government-ministers-of-the-united-kingdom

"The great thing is that remote e-book loans will receive the same PLR rate per loan as print titles and audio titles, and the terms for receiving PLR will also remain the same."

"The legislation was finally added to the Digital Economy Bill (now the Digital Economy Act) by a last-minute Government amendment following a long-running campaign by ALCS and SoA. We work from the basic position that creators should be rewarded for their work. If they are not, then they may decide not to create any more, which would be seriously bad news for the UK economy. It is estimated that our creative industries generate £8 million every single hour and that, by 2018, the annual figure will be £100 billion. Writers are at the very heart of this. Books, film, television, even computer games: where would any of these be without writers?"

"Janet Anderson is a former MP for Rossendale and Darwen, as well as a former Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). She chaired the All Party Parliamentary Writers Group from 2009 – 2010 and is currently assisting ALCS in our lobbying activities."

"The All Party Writers Group has 61 members now, across both Houses of Parliament and all political parties, including many published writers. It is an invaluable source of support to enable us to speak up for writers, and ensure they are properly rewarded for their work and that their concerns are brought to the attention of those who can make a difference on their behalf."

"We have been lucky to be supported by so many members of both Houses of Parliament, and Government ministers too. The Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP, former Culture Secretary, and the former Creative Industries Minister, the Rt Hon Ed Vaizey MP, deserve thanks for all their efforts to make this happen. So too does Lord Clement-Jones, who helped to move an earlier amendment in the House of Lords, and has worked tirelessly to help us on this and many other issues of concern to writers; and Baroness Tessa Jowell, who has been a valuable source of advice. Also members of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, particularly Paul Farrelly MP, and current chair, Damian Collins MP. Kevin Brennan MP also helped tremendously. But it would be remiss of me not to mention especially the late Baroness (Ruth) Rendell, who served as secretary of the All Party Writers Group for many years and was always ready to wade in on our behalf. And finally, Dr Jim Parker, former head of UK PLR and now coordinator of PLR International."

"There will always be more work to be done. We are currently turning our attention to unfair contracts for writers and trying to make sure that writers are aware of their rights and how to ensure they are enforced. As the mother-in-law of a successful published writer, I am well aware of the need to campaign on this!"

"With the development of e-books, we have long thought that PLR should be extended to the remote lending of e-books by public libraries. Previously, writers received no recognition at all of the value of their work to the public consumption and enjoyment of literature through e-books. To achieve our aim, it would require legislation. We therefore set about the task of lobbying Government ministers and both Houses of Parliament to persuade them there was a need for the moral rights of writers to be acknowledged in the age of developing technology which had facilitated the remote public lending of e-books."

"As a former minister in the Department of Culture, Media & Sport, I would like the Department to be taken more seriously across government. It tends to be regarded as a small, and relatively inconsequential, government department. Nothing could be further from the truth. It deals with issues that directly affect everyone’s quality of life. The enjoyment of literature and the wider contribution of the creative industries generally is central to that. We will continue to stand up and campaign for that on behalf of the creative industries, but, in particular for the 90,000 writer members of ALCS."

"The new arrangements will officially take effect from 1 July 2018, and any payments arising from the newly eligible loans will be made in February 2020."

"As I said earlier, we believe that writers should be rewarded for their work. PLR is not a huge income stream for most authors: it amounts to 7.82p per loan and is subject to an annual cap of £6,600 per recipient. However, writers will tell you that they find it extremely gratifying to know their books are being read and this provides a source of encouragement for them to continue writing. Writers, illustrators, photographers, translators and editors are also eligible for PLR. The Government has now guaranteed that an annual fund of £6.6 million will be made available for PLR up to 2019."

"I have sacked Robert Jenrick from the shadow cabinet, removed the whip and suspended his party membership with immediate effect. I was presented with clear, irrefutable evidence that he was plotting in secret to defect in a way designed to be as damaging as possible to his shadow cabinet colleagues and the wider Conservative party. The British public are tired of political psychodrama and so am I. They saw too much of it in the last government, they're seeing too much of it in THIS government. I will not repeat those mistakes."

"I want this country to be the most welcoming country in the world for Israelis and for the Jewish community. And a small thing that I fought for when I was the immigration minister was to ensure that every Israeli citizen could enter our country through the e-gate, through the easy access. So that at every airport and point of entry to our great country there is the Star of David there as a symbol that we support Israel, we stand with Israel. We are friends and allies of Israel, and Israelis are welcome in our country."

