of its decision making process. My immediate ambitions in this sphere are limited, but a necessary beginning. The changing public mood in this country will help. The polls don't always believe them, but they're very consistent on some things and occasionally they're right. The polls tell us that well over half the British electorate now believes it was a mistake to leave the European Union. And less than one third now supports having done so. Among the young, support for Brexit falls as low as 13%. The trend is inexorable. That is why it is so disappointing, so disappointing that both government and opposition are so wretchedly timid in their policy ambitions. Both Labour and the Tories are terrified of the residual Brexit vote. They don't seek to change the minds of those who favour Brexit, but by talking of the advantages we have lost and might be able to regain, they simply hide in a hole and do nothing. Our economic and political interests, and that's not an abstract matter, that's your living standards, it's the way we live. Our economic and political interests could not be clearer. But short term party political calculation is given priority over the national interests. Brexit is a flop. It will not leap up from its deathbed. It is losing our country. Pause for a moment. It is losing our country. 100 billion, billion, not million. 100 billion pounds of trade every year, as well as the tax revenue that that trade would deliver to the British Exchequer. Just think about that. Every year, every year the loss of billions of European trade is damaging our finances. The loss is made far greater by some decisions the present government has taken. And that is one reason why we are facing a painful and difficult budget later this month. Serious economists forecast and it is a forecast, so it may not be accurate. But serious economists almost universally agree that there will be a cumulative loss to the economy of 311 billion by 2035, together with 3 million fewer jobs and a fall in trade levels with the European Union. As of now, it is a matter of fact, not conjecture. Many Small and medium sized firms have simply been defeated by post Brexit bureaucracy and simply find it no longer profitable to trade with Europe. It is baffling, baffling that at a basic minimum, we are not now looking at how to negotiate away such frustrations created by bureaucracy. New trade deals, supposedly to cover lost European trade, have not done so. Most are simply rollovers of past trade deals. Some are positively damaging. Ask the farmers if you disbelieve me. The much promised mega trade deal, swapping additional American trade to replace lost European trade promised so frequently and so confidently has never happened. And it shows no sign whatsoever of doing so in the foreseeable future. Much though I wish otherwise, I do not foresee an early return to full membership of the European Union. We have lost probably forever the unique and advantageous deals we gained in negotiations in the 1980s and 1990s and I do not believe they can be regained without them. A full return to Europe is almost certainly unobtainable in any likely parliament until a younger generation of pro European politicians come to power and the Brexiteer voice again retreats to the fringes of debate. In the post Brexit years, it has become glaringly obvious that it is in our self interest to build a better relationship with the European Union as an institution and bilaterally a better relationship with individual member states of Europe. The government have made some modest steps that are welcome. None is dramatic but welcome. But all of them will play a small part in rebuilding trust. More collaboration is under discussion, such as youth mobility schemes and integration into the electricity market. Hopefully they can be agreed. I hope ambitions can be raised to examine rejoining the Customs Union and thereafter the single market. Neither will be easy or painless and both will will face political opposition and negotiating hurdles. But if a fair deal can be struck, it will be welcomed by trade, by commerce, by a majority in Parliament and by pragmatists everywhere. And it can be achieved. We may even be helped to achieve an improved relationship by the evident wish of our European neighbours to build an expanded military presence across Europe. But within NATO, British military capability is important to Europe. If we try and are rebuffed, we must try again. The prize is worth the effort. And although those within the European Union are tough negotiators, they must know. They must know that their long term interests and ours are coming into alignment as the world reshapes. A deal can be done and it must be done in our interests. Politics is a rough and tough trade, perhaps more so today than at any time outside times of war. The commentary at media, especially social media, give politicians little or no slack, even when dealing with novel, complex challenges. Let me turn to some of those challenges relevant to British politics, though not necessarily unique to us. The cost of servicing our public debt is now over £100 billion a year. £100 billion of your taxes each year are going to pay the interest only on debts incurred by previous governments over the last 50 years. And the Chancellor's second budget in a few days. Time promises to be a painful lesson, a painful lesson in what happens when nations spend too much and earn too little. We are told constantly that, I quote, the broadest shoulders must bear the greatest burden, as of course, a progressive tax system should ensure that they do. But it misleads, cheats the nation to pretend the rich can bear all the burden or have not been bearing an increasing portion for quite a long time. In the late 1970s, the top 1% of UK taxpayers paid a total of 11% of the total income tax take. In the late 1970s. Last year, the top 1% paid not 11% of the total tax take, but 29% of the total tax take. The Chancellor should beware. To force the rich away will place a far greater burden on the average taxpayer once they have gone. We are not alone in our problem. The scale of national debt is reaching crisis level in rich countries as well as poor. Already, 60% of the world faces debt to GDP levels of over 100%, including most of the world's largest economies. This is an indictment, an indictment of governments offering jam today and a bitter pill tomorrow. It's coming up to bitter pill time. No one can be sure when the crisis will be triggered, or what the catalyst may turn out to be. But the world cannot, just cannot continue to overspend and expect economic security. And nor can we. A word about immigration. No one should blithely assume that this is a short term problem that will easily go away, that there is some silver bullet that the government, or any government will find to end it all. It won't go away and there is no silver bullet. Last year, 950,000 migrants arrived, of which 50,000 came illegally by boat. Now, to state the blindingly obvious, this is socially unsustainable