Ladies and gentlemen, my father was a toolmaker.

女士們，先生們，我的父親是一名工具製造商。

My mother, by the way, scrubbed floors.

順便說一句，我母親是擦地板的。

Other people's floors.

別人的地板

They were going to play this absurd game of more working class than that.

他們要玩這種 "比工人階級還工人階級 "的荒唐遊戲。

Oh, by the way, I was born in a three-bedroom, pebble-dashed house.

對了，我出生在一棟三居室的卵石房子裡。

Can we just...

我們能不能...

I went to grammar school.

我上的是文法學校。

I was a scholarship boy.

我曾是一名獎學金得主。

I did not, however, disgrace my school like Starmer by getting only two Bs and a Cs.

不過，我並沒有像斯塔默那樣，只拿到兩個 B 和一個 C，給學校蒙羞。

Right.

對

Enough of the nonsense.

廢話少說。

Let's go back to, can I just say, it's vital to recognize Starmer is not very clever.

讓我們回到剛才的話題，我想說的是，必須認識到斯塔默並不聰明。

He's a little bit like a junior Gordon Brown.

他有點像小戈登-布朗。

Like Gordon Brown, he's very thin-skinned.

和戈登-布朗一樣，他的臉皮也很薄。

Humor, wit, cleverness, fleetness of foot, needling will get that man.

幽默、機智、聰明、敏捷的腳步、針鋒相對會讓那個男人心動。

Right.

對

Now, what has happened?

現在，發生了什麼？

Well, again, Enunciator said, history.

好吧，還是 Enunciator 說的，歷史。

History, we've been here absolutely before. 50 years ago, can I remind you, was the moment in which Keith Joseph, in 1974, after another great election defeat, the defeat of Edward Heath, said, I have not been a conservative.

歷史，我們以前絕對來過。50 年前，請允許我提醒大家，1974 年，基思-約瑟夫（Keith Joseph）在愛德華-希思（Edward Heath）競選失敗後說："我不是一個保守派。

I have called myself a conservative.

我自稱為保守派。

I've been a member of a conservative government, but I haven't been conservative and that government hasn't done conservative things.

我曾是一個保守派政府的成員，但我並不保守，這個政府也沒有做過保守的事情。

And that is the beginning of Margaret Thatcher's revolution.

這就是撒切爾夫人革命的開端。

That government, that government of Edward Heath, began with all the right resolutions.

愛德華-希思的政府一開始就做出了正確的決定。

Indeed, talking of, as it were, not winning from the center, it began with the sales and declaration of free market economics.

事實上，說到不從中間獲勝，它始於自由市場經濟的銷售和宣言。

It then, under the pressure of events, immediately collapsed back into Keynesianism, inflation.

隨後，在事態發展的壓力下，它又立即倒向凱恩斯主義和通貨膨脹。

The Barber boom was exactly the kind of thing that Rishi Sunak triggered.

理髮業的繁榮正是由 Rishi Sunak 引發的。

Do we know property prices in London, in 1972-3, rose three times?

我們知道倫敦的房地產價格在 1972-3 年間上漲了三倍嗎？

Inflation on extraordinary scale.

超常規模的通貨膨脹。

Thatcher recognized that.

撒切爾認識到了這一點。

Thatcher was taught by Keith Joseph what conservatism was.

基思-約瑟夫曾教導撒切爾什麼是保守主義。

The great discovery, for her, of Hayek, the realization that socialism destroys, that it destroys freedom, that it destroys everything that made the West, and particularly Britain, the pioneer country in all of this, great.

對她來說，哈耶克的偉大發現，就是認識到社會主義會毀滅、會毀滅自由、會毀滅使西方，特別是使所有這一切的先驅國家英國變得偉大的一切。

And the result of that extraordinary revolution of 50 years ago was Margaret Thatcher and the recovery of the genuine conservatism.

50 年前那場非凡革命的結果就是撒切爾夫人和真正保守主義的復甦。

But of course, always with one nation, or as Margaret beautifully described it, no nation conservatives fighting against it.

但當然，總是有一個國家，或者正如瑪格麗特所描述的那樣，沒有一個國家的保守派與之對抗。

So we have been here before.

所以，我們以前來過這裡。

Margaret had to cope with an internal enemy, and I'm sorry I'm using that word.

瑪格麗特不得不面對內心的敵人，很抱歉我用了這個詞。

She was totally unambiguous.

她完全不含糊。

There were those on side and there were those off side.

有在邊上的，也有不在邊上的。

We have to recognize that.

我們必須認識到這一點。

She also recognized, centrally and absolutely, that you have to undo before you can do.

她還集中而絕對地認識到，你必須先撤消，然後才能做。

She repealed trade union legislation.

她廢除了工會法。

She repealed nationalization.

她廢除了國有化。

She opened up public sector housing.

她開放了公共部門的住房。

An incoming Tory government, a real one, will have to do all of those things.

即將上臺的保守黨政府，一個真正的政府，將不得不做所有這些事情。

So what our failure has been is that we've forgotten the lessons of Margaret Thatcher.

是以，我們的失敗在於我們忘記了撒切爾夫人的教訓。

And what I would like to begin by doing, we're engaged essentially at this stage now in the process of the conversion of the party, its members, who I don't think need much conversion, but more particularly in the conversion actually of our MPs.

我首先要做的是，現階段我們基本上是在參與黨、黨員的轉變過程，我認為他們並不需要太多的轉變，但更重要的是我們的國會議員的轉變。

They need to be given Margaret Thatcher's Keith Joseph lecture.

應該給他們上一堂瑪格麗特-撒切爾夫人的基思-約瑟夫課。

It needs to have, because many of them are not very good at reading, it needs actually to have a single series, a simple series of the big statements.

因為許多人不擅長閱讀，所以需要有一個單一的系列，一個簡單的大報表系列。

I'm being deadly serious.

我是認真的。

This needs to be circulated, right.

這需要傳閱，對吧。

Why is it that centrism doesn't work?

為什麼中心主義行不通？

It's very simple.

這很簡單。

Left is wrong and right is right.

左就是錯，右就是對。

This is not a moral statement.

這不是道德聲明。

This is a statement of absolute, observable, testable, historical truth.

這是一個絕對的、可觀察的、可檢驗的歷史真理的陳述。

Socialism always fails.

社會主義總是失敗的。

Always, always fails.

總是，總是失敗。

A sensible, sensibly regulated, intelligently applied free market economics always, always works because it is founded on freedom.

理智的、受到合理監管的、明智應用的自由市場經濟總是、總是行之有效，因為它建立在自由的基礎之上。

The thing that has created the West is freedom.

自由造就了西方。

If you look at the Labour Party's manifesto, there is simply not a single, single reference to that word freedom in it.

如果你看看工黨的宣言，裡面根本沒有一處提到自由這個詞。

Now, why then has the left won again?

現在，為什麼左派又贏了？

Why has Stormer won?

為什麼斯托默贏了？

What happened?

怎麼了？

Well, let's just look at it.

那我們就來看看。

We were told again by Nancy Utter not to blame.

南希-烏特爾再次告訴我們不要責怪。

I'm sorry, I have to.

對不起，我必須這麼做

If we go back to 2005, to Cameron coming to power as leader of the Tory party, there was this notion that we have to move left, that we have to move in the wrong direction.

如果我們追溯到 2005 年，卡梅倫作為保守黨領袖上臺執政時，有一種觀點認為我們必須向左轉，我們必須朝著錯誤的方向前進。

That is exactly what happened.

事實正是如此。

When finally they won, or they didn't win, the coalition came in in 2010, Blair's memoirs were handed round, particularly marked up by Michael Gove with the description, this was the new Machiavelli, this is how we should rule.

當他們最終獲勝，或者說他們沒有獲勝時，2010 年聯合政府上臺，布萊爾的回憶錄被傳閱，尤其是邁克爾-戈夫（Michael Gove）在書中寫道："這是新的馬基雅維利，這就是我們的統治方式。

And the catastrophe begins there, the absolute disaster and the shame, because we vacated the ground that is properly ours.

災難從這裡開始，絕對是災難和恥辱，因為我們騰出了本屬於我們的土地。

What is a Conservative Prime Minister doing?

保守黨首相在做什麼？

I am gay.

我是同志。

What is a Conservative Prime Minister doing when he says his greatest achievement is gay marriage?

保守黨首相說他最大的成就是同志婚姻，他這是在幹什麼？

It is deranged.

這太瘋狂了。

What is Theresa May doing when she says that we will actually legislate a binding commitment to net zero?

特蕾莎-梅說，我們將通過立法作出具有約束力的零淨排放承諾，她這是在做什麼？

What is she doing when she talks about burning racial injustices, when we're the most equal society in the West?

我們是西方最平等的社會，而她卻大談種族不公，她這是在幹什麼？

We equal, of course, once because we had actual equality under the law, something again that we've forgotten.

當然，我們曾經是平等的，因為我們在法律面前是真正平等的，這一點我們又忘記了。

Because what that acceptance of what Blair did is exactly as Mark referred to before, it involved the destruction of what Margaret Thatcher realised was what had held Britain's greatness together, which is a unique system of parliamentary government which guaranteed and something quite extraordinary, a continuation between past and present and future, which took its power not from abstract notions of sovereignty, but from the fact that Parliament holds its sovereignty, is sovereign, because it represents everybody.

因為接受布萊爾的做法就像馬克之前提到的那樣，它涉及到破壞撒切爾夫人所意識到的支撐英國偉大的東西，那就是一種獨特的議會政府制度，它保證了過去、現在和未來之間的延續，這是一種非同尋常的東西，它的權力不是來自於抽象的主權概念，而是來自於議會擁有主權、是主權的事實，因為它代表著每一個人。

This idea going back to the very end, to the very beginning of parliamentary history, to the 13th century, in which the judges would rule to some sort of recalcitrant little bot somewhere in Yorkshire who said, no, I will not pay my taxes.

這種想法可以追溯到議會歷史的最末端、最開始，追溯到13世紀，當時法官會對約克郡某個頑固不化的小機器人作出裁決，這個小機器人說："不，我不交稅。

The judges would say simply, yes, you will, because you're bound by Parliament, as everybody in England is present in Parliament, either in person or by his representative.

法官會簡單地說，是的，你會的，因為你受議會約束，因為在英國，每個人都會親自或由其代表出席議會。

So the first thing we've got to do, and again, Mark referred to this point brilliantly, we've to educate people.

是以，我們要做的第一件事，馬克再次精闢地提到了這一點，就是教育人們。

We've a vast, vast task of educating our MPs and of educating the public.

我們肩負著教育議員和公眾的艱鉅任務。

We've abandoned this.

我們已經放棄了。

We've abandoned the public sphere to the left.

我們把公共領域拋棄給了左翼。

We have to reclaim it.

我們必須奪回它。

We have to reclaim it with clear language, because what has happened with that abandonment of the idea of Parliament at the centre is we have deliberately removed, and Mark, I think, remembered our conversation quite well, but he left out the central point.

我們必須用清晰的語言來重新認識它，因為放棄議會居中的想法所造成的後果是，我們故意刪除了--我想馬克對我們的談話記得很清楚--但他遺漏了中心點。

If you marginalise Parliament in decision-taking, you remove the only body that is directly subject to popular scrutiny.

如果讓議會在決策中邊緣化，就等於取消了唯一一個直接接受民眾監督的機構。

If you have Bank of England setting interest rates, if you have the Supreme Court deciding when Parliament can be dissolved or when it can't, if you had judges determining whether or not we can drill for oil, as the latest extraordinary thing has happened, none of those people are answerable to you.

如果你讓英格蘭銀行決定利率，如果你讓最高法院決定何時可以解散議會，何時不可以，如果你讓法官決定我們是否可以鑽探石油，就像最近發生的非同尋常的事情一樣，這些人都不需要對你負責。

So, the entire process of government becomes remote, alien.

是以，政府的整個運作過程都變得遙遠、陌生。

That is why there was that passionate desire for taking back control with Brexit, but it transpired that Brussels wasn't the person that was tying down the great British people, so supreme in freedom, so supreme in the creativity.

這就是為什麼人們熱衷於通過脫歐收回控制權，但事實證明，布魯塞爾並不是束縛偉大的英國人民的人，他們如此崇尚自由，如此崇尚創造力。

It wasn't Brussels that was tying us down.

束縛我們的不是布魯塞爾。

It wasn't Brussels that was wrapping us in bonds, if you remember, like the Lilliputians with Gulliver.

如果你還記得，不是布魯塞爾把我們捆綁起來，就像小人國的格列佛一樣。

It was the quango.

是 quango。

It was the disgracefully politicised civil service.

這就是可恥的政治化公務員制度。

It was all of that that was doing it, and we did nothing about it.

正是這一切造成了這一局面，而我們卻對此束手無策。

We connived.

我們縱容。

We did not repeal.

我們沒有廢除。

The first thing that a serious, incoming Conservative government has to do, quite simply, is to repeal the whole of the legislation of New Labour, the setting up of the Supreme Court, the incorporation of the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, all have to be repealed, because again, can we get this quite clear?

一個嚴肅的、即將上任的保守黨政府必須做的第一件事，很簡單，就是廢除新工黨的全部立法，設立最高法院、納入《人權法》、《平等法》，所有這些都必須廢除，因為我們能再次明確這一點嗎？

Human rights sounds lovely and cuddly.

人權聽起來可愛又可親。

The left has perverted language.

左派歪曲了語言。

Human rights are not cuddly, because human rights have been perverted.

人權並不可愛，因為人權已被扭曲。

They're now designed to protect minorities against the majority.

現在，它們旨在保護少數人免受多數人的傷害。

Human rights, this is why Churchill would not have approved.

人權，這就是丘吉爾不會同意的原因。

The left constantly says, this is Churchill's creation.

左派經常說，這是丘吉爾的傑作。

Churchill created human rights, mistakenly in my view, or created the idea of the European Convention, to protect the individual against the state.

在我看來，丘吉爾錯誤地創造了人權，或者說創造了《歐洲公約》的理念，以保護個人免受國家的侵害。

If instead you decide that the purpose of human rights is to protect the minority against the majority, you can only do that by an aggressive state that limits the freedom of the individual, as we see catastrophically with the attempted limits on the freedom of speech.

相反，如果你認為人權的目的是保護少數人免受多數人的侵害，那麼你只能通過限制個人自由的侵略性國家來實現這一目的，正如我們在限制言論自由的嘗試中所看到的災難性後果。

That absolutely central thing.

這絕對是核心問題。

We are the creation of freedom of speech.

我們是言論自由的創造者。

This is the only reason that this tiny little island invented virtually the whole of modernity.

這也是這個小島幾乎發明了整個現代性的唯一原因。

It is actually a logically sustainable, historically sustainable statement that we invented modernity.

實際上，"現代性是我們發明的 "這一說法在邏輯上是站得住腳的，在歷史上也是站得住腳的。

So the left, this is where centrism goes wrong.

所以，左派，這就是中間主義出錯的地方。

All left-wing parties have to move to the center, because they've got to disguise themselves with right-wing policies to be elected.

所有左翼政黨都必須向中間靠攏，因為他們必須用右翼政策來偽裝自己，才能當選。

That is exactly what Starmer has done.

斯塔默正是這樣做的。

And isn't it a sign of our disgrace that in our folly we abandon the prisons so they can no longer hold prisoners?

我們愚蠢地放棄了監獄，使它們無法再關押囚犯，這難道不是我們恥辱的表現嗎？

We starve the army in favor of what?

我們讓軍隊捱餓是為了什麼？

In favor of foreign aid so that Labour can now pose as the party of NATO and defense.

支持對外援助，這樣工黨現在就可以冒充北約和國防黨了。

This is the disgrace.

這就是恥辱。

And the moment, of course, the right tries to move to the center and adopts left-wing positions, as we've seen in this election.

當然，就像我們在這次選舉中看到的那樣，右翼試圖向中間靠攏，採取左翼立場。

It is a catastrophe.

這是一場災難。

However, I think there is hope.

不過，我認為還是有希望的。

If my analysis is right, that what we have now is a state in which there's a fairly clear divide.

如果我的分析是正確的，那麼我們現在的狀態就是存在著相當明顯的分歧。

The divide, interestingly enough, which Starmer himself has actually admitted.

有趣的是，斯塔默本人也承認了這種分歧。

Why does Starmer talk so loudly about the public service?

為什麼斯塔默如此高調地談論公共服務？

It is.

就是這樣。

And why does he also talk so loudly and misleadingly about his father being a toolmaker?

為什麼他還大言不慚地誤導人們，說他的父親是一個工具製造商？

It is, quite simply, because the Labour Party has ceased to be the party of the working class.

很簡單，這是因為工黨不再是工人階級的政黨。

It is now the party of a new ruling class.

它現在是新統治階級的政黨。

It's the party of the quangocracy, of the judges, of the civil service, of the public sector trade unions.

它是官僚黨、法官黨、公務員黨、公共部門工會黨。

In other words, when it fails, which it will fail, because left-wing governments always fail, we will see standing exposed the whole of this machinery, the whole of this machinery that hates one thing, ladies and gentlemen.

換句話說，當它失敗的時候（它會失敗的，因為左翼政府總是失敗的），我們會看到整個機器，整個憎恨一件事的機器，暴露在我們面前，女士們，先生們。

It hates the people.

它憎恨人民。

It hates parliament.

它憎恨議會。

It hates democracy for the simple reason it is only the people that have actually proved resistant to the absurd doctrines of woke.

它憎恨民主，原因很簡單，只有人民才真正證明了自己能夠抵制醒悟的荒謬理論。

It is only amongst the people that you will find a clear understanding that women do not have a penis, that chaps do not have a cervix.

只有在人們中間，你才會清楚地認識到，女人沒有陰莖，男人沒有子宮頸。

It is only amongst the people that you will find a clear understanding that once upon a time it was the birthright of an Englishman, and even an Englishwoman, to speak freely.

只有在人民中間，你才能清楚地認識到，曾幾何時，暢所欲言是英國人，甚至是英國女人與生俱來的權利。

And from that freedom arose everything that mattered.

從這種自由中產生了一切重要的東西。

So what I would like us to do, then, is to also recognise, because we all need to recognise our failures, Thatcher failed, too.

是以，我希望我們也能認識到，因為我們都需要認識到自己的失敗，撒切爾也失敗了。

Thatcher failed because you couldn't do everything at once.

撒切爾之所以失敗，是因為你不能同時做所有的事情。

She sorted out the extent to which there had been nationalised industries.

她梳理了國有化工業的程度。

She cut back enormously on trade union rights.

她極大地削減了工會的權利。

She began to open up public sector housing.

她開始開放公共部門的住房。

But she left utterly untouched this entire fabric of state institutions.

但她完全沒有觸動國家機構的整個結構。

She left untouched the NHS.

她沒有觸及國家醫療服務系統。

She left untouched the civil service, the universities, the lot.

她沒有觸及公務員制度、大學和其他領域。

The future of incoming Conservative government has got to recognise that these are the points of attack.

未來即將上臺的保守黨政府必須認識到這些才是攻擊點。

These are the points at which we have the soft underbelly of those opposite, and we've got to recognise again, it's a proud thing to say, conservatism speaks for the people.

我們必須再次承認，保守主義為人民代言是一件值得驕傲的事情。

We need to remember that.

我們必須牢記這一點。

We need to be absolutely clear about that.

我們必須絕對清楚這一點。

I will end with a book, which I think I've been constantly referring to it, which describes so many of the problems we face now, 1984.

最後，我想用一本書來結束我的發言，我一直在提到這本書，它描述了我們現在面臨的許多問題，那就是《1984》。

Those of you who are familiar with 1984 will know who the members of the party are.

熟悉《1984》的人一定知道該黨的成員是誰。

The members of the party are exactly whom you would expect.

黨員們正是你所期待的人。

They are the school teacher, they are the bureaucrat, they are the so-called educated middle class.

他們是學校教師，他們是官僚，他們是所謂受過教育的中產階級。

And outside, there's a great mass of the pros who continue drinking their beer and leading reasonably free lives.

在外面，還有一大群專業人士，他們繼續喝著啤酒，過著還算自由的生活。

They're the people we will depend on.

他們是我們的依靠。

They're the people who voted for reform.

他們是投票支持改革的人。

They're the people that we've got to reincorporate in the party, but on a very different basis from Farage, a basis that recognises the history of the country, that recognises the history of the Conservative party, that recognises the history of Parliament and its ability to incorporate and to bind and to do that most wonderful Burkean thing of binding up the generations of past and present and future.

我們必須將他們重新納入黨內，但要建立在與法拉奇截然不同的基礎上，即承認國家的歷史，承認保守黨的歷史，承認議會的歷史，承認議會有能力將過去、現在和未來的幾代人結合在一起，並對他們進行約束。

The risk is, ladies and gentlemen, we do not want a right as there is on the other side of the channel, a right which is as radical and as destructive and as dangerous as the left.

女士們，先生們，風險在於，我們不希望出現像海峽對岸那樣的右派，一個像左派一樣激進、具有破壞性和危險性的右派。

We are better than that.

我們比那更好。

Never let us forget it.

永遠不要讓我們忘記它。