"We need to make Reform redundant by restoring the Conservatives' credibility on immigration and exposing Reform's fantasy economics."

"Reform is not the answer at this election. Their plans are not based in reality. Cut £50 billion a year from public services? Independent observers have explained that the sums don't add up."

"Because whether it's Labour, Reform, or the Lib Dems – votes for these pie-in-the-sky parties is a vote for La La Land fantasy politics which will only take the country backwards. And we cannot afford that."

"Our special forces are killing rather than capturing terrorists because our lawyers tell us that if they are caught, the European court will set them free."

"I have been very critical of police in the past, particularly around the attitude of some police forces to the protests we saw since [the Hamas attack on Israel on] 7 October [2023]. I thought it was quite wrong that somebody could shout 'Allahu Akbar' on the streets of London and not be immediately arrested; project genocidal chants on to Big Ben and not be immediately arrested. That attitude is wrong and I'll always call out the police for it."

"Of course he should. If you can't call racism racism, if you can't call antisemitism antisemitism, and if you can't call Islamophobia Islamophobia, then how are we going to fix it?"

"[On Sajid Javid] He's chancellor of the exchequer. He's got the second or third most powerful role in government and he still doesn't feel like he can exercise power? I get this art of playing politics to get to a position where you're increasingly more powerful … but I think that politicians are so focused on amassing power that they forget about what they're amassing it for."

"Every day before we start parliamentary business in the Commons and Lords we say a prayer and praise God – we say our parliamentary version of Allahu Akbars at the heart of democracy – a process Robert Jenrick is a part of. This language from Jenrick is more of his usual nasty divisive rhetoric."

"[I] felt it was important as a Muslim to lend my voice to this fight against antisemitism. We have only ever defeated intolerance when we have come together. Antisemitism will only stop when all of us, whatever faith we belong to or none – oppose it and challenge it."

"I'm really, really hesitant about making this Sayeeda v the Tory party."

"There is a lot of emotional attachment here. It's like a really painful divorce. It does feel like I'm in an abusive relationship at the moment, where I'm with somebody that I really shouldn't be with. It’s not healthy for me to be there any more with the Conservative party."

"It is with a heavy heart that I have today informed my whip and decided for now to no longer take the Conservative whip. This is a sad day for me. I am a Conservative and remain so but sadly the current party are far removed from the party I joined and served in Cabinet. My decision is a reflection of how far right my party has moved and the hypocrisy and double standards in its treatment of different communities."

"[H]e had been in high favour with Balfour, although the rank and file had never cottoned to his dandified and over-polished parliamentary manners, which led one Tory member to mutter in my hearing, after one of Wyndham's Burke-conscious perorations, "Damn that fellow; he pirouettes like a dancing master.""

"It would be hard to imagine anyone less like a professional politician than George Wyndham, either in his appearance or in his outlook on the world. In political cartoons he was sometimes shewn as a typical guardsman, but here again the target was missed. He seemed to belong to a less specialised age than our own, when men developed many sides of their nature at once, and it was more possible than it is today for one man to express himself in a single life as a statesman, a soldier, and an artist; there was an element of all these in Wyndham, and the artist in him was in frequent revolt against the routine of the statesman. At my first meeting with him, and even more when I stayed with him, I felt that he had little in common with a world of mass-production and centralised business; it would not be difficult to imagine him in one of Marlborough's campaigns advancing to greet the enemy and courteously offering the first shot in the battle to the other side, but to many of his friends this chivalrous and generous figure seemed to belong to an earlier period and to have leapt suddenly, armed with sword and pen, out of the mists of the Middle Ages."

"Lord Pembroke and George Wyndham were the handsomest of the Souls."

"Gordon's journals are splendid, I delight in an eccentric man upsetting the odds which routine, formality, "Foreign" and other offices always have on their side, and making the latter appear ridiculous."

"I must say that in my judgment Swinburne's claims are immeasurably superior to those of any Englishman now living... Please read in the Volume I send, published two years ago, the 'Seamew,' the 'Jacobite's Exile,' the 'Threnody on Inchbold,' and 'The Commonweal,' his Jubilee Ode, and then consider whether any can touch him as a Poet. I believe that in the long run Public opinion will be more shocked by his neglect than by his recognition."

"Wyndham was enthusiastic, he was a Romantic, he was an Imperialist, and he was quite naturally a literary pupil of W. E. Henley. Wyndham was a scholar, but his scholarship is incidental; he was a good critic, within the range allowed him by his enthusiasms; but it is neither as Scholar nor as Critic that we can criticize him. We can criticize his writings only as the expression of this peculiar English type, the aristocrat, the Imperialist, the Romantic, riding to hounds across his prose, looking with wonder upon the world as upon a fairyland."

"It suited him better to write a verse, hunt a fox and sit talking with his friends into the early hours, and he was one of those rare people who rise from their beds to watch the dawn. His days were crowded with physical and mental energies. The vowel-sounds and rhythms of Shakespeare's sonnets, the song of Roland, the water supply of the prehistoric men of the downs, the fortifications of Maiden Castle, or the result of the latest manœuvres on Salisbury plain, were all subjects which fell within the range of his talk; this interest in a multitude of problems of literature, soldiering or archaeology was not detached but always eager and pursuing, as though the quarry lay a short way in front of the hunter."

"As a fact, the one Front-Bench man who seemed in the days of my youth still eternally young was for me, in those days, on the opposite Front-Bench. The wonderful thing about George Wyndham was that he had come through political life without losing his political opinions, or indeed any of his opinions. Precisely what gave him such a genius for friendship was that life had left in him so much of himself; so much of his youth; so much even of his childhood."

"No, I’m not going on Strictly. I won't dance. Don't ask me. Our primary job is running the country. We've got to a state now where most of us are more fixated on our two-minute clip on Twitter than a sustained, nuanced argument."

"We get very complacent about the state of our democracy. We think that because we’ve got parliament, and people get elected, that’s the democracy box ticked. It’s not."

"[On the damage done to politician's public reputation by the actions of MPs such as Boris Johnson] We've gone from 45 per cent of people thinking we're all terrible and lying all the time to 80 per cent. That is really problematic. Government is by consent and if the people no longer think that, in the main, parliament is there to defend their rights and freedoms, then the danger is they'll go, "What is the point of democracy?" It's easy for someone to say it's a lot more efficient to just have someone in charge. Why bother with getting things through the House? Why bother with persuading people? That’s the danger."

"I am sorry to hear of the increasing friction between Hindus and Muhammedans in the N.W.F.P. and the Punjab. One hardly knows what to wish for; unity of ideas and action would be very dangerous politically, divergence of ideas and collision are administratively troublesome. Of the two the latter is the least risky, though it throws anxiety and responsibility upon those on the spot where the friction exists."

"[Nine Troubled Years] revives the half-forgotten impression that Sir Samuel Hoare was the most complacent and fatuous, even the most detestable, of the four Appeasers."

"[A] hymn of praise went up in response to the speech that Hitler made in the Reichstag on May 21 [1935]. In it he declared himself to be a man of peace who would faithfully carry out Germany's international obligations... The effect was exactly what he intended. All the pacifist forces in Great Britain were at once mobilised against the Government's rearmament proposals. The Parliamentary Labour Party immediately decided to vote against the air programme, and, backed by the Trade Union Congress and the National Executive of the Party, demanded a special international conference to take advantage of Hitler's magnificent offer. The religious leaders in the country were equally insistent that we should welcome with open arms Hitler's approach. Archbishop Temple and Dean Inge were for once found to be in agreement. "Hitler," wrote the Archbishop in The Times, "has made in the most deliberate manner offers which are a great contribution to the secure establishment of peace." "What an admirable letter!" responded the Dean three days afterwards. When Baldwin ventured to say a word of caution and to point out that the collective security of peace was still endangered by the absence of four Great Powers from the League, Herbert Morrison, using a metaphor that subsequently created an unfortunate precedent for Chamberlain, declared to the Fabian Society on May 24 that "The Government had either lost the boat or was in danger of losing it, and that Baldwin had missed the opportunity for a big, inspiring and mighty gesture.""

"In Great Britain, the early months of 1935 witnessed an intensification of the partisan battle. The Left continued to clamour for disarmament. The insignificant increase of £4 millions in the Service Estimates, carefully explained and justified in a White Paper of March 5, brought down upon the Government a barrage of Opposition abuse. Herbert Morrison, for instance, whose party had just withdrawn the L.C.C. grant from the School Cadet Corps, declared in Bermondsey on March 13 that: "Toryism as represented by the National Government had resumed its historic role as the party of militarism and aggressive armaments." Even so open-minded and balanced a Liberal as Lothian was writing in The Times on March 11 in support of the German claim for equality and describing the inoffensive phrases in the White Paper as "an inadvertent carry over from pre-equality days.""