on a small island. But the lure of our country will not disappear. The long term demand to come here will continue and may worsen as populations grow in Africa over the next 20, 30, 40 and 50 years. The scale of the demand to come here, although unwelcome, is in some curious way rather a backhanded compliment no one clamors to get into Russia, China, Iran or many other countries. But they do clamor to come here. Even so, there is a practical limit to how many the UK can absorb. Yesterday the Home Secretary presented new plans to Parliament that are controversial, but they are also more comprehensive than anything we have previously seen from earlier governments. They deserve very careful study, not instantaneous acceptance or instantaneous rejection. But however the Home Secretary's plans proceed, a long term solution to be successful is likely to include a pan European effort. All of Europe faces this problem and no one yet has brought all of Europe together to try and face the problem as it is and see what we can do about it. One aspect of reducing immigration would be to make it more palatable for migrants to be able to remain in their own countries. That is why the policy of cutting aid and investment to poor countries countries is very short sighted policy. It will accelerate demand from those countries to migrate as their countries get poorer and hardship grows there. It is a policy that acts absolutely against our own domestic interests. It is, to be blunt, morally wrong, politically wrong and heartless. There have been hints that the government will now rethink this policy. It should do so as soon as finances permit. Let me return. Because of its growing importance to populism for a moment, populism is no longer a fringe problem of a few outlandish politicians. It's now mainstream and professional. We should recognize the threat it poses to democracy. If we do not and it gains power, it will not tolerate its opponents. Now it's not easy to defeat populist groups offering disaffected people simple solutions to complex problems. After all, if the established politicians have seemingly fail to find solutions, it's human nature to look elsewhere. But be careful where you look. Populism is a dead end. A I offer two antidotes to its appeal. The most effective, of course, is policies to remove deeply felt grievances and regain political support. Contented nations don't support populism. A return to stable growth would end much of the public dissatisfaction that has given life to populism. Such a recovery would also ease the minds and many people worried about their future. The second defence against populism is to expose the dangers of its policies and the unworkability of its suggested solutions. But I do have a warning here. Over the top attacks, personal attacks on populist leaders as opposed to their policies can backfire and be counterproductive. Unworthy attacks can offer populists the oxygen of public support. A dissection of harmful and undeliverable policy is the right way to take that support away altogether. The truth is that the only side populism is on is its own side. It cares for no one else. And if it flourishes, democracy declines. Democracy has a lot to lose. The established political parties need to defeat populism and not copy it. The sooner they raise their game, the better. I'd like to end before we turn to questions. On a personal note, I talk about the risks we face because we dare not ignore them. I talk of the future because the present must prepare for for the future. In modern politics, multiple challenges and day to day crises crowd in so fast that it sometimes feels that the future is crowded out by the immediacy of now. We must stop that, stop that, or we will simply drift and events, rather than our own national interest, will forge our future. If that were to happen, it would be a profound failure of government. My worry My worry, to put it bluntly, is simply the future seems to be secondary to the frustrations of today. But it shouldn't be. Future problems can become today's problems very speedily. If we don't face up to the risks of war, of national debt, of climate change, of long term migration, of the health, even survival of our political system, then we fail in the duty we owe to our history, our present and our future. I have grown up here. I have traveled the world, and for all its shortcomings in this country, there is nowhere else that I would wish to spend the rest of my days. I believe in our four nations, in our history, our values, our natural sense of fairness and justice, our essential kindliness and tolerance as a nation. And I admire the way in which our forebears have always risen to existential challenge. We must look to the future without a fear of change or timidity of action, but with the conviction that we can build the welfare of our nation and sustain our place in the world. We have faced much more difficult times than now, and we have come through them. The choices and challenges of today may be more complex, but they are less stark than those we have faced before. They can be overcome, and they must be. But to do so we need change. To do so, we must abandon the cacophony of spin, sound bite and empty noise that so often substitutes for political debate about the well being of our country. It is time beyond time to turn our back on complacency, on pessimism, on cynicism, on short termism, on the second rate, on the fear of failure, on on artificial divisions in our politics and our nation and raise our ambitions to bring substance to the fore in politics, pride back into our nation and hope back into the lives of our citizens. That, from what I remember of him, is the principle by which Morris Fraser lived, worked and taught. And it is a principle which I believe runs deep within us all if we can exhume it to the front of our instincts. We owe such an approach to the future. It is my fervent hope that together we can work towards that outcome. Thank you very much.
- [47:16]
A
Hi, I'm interrupting this event to tell you about another awesome LSE podcast that we think you'd enjoy. LSE IQ asks social scientists and other experts to answer one intelligent question like why do people believe in conspiracy theories? Or can we afford the super rich? Come check us out. Just search for lseiq wherever you get your podcasts. Now back to the event.
- [47:43]
B
Now, often today when you make an appearance, you're described as a grown up in the room. I'd say first of all, I want to be a grown up when I grow up. But I have to say too that we really miss grown ups. And so I want to thank you for coming to speak to us tonight and reminding us that thoughtful reflection by politicians on our world has just not yet completely disappeared. Thank you so much.
- [48:31]
A
Thank you for listening. You can subscribe to the LSE Events podcast on your favourite podcast app and help other listeners discover us by leaving a review. Visit lse.ac.ukevents to find out what's on next. We hope you join us at another LSE event soon.