The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on the Economy – 5 July 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments on the economy, made in an interview on 5th July 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    [Sir John was asked how deep the recession is].

    I think it’s as deep as I can ever remember. If you look at the contraction in the economy which is close to 5% on a year on year basis and then look at the size of the deficit, which is 175 billion or thereabouts on best estimates, about 12% of GDP, that’s a territory we have never before been in in peace-time, so this is about as bad as it has ever got, so I think the recovery pattern, you may get a small dead cat bounce here and there, but I think the recovery pattern will be very slow, and the pace and strength of the recovery may well depend on decisions yet to be taken about public expenditure and tax.

    [Sir John was asked about stories of severe public service cuts].

    I’m unsurprised by that story, I would be very surprised if departments up and down Whitehall and local authorities up and down the country weren’t looking at very significant reductions in expenditure at the current time. It would be remiss of them not to do so.

    I think one just has to look at the figures. If you’re talking of a public sector deficit of 12%, let us make the happy assumption that half of that may be wiped away by growth over the next few years, I think it’s questionable that it will, but on happier assumptions, it just conceivably might. You’ve still got a public sector deficit of around 90 billion, even that is over twice as high as we have ever had before, at the worst of any recession, even assuming we have that growth.

    Either we deal with that with public expenditure reductions or we deal with it in tax rises, or more likely a mixture of both. Let us assume for a moment that the Prime Minister’s plan not to cut public expenditure significantly holds steady. If that is the case, then you are then beyond a shadow of doubt facing very significant tax increases. Now difficult to be precise of how big, but I think we can begin to make a guess.

    [Sir John was asked whether taxes could only be on the rich].

    No, well of course, there’s already been an increase in the upper rate of 10% from 40% to 50%, but the rich can’t remotely provide the sort of money we’ll be needing, that’s relative petty cash of what we’ll be needing.

    So you’ve had an increase of 10p in the upper rate for the rich, I think you may well get 5 pence on the standard rate, you might well get VAT at 20%. Even if you got that, you would not begin to bridge the gap that must be bridged. So it would be significantly larger than that, on the assumption you aren’t going to make public expenditure reductions.

    So I think the debate needs now to concentrate on the reality of where we are, and it doesn’t matter who is in Government now, this mess isn’t going to change with a change of government, someone, whoever is in Government now or later, is going to have to correct the public finances. And if they don’t, if they just continue with the finances of this huge deficit, at some stage our national credit rating would collapse, if that happened, sterling would be in difficulty, if that happened you’re get soaring interest rates and all the good done in the 90s when we took a lot of pain to get inflation down would have been thrown away.

    So the situation we are now in is pretty serious and has been built up over many years. Normally in years when you have a good economic record, you begin to repay debt and you bring the deficit down. What has happened, particularly since 1999, is that even in good years with a boom, the debt has risen. Now of course the boom has gone, we have the debt, and we have the problems of recession, adding to that on a daily basis.

    [Sir John was asked if he spoke to current Conservative leaders].

    My conversations with current Conservatives is private and I have my own views, and I speak for myself and no-one else.

    I think the public really need to understand how deep this is. These silly exchanges about “Mr 10%”, and things of that sort, totally under-rate the difficulties that we are now facing. People need to understand that this is an unprecedented situation. We have never seen anything like this in your lifetime or mine.

    [Sir John was asked about whether politicians can now talk more about tax increases].

    It may well be if you talk about cuts you get punished by the electorate as you did in the past. There are two things crossing over here, there is the question of whether you can talk about cuts and the question of trust. Trust has been eroded over a long period and I think the present Government have done a great deal of damage to trust in Parliament and to trust in Government. But now, the public are going to find out in the next few years exactly how serious what is now happening will be.

    I think the party that tells them the truth, in the most explicit terms, will be the long-term gainer. Whether they will be the immediate short-term gainer in the battle of oratory between now and the General Election I can’t say, but in the medium and long term, the party that tells the public how deep the problem is and what needs to be done about it is the party that will earn the respect of the public and the trust of the public and the party that will be the long-term gainer, in my view.