"I was amazed by his ambitions; I admired his imagination; I shared his ideals; I stood in awe of his intellectual capacity. But I was never touched by his humanity. He was the coldest fish with whom I have ever had to deal."

"The attitude of his Majesty's Government has been one of unwavering fidelity to the League and all that it stands for, and the case now before us is no exception, but, on the contrary, the continuance of that rule. The recent response of public opinion shows how completely the nation supports the Government in the full acceptance of the obligations of League membership, which is the oft proclaimed keynote of its foreign policy... In conformity with its precise and explicit obligations the League stands, and my country stands with it, for the collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for steady and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression. The attitude of the British nation in the last few weeks has clearly demonstrated the fact that this is no variable and unreliable sentiment, but a principle of international conduct to which they and their Government hold with firm, enduring, and universal persistence."

"It is in accordance with what we believe to be the underlying principles of the League that our people have steadily promoted, and still promote, the growth of self-government in their own territories. It was, for example, only a few weeks ago that I was responsible for helping to pass through the Imperial Parliament a great and complicated measure for extending self-government in India. Following this same line of thought we believe that small nations are entitled to a life of their own and to such protection as can collectively be afforded to them in the maintenance of their national life. We believe, on the undoubted evidence of past and present times, that all nations alike have a valuable contribution to make to the common stock of humanity. And we believe that backward nations are without prejudice to their independence and integrity, entitled to expect that assistance will be afforded them by more advanced peoples in the development of their resources and the building up of their national life. I am not ashamed of our record in this respect, and I make no apology for stating it here."

"A great proportion of the expenditure on Naval Defence is required to meet our Imperial, as distinct from our United Kingdom, obligations. The question must occur to all of us whether this little island can continue to shoulder the financial strain involved in maintaining, to so great an extent, the requisite standard of naval strength to ensure our Imperial security. It may well be that the safety of the British Commonwealth of Nations will depend on increased naval support from the Dominions."

"He had a very sharp mind, along with a sharpness of facial outline that reflected his primly precise manner—which prompted "F. E.", Lord Birkenhead, with devastating aptness to describe him as "the last of a long line of maiden aunts". He also had an irritating mannerism of interjecting "Yes, yes" at short intervals in any conversation."

"British public opinion was solidly behind the League when it was founded... The British people supported the League for no selfish motive. They had seen the old system of alliances unable to prevent a world war. As practical men and women they wished to find a more effective instrument for peace. After four years of devastation they were determined to do their utmost to prevent another such calamity falling not only on themselves but upon the whole world. They were determined to throw the whole weight of their strength into the scales of international peace and international order. They were deeply and genuinely moved by a great ideal. It is the fashion sometimes in the world of to-day—a foolish fashion like many others in the world of to-day—to scoff at such ideals. What is the use, say the modern critics, of collective action when individual strength is simpler and swifter to apply, and more direct in its appeal to national sentiment? What is the good of working for peace when the whole history of the world shows that war is the only way of settling great issues? These questions ring every day in our ears. The day to day events of recent history have made it impossible for us to ignore the strength of the argument behind them. None the less, in spite of the grim experiences of the past, in spite of the worship of force in the present, the British people have clung to their ideal and they are not prepared to abandon it."

"He had been left with the opinion that there would be a wave of public opinion against the Government if it repudiated its obligations under Article 16 [of the Covenant of the League of Nations]... It was abundantly clear that the only safe line for His Majesty's Government was to try out the regular League of Nations procedure."

"It is...necessary when the League is in a time of real difficulty for the representative of the United Kingdom to state his view and to make it as clear as he can, first, that his Majesty's Government and the British people maintain their support of the League and its ideals as the most effective way of ensuring peace; and, secondly, that this belief in the necessity for preserving the League is our sole interest in the present controversy. No selfish or imperialist motives enter into our minds at all."

"As things are now, India is not in a position to defend itself. A great part of the defence of India is dependent on British Imperial troops."

"What he did object to was going back to the position of 1906 to 1914, that [sic] everybody was preparing for a war against Germany. We might eventually be driven to it, but we were not, in his opinion, yet at that point."

"Either we should have to make a futile protest, which would irritate Mussolini and perhaps drive him out of the League into the arms of Germany, or we should make no protest at all and give the appearance of pusillanimity."