    I think we have to address the reality, you have a deficit of 180 billion;

    Can you continue with that? No.

    Have you got to narrow it? Yes.

    Can that be done solely by growth? No.

    So how do you bridge the gap, and what are the implications of that?

    And there are some opportunities here. When people think of cuts, I would argue that we are a heavily over-governed nation. When you have subsidy to some parts of the country greater than that is provided in Cuba, you realise you are beginning to become a bit of a nanny state.

    There is an opportunity not just to deal with the problem, but to downside the sum total of Government, which I think we should do. And by downsize the sum total of Government, I don’t just mean reduce the number of MPs, although I think that is right. I do mean reduce the size of the Government machine, we have no need for a 120 Ministers and 60 PPSs, and you could reduce that by a third quite comfortably, and

    I’d happily explain how.

    And then when you’ve done that and down-sized Parliament in that respect, I think you downsize what Government does. You can’t forever have the Government increasing its role at the expense of private endeavour and the private sector. It is a route that ends eventually in national bankruptcy, which is where the Government are heading us.

    So I think there is a philosophical opportunity to reshape the country as you deal with the problem.

    [Sir John was asked whether this was a 1979 moment].

    I very much hope that will be the case, though in many cases the problems now are more serious than 1979. 1979 was very bad, and it was only because of the disaster of the 1970s that the reforms of the 1980s were politically possible.

    I think now, with the problems we’ve got, that there is scope for bigger and more fundamental changes in the next Parliament and beyond.

    [Sir John was asked whether David Cameron was a Margaret Thatcher politician].

    I think he’s a David Cameron politician. No-one can know what someone is like until they’re in the position. And often events make people. And I think he’s going to face some very uncomfortable decisions in the future. I think he’s done a remarkable job of changing the Conservative Party in the right direction for the last two or three years, so I have a very high opinion of him and I very much hope he can do what still needs to be done.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Prince’s Trust Dinner – 29 June 2009

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Prince’s Trust Dinner, held at Mosimann’s on Monday 29th June 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My theme tonight is – change.

    Over the past few months, we’ve lived through economic and political events that have unsettled the previous view we had of the world.

    A new Presidency has revived the perception of America. But Iraq is not yet secure. Iran is in flux. We are not winning the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan is facing an upsurge in militancy. Progress on the MEPP is bedevilled by mistrust between Israel and Palestine.

    Meanwhile the EU is locked in yet another institutional crisis while Russia is hurting economically and, once again, moving away from the West.

    Economy

    The backcloth to all this is the economic firestorm of the last few months: a time in which the unthinkable has become thinkable and the future uncertain.

    No-one can be quite sure where we now are in the economic cycle – but it seems probable that the steep economic decline is over and activity is stabilising at – or near – the bottom of the cycle. Certainly the world economy is not collapsing but no route out of our difficulties is yet apparent.

    Some of the signals are mixed. Exports are rising from a very low baseline. Some business surveys are more positive. Economic data is less bad.

    There are other positive signs. Equity is now being raised in capital markets. The Banks generally – but not universally – are now on a more sound footing. And the ‘fear factor’ – fear of a systemic collapse – has largely gone away. These are all essential components of recovery although over that recovery hovers the potent threat of protection.

    But risks remain. Many financial institutions remain heavily over-borrowed. A lot of toxic debt is still hidden somewhere in Banks, Hedge Funds or Pension Funds. Its emergence would be de-stabilising.

    Government debt is at record highs in many countries. In countries like the UK, this raises the risk of higher taxation or rising interest rates to fund the deficit. This risk increases in the recovery phase when both governments and the Private Sector begin seeking loan funds.

    Amid these mixed signals we can be sure that the economic world we are entering will be different.

    We should be under no illusions. Free trade and market forces look much less attractive to the world than they did six months ago. Millions of people feel let down – have been let down. They have saved, and been prudent, yet their security has been wrecked. The UK again illustrates the point: Jobs, Houses, Pensions – the basis of well-being for individuals – are at risk for far too many people.

    In the foreseeable future, policy makers will need to show that the free market is sound: and that they know how to curb the excesses.

    It is certain that regulation will be tougher – and more restrictive. It is likely investors will be more risk averse. Public sentiment has lost its affection for – as the public sees it – the profit-at-all-costs, high risk, casino capitalism of the recent boom. Managed and less buccaneering capitalism seems more attractive.

    Some underlying fundamentals have not changed. China exemplifies the reality that, for over a decade, the economies of the emerging world have been star performers. Of course, the crisis hit China, too. But the speed and size of China’s fiscal stimulus suggests she is recovering well ahead of the Western economies. Certainly, unlike elsewhere, credit is expanding rapidly.

    Other emerging economies will enjoy growth well ahead of their Western counterparts among them – China, India, Indonesia. Some of the smaller economies – Ukraine, the Baltic States – face more intractable problems but, in the future, we can expect most of the world’s growth to come from the East. We can no longer deny what is evident: there has been a shift of economic power. And this shift is not short-term; it is more likely to accelerate.

    This hasn’t come about because the West became careless – or degenerate: quite the reverse. Not only did the West win the argument for the free market, but Western science put rocket boosters on it.

    The moment Jack Kilby invented the integrated circuit, we were in a new world: nothing in the 20th Century so accelerated change. That circuit was the forerunner of silicon chips. It led to the computer revolution. To the Digital Age. Without them, there would be no Silicon Valley; no Internet; no laptops; no Google; no iPods; no Blackberrys – and no PlayStations.

    Similarly, spin-offs from the space race have given us global communications, satellites and – less happily – missiles to carry nuclear weapons: it is likely there will be further unexpected advances as a fall-out from experiments with the Large Hadron Collider, now due to re commence operations in October.

    Science has not only changed how we live: medical science is changing the quality and length of our lives. A hundred years ago, no-one knew of blood groups, hormones or barbiturates. Since then, the advance of medicine has been bewildering.

    Whole new industries have emerged. Synthetic Biology has brought together science and engineering to design and build biological functions. New technologies are delivering better drugs to combat disease, promote genetic engineering, healthy food, better pesticides, the control and destruction of pollution, and advances in forensic medicine.

    Scientists are examining how to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research in order to target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine – for example – chemotherapy with only minimal side-effects.

    Such science is leading a revolution in medical care: advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for sufferers of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon be possible to replace heart muscle cells. A few years ago, all this would have seemed like Black Magic. Soon, fantasy will become reality, with investment and commercial prospects that are simply staggering.

    Population growth is also effecting change. At the time of Christ, world population was about 350 million. Over the next 19 centuries, it grew by a little over one billion. Now, we are growing at nearly one billion every ten years. Most of this growing population is very poor: 3 billion – nearly one-half the present world population – live on only a handful of dollars a day.

    Here is a cruel irony. As some nations reduce poverty and improve their own living standards, they drive up food prices. This is calamitous for even poorer nations. The arithmetic is simple: if one billion Indians – one-sixth of the entire world population – together with millions of Chinese, Brazilians and Malaysians – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand for food soars. So does the price – provoking fear and panic in poor communities.

    The rich nations promise to help – but many do not live up to their promises. It cannot be right that both Europe and America spend broadly seven times as much on providing subsidised food for those already well-fed as the whole world spends on all the needs of those who often are not fed at all.

    This statistic is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the chance for poor nations to sell their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets. This is hardly free trade.

    Now, factor in future growth. Between now and 2050 it is estimated world population will grow by the equivalent of two more nations the size of China. Most of these 2½ billion people will be very poor. This is not a problem we can ignore.

    Nor is climate change: hard-to-ignore science warns us that the long-term risks are real.

    We had better recognise coal, oil and gas are going to dominate energy supply for decades to come – irrespective of any advances in solar energy, advanced bio-fuels, fusion and other renewables.

    As dioxides rise, scientists warn of global warming of up to five degrees: this sounds small – but isn’t: in the depth of the last ice-age the temperature fall was – five degrees. But – this single figure is utterly misleading: the land warms more than the sea and high altitudes more than low. So the impact of global warming is not uniform. Nor is it localised: innocent non-polluters may suffer – and the guilty may not: no-one can predict where the flood, or hurricane, or drought risks will be. This does not make it easy to persuade the polluters to stop.

    Nor do the time-lags: the main perils of global warming lie far ahead. It takes decades for the oceans to adjust, and centuries for ice-sheets to melt. Yet, for all its scientific uncertainty, climate change is a challenge we cannot, dare not, ignore.

    Politics is changing our world, too.

    Fifty years ago, no-one could have predicted the world of today.

    The Soviet Union and the United States were the two super-powers. China was isolationist. Japan had barely begun her post-war rise. Central and Eastern Europe fell under Soviet control. Germany was still divided. Latin America was a continent of revolutions. The EU was in its infancy. Much of Africa was still colonised. Oil was $3 a barrel and no-one imagined an Islamic Revolution.

    We worry about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Arab-Israel and the stability of the Middle East – but talk of it as though it were one problem – which it is not – and without looking at history in order to understand the roots of conflict.

    We conflate Islam and fundamentalism: and yet fundamentalism is a perversion of Islam, that threatens it as much as us. Bin Laden hates the Saudis even more than he hates the Americans!

    In its diversity, there are tensions between Christian, Muslim and Jew; Arab, Persian, Kurd and Turk; Shia and Sunni; between Monarchies and Republics; Secular and Islamic societies; Monarchies and Republics. Some countries have oil, some not. Some are large, others small.

    The Middle East embraces nations in which references to the Prophet Mohammed, or the Old and New Testaments, are part of everyday conversation. For some – the Salafists – Islam was perfect when founded and cannot be changed or improved.

    It is a cauldron. It is not a liberal democracy.

    Over the centuries we – in Europe – have chosen democracy as our form of government. Others – China, Russia, much of the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa – seem to accept, even welcome, a form of autocratic quasi-democracy, that is more concerned to enhance competition than to use social expenditure to improve what Disraeli called “the Condition of the People”.

    As we go forward, the West will need to take account of this. We cannot – other than by example – presume to impose our own democratic system of government – itself imperfect, despite its longevity – on other nations with their own histories and cultures.

    I have not talked tonight of our own country although, no doubt, many expected me to do so. I did not – because I despair at Government that is reduced to a soap opera and Parliament to irrelevance and disaffection.

    But – if you wish – please ask!

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on the Inquiry into the Iraq War (II) – 18 June 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments on the Inquiry into the Iraq War in an interview with ITN held on Thursday 18th June 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Frankly I find it quite inexplicable, utterly baffling, that anyone could ever have thought than an inquiry of this nature, with the level of public concern, and frankly, the obligation we owe to the families of the servicemen and women who lost their lives and were injured, that anyone could have contemplated that this could be predominantly held in private. It is an extraordinary belief that it could have been that way.

  • Sir John Major’s Statement on the Inquiry into the Iraq War – 18 June 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s statement on the Inquiry into the Iraq War, issued on Thursday 18th June 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    INQUIRY INTO THE IRAQ WAR

    The Government’s decision to hold the Inquiry into the Iraq War in private is inexplicable – not least in its own interests. Any material which puts our national security at risk must, of course, be withheld but if, as the Government proclaims, its position will be wholly vindicated, then it should welcome maximum publicity on all other disclosures. It should also engender confidence in its findings by taking evidence under oath. Only then can witnesses be bound to offer full and frank responses.

    The arrangements currently proposed run the risk of being viewed sceptically by some, and denounced as a whitewash by others. I am astonished the Government cannot understand this.

    There are other, wider reasons for a Public Inquiry:

    – To settle – once and for all – the continuing debate upon whether the war was legal, or not.

    – To explain how, and why, we went to war on a false premise, with the public apparently being misled on the cause of the war, and the missile capability of Saddam’s Iraq.

    – Last – but by no means least – the Government needs to provide some kind of closure for the families and friends of those who have perished, or been maimed, in pursuit of this policy.

    If the Government is seen to obfuscate on this issue, lingering doubts will always remain. It is imperative that, when next any British Government commits our armed forces to war, that Government’s word is trusted beyond doubt. For this reason, and for the sake of all those who have either risked, or given, their lives in Iraq, nothing but an Inquiry with full disclosure – under oath – will do.

    THE RT HON SIR JOHN MAJOR, KG, CH
    18th June, 2009

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Carlton Club Political Committee Dinner – 16 June 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Carlton Club Political Committee Dinner, held at the Carlton Club in London on Tuesday 16th June 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    When Tim Eggar invited me to join you this evening, I didn’t realise I would be doing so at such a surreal moment.

    Just over a week ago, we had a Cabinet reshuffle beyond parody, with an outcome beyond belief.

    Before it began, Ministers were queuing to leave the Government rather than join it. When it was complete, the Prime Minister had himself been reshuffled. The Prime Minister’s allies told us we could not have another unelected Prime Minister in this Parliament. But now we have – doubly unelected since he’s in the Lords. He may not have the title Prime Minister but, if not, it’s the only one he doesn’t have.

    If newspaper reports are to be believed, a tired and fractious Gordon Brown was sent to bed on Thursday evening, whilst the new First Minister set about finalising the Ministerial changes. Presumably the next morning, Gordon was informed he had:-

    A Chancellor of the Exchequer he tried to sack;

    A Foreign Secretary he didn’t want to keep; and

    A brand new Cabinet appointment: former social worker Tessa Jowell, whose responsibility seems to be “Caring for Gordon”. She is No. 10’s own Supernanny.

    Poor Gordon. No more late nights. No more early mornings. No more playing with the computer after lights out. No more YouTube. No more voting for TV talent shows. No more throwing things around the room. And if there’s one more tantrum – Gordon will be sent straight to the Naughty Step.

    I told you it was beyond parody. Unfortunately, with things as they are, it is not beyond belief.

    Nor is Gordon’s capacity to undermine the Office of Prime Minister. Given everything else that should be occupying his mind at the moment, is it really a good use of his time to make telephone calls checking on the progress of a talent show singer? Frankly, I’d be more impressed if he’d taken time out to check on the progress of our limbless soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    At the moment there’s a general assumption that the Conservatives will win the next election. Certainly, Labour can’t. Nor can the Lib Dems.

    But we can’t yet be confident we will get a clear majority. Winning the General Election is still unfinished business.

    When we lost – in 1997 – we had been in Government for 18 years: so long, many electors thought a fifth successive win would be bad for democracy.

    But it is ironic that the electorate turfed out the only Government in the last 50 years to leave Office with every single economic indicator improving, and elected a Party that has nearly bankrupted the Nation.

    When the economic crisis began, Gordon Brown blamed America. He stopped when Barack Obama became President. After all – it’s difficult to kick ass when you’re licking boots. So now the Prime Minister refers to the global crisis. Of course there is an international dimension, but to blame others for our mess is, at best, a half-truth. It’s a very New Labour response: political self-interest comes first. National well being trails far behind. And the unvarnished truth scarcely gets a look-in.

    The truth is starker. Even if there had been no international crisis:

    – We would still be in recession.
    – Our national and personal debt levels would still be at record highs.
    – Our banking system would still have been poorly regulated.
    – Our pension system would still have been wrecked.
    – Our education system would still need reform.
    – Our health system would still be unable to cope.
    – And our prison system would still be overflowing with prisoners who need not be there, whilst others who should be there are being released early.

    None of that can be blamed on America.

    At the wrong end of these policy failures – are innocent individuals.

    Everyone has three pillars to their security: job; pension; home. After twelve years of Labour, none of them is secure. In time, property values will recover. But, for many, the other pillars will not recover in time to help them.

    Unemployment is rising rapidly: anyone over 40 will find it hard to get another job at a comparable income. The impact on domestic life is immense.

    For those coming up to retirement, the future is bleak:

    Pensions based on the level of retirement income are dead – Gordon Brown killed them with a tax levy; and

    Pensions based on investment value have collapsed – destroyed because Gordon Brown ignored the growth of debt.

    Millions paid into a UK pension fund for nearly 40 years: now they are finding the lump sum due to them is down by one-third, with the yearly annuity down by 40%. That is not a one-year loss: it’s a loss for the rest of their lives.

    Nor can they sell their houses to make a capital gain: the collapse in property prices has closed that option.

    Savers suffer too: with interest rates at record low levels, their savings no longer earn any income.

    These are Labour’s victims: all innocent bystanders. So are the secondary victims. Many retirees help their adult children become home-owners; or pay for the education of their grandchildren. In future, fewer will be able to do so. Children and grandchildren lose out.
    Labour caused this. No-one else: they cannot put it right. No one asks the mugger to set the broken bones.

    But a Conservative Party can do so – provided we put the individual in the forefront of our policy – and our oratory.
    Labour inherited a flourishing economy: like every Labour Government before then. They will be leaving a train wreck – worse, even, than 1979. Taxpayers will be repaying Labour’s debts for the next two decades.

    Because – be in no doubt: we are not simply facing a short-term crisis. What has occurred will affect politics for years. Labour’s legacy won’t disappear with a change of Government. It can’t be glossed over or pushed aside: ahead lie decisions as serious as any taken – during peace-time – in living memory.

    We should say that: this country is crying out for someone to speak to it directly and honestly; to tell them what has happened and why; and what now must be done. With wise policy, this can be an opportunity. Out of such crises often come great changes. That is the task for David Cameron. Necessity compels us to cut our cloth according to our means. We can do that in one of two ways.

    We could simply top slice budgets, with everyone bearing an equal share of the pain. That is easy to do but – a mistake.

    Or we could prioritise. We could re-shape Government, reduce it in size, be selective about what Government does, cut out whole functions, abolish unnecessary bodies, cut quangos, end the billions wasted on consultancies, on rebranding, and on fake schemes that serve only as political window-dressing. This needs doing – and the crisis presents that opportunity.

    The screams of outrage would be shrill, but we should not shrink from a truth the public recognise: we cannot go on living in a financial never-never land.

    And there is a philosophical point here that is critical to our future.

    Of course, we must be compassionate. Heartless politics is divisive. To many, it can be frightening. But compassionate policies do not necessarily mean big government. We are over-governed. Smaller government is necessary now for financial reasons: but it is also desirable. Tories should not be defensive about it. Our aim should always be to extend liberty and choice – not to restrict it or bind it in smothering regulation.

    We should not accept that big is better. Big government restrains and confines; it weakens ambition; it cuts back on opportunity and it undermines enterprise. Often, it is anti-libertarian. For many people – unfamiliar with government and perhaps unsophisticated about it – it induces wariness, even fear, of The Man in Whitehall. “They” – Whitehall and politicians – “know best”; “are in charge”; “must be obeyed and not challenged”: this is appalling – “they” are our servants, not our masters in a free society.

    Labour’s old scare tactic – that we will cut public spending and they won’t – is back again. But that’s not the difference between us: the difference is we’re telling the Country the truth – and they are not.

    We must spend within our means or face widespread tax increases – milking the rich will not raise enough. Unless spending is concentrated on what is essential, everyone will be milked. And if we put up taxes to pay for more and more spending, we will entrench high unemployment too – because we will have crushed investment and savings. That is a message we must get across.

    None of this will be comfortable, but it’s essential Government becomes a serious business once again – and not the soap opera it has become. And it’s essential the public are told the truth – and not the puerile easy-to-spot lies with which Labour now insult our intelligence.

    In an attempt to regain the political initiative we can expect some ill-thought-out policies. One might be electing all (or most of) the House of Lords. The argument is that election confers legitimacy: true – but, sadly, it doesn’t confer talent or wisdom or experience or knowledge.

    An elected Lords would be a pale shadow of the Commons but, being elected, would challenge it. It would give more political clout to the Whips and less brain-power to the scrutiny of legislation. The plain truth is that electing the Lords is a populist gesture that would seriously weaken the way Parliament works.

    Out would go Field-Marshals, Cabinet Secretaries, former senior Ministers, Captains of Industry, Church Leaders and Academics.

    Out would go men and women of proven ability and achievement.

    In would come a new would-be professional political class who couldn’t get elected to the Commons.

    It would be a poor bargain for good government: akin to polluting vintage port with tap water. But very New Labour.

    Over twelve years, New Labour have debased Parliament; taken us to war on a false premise; embellished that error by linking Iraq to the 9/11 attack on New York for which there is not a thread of evidence; affronted civil liberties in an over-reaction to the terrorist threat; and made a mockery of the criminal justice system.

    In our country we have always valued personal privacy: it’s why we cherish the secret ballot and the right to silence. In cliché terms, an Englishman’s home has always been his castle. No longer. New Labour have ushered in what the Information Commissioner calls “a surveillance society”. In the atmosphere of fear-mongering, all this has passed relatively unchallenged. It is time it was.

    Nor is there a case for the National Identity Register to hold the DNA of innocent people never charged with an offence. And it cannot be acceptable that our homes or cars can be bugged, our letters and emails intercepted and opened – without the sanction of the High Court. All this is legal under legislation introduced by Labour and passed by its supine backbenchers.

    For too long we have been drifting with our eyes closed towards a siege society with too much of our nation becoming clients of Government spending or Government contracts or Government subsidy. This is alien to our instincts and our history and our national self-interest.

    Change is essential or decline is certain.

    The poet Philip Larkin once wrote: “Most things are not meant.” Labour did not mean to damage our national wellbeing, but they have. They did not mean to damage our personal liberty, but they have. Larkin was right: “Most things are not meant”, but his poem was even more prescient. It is entitled: “Going, Going”. Let us hope it is not long before they are gone.

  • Sir John Major’s Article on Gordon Brown – 7 May 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on Gordon Brown, published in the Daily Telegraph on 7th May 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    In recent days, there have been many comparisons drawn between the present plight of the Labour Government and the final months of its Conservative predecessor. Similarities there may be – but the differences are striking.

    The Conservatives were in their 18th year of government: Labour is in its 12th. The Conservatives had no majority, and were at the mercy of a handful of rebels: Labour still enjoys a large majority. Conservative divisions were over policy – notably Europe – in which the dissenters believed they must prevail for the national interest: Labour has no such excuse. And – crucially – the Tory economy was well on track to full vigour: Labour’s is in the mire.

    In the mid-1990s, I was acutely aware the Tories were likely to lose the election. Indeed, on the morrow of the 1992 election victory, Chris Patten and I speculated on the unlikelihood of a fifth win: it was, we thought, stretching the democratic elastic just too far.

    Throughout the 1992-97 parliament, we tried to do what we believed was right for the country, although much of our programme was controversial – especially in our own party. We persevered with policies we believed would curb inflation and bring long-term economic benefit. So they did, but at the expense of our electoral prospects.

    Labour, by contrast, has retreated to tactics I believe they will live to regret. Too often, in the face of public hostility, they cite the last Conservative government as a precedent, the not-so-subliminal message being: “They’re worse than us.”

    It is not convincing. Take the roasting they received for mishandling the Gurkhas: Labour’s defence was that the Conservative government “had never done anything about it”. Nor had earlier Labour governments, and for the same reason: it had not been an issue. And if it had been an issue, why was there not a peep from Labour about it in the 1990s? Opposition days in Parliament are not a New Labour invention.

    After 12 years in office, excuses such as this are bordering on the desperate.

    Why do they do it? Habit, of course, for fact has never got in the way of New Labour fiction – it has been in their DNA since the mid-1990s.

    But now it seems they have lost all touch with reality: in their minds, what they say is truth, even if the facts don’t support it. Such delusion is dangerous – especially for a government.

    And it is continual. Since the Prime Minister can no longer defend Labour policies, he attacks a fictional Tory past at almost every Prime Minister’s Questions. To Mr Brown, the Tories are the enemy, therefore any criticism – however wrong or distorted – is permissible. Let us take one of his familiar attacks on David Cameron, flawed from beginning to end. According to Mr Brown, Mr Cameron was adviser to Norman Lamont when he raised interest rates to 15 per cent, and created three million unemployed. This is ludicrous. The belief that a 26-year-old political adviser would have been responsible for a Conservative government’s economic policies is fanciful. And – in any event – how does Mr Brown know what advice Mr Cameron offered his minister? He may well have advised against the government’s policies and been over-ruled.

    But Mr Brown doesn’t care: he simply wants to smear Mr Cameron for events over which he knows he had no control. The premise of his argument is also incorrect: interest rates were not raised to 15 per cent by Norman Lamont in the 1990s, but by Nigel Lawson in the 1980s.

    As chancellor, Norman reduced them from 14 per cent to 6 per cent.

    The Prime Minister is wrong about unemployment, too. First, a pedantic point: it did not reach three million under the Conservative government, but peaked well below. Furthermore, it was rising sharply long before Norman Lamont became chancellor, and David Cameron his adviser. Mr Brown knows all this, yet persists with charges that are fundamentally unworthy.

    And he is not alone. Other ministers continue to claim that Labour inherited three million unemployed whereas, in 1997, the claimant count was 1.6 million and falling rapidly.

    But Labour has not won three elections by allowing truth to get in the way of a good smear. The uncomfortable reality for Labour is that, however unpopular the last Conservative administration may have been, it was the only government in the last 50 years to leave office with every single economic indicator improving.

    In 1996-7, the economy had been growing for five years, and borrowing – now the nation’s nemesis – was £22 billion (although one of Labour’s “recalculations” upped it to £35 billion).

    Even so, the estimate for the current year is a staggering £175 billion. Similarly, total debt has doubled, and the taxpayer will be funding Labour’s debt mountain for many years to come.

    That the Conservatives bequeathed such a buoyant economy is not a truth universally acknowledged, for – in order to claim credit for the economy – Labour has peddled “disinformation” about its inheritance from the day it took office. The truth – apparent to independent economists – is that the years of prosperity under Labour were based on Conservative supply side changes (in the 1980s) and Tory destruction of inflation (in the 1990s).

    Did Labour build on that legacy? No. Instead, they squandered it, and will leave the country near bankrupt as a result. This slide from riches to rags inspires another Labour deception: that our present woes are entirely due to the financial crisis that began in America. Of course, there is an international dimension, but Labour’s alibi is – at best – a half-truth. Even if there had been no international crisis, the UK would still be in recession; our debts would still be at record levels; our pension system would still be wrecked; our education system would still need reform; our health system would still be unable to cope; and our prison system would still be overflowing with inmates who should not be there, while others who should are being released early.

    The Prime Minister hopes to win the next election but, in his heart, he must recognise his party is likely to lose. I offer him one piece of genuinely well-meant advice: fight the next election on policies, not personalities; on fact, not fiction; on substance, not spin. The people of this country deserve such a campaign, so that they can make an informed choice.

    It may not win Labour the next election, but Gordon Brown will leave office a more contented man.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 14 December 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 14th December 2008.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now then, a falling housing market, rising job losses, the pound plummeting, high borrowing. Well life goes on after that, even political life, as the former Prime Minister John Major can witness. But he’s described the current Prime Minister Gordon Brown as having “as much financial blood on his hands as any banker”.

    Well Sir John Major is here now. Welcome, Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Good morning.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s start with the sort of parallel, with the early 90s before your General Election victory, when in many respects things were the same: we had negative equity, we had all sorts of problems in the economy, and as Prime Minister, you were seeing job losses, more announcements of factory closures coming across your desk day after day. What’s it like to be in that position?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s pretty awful. I mean I became Prime Minister at a time when a recession was certain: interest rates were 14%, unemployment was rising very rapidly, and the economy was heading clearly for a recession. And it is very painful, and anyone who believes people don’t suffer from that – by people I don’t just mean the people in the country who lose jobs and lose security – but anyone who believes those who are in government don’t suffer as a result of that are quite wrong. It was extremely painful and even now I remember the difficulties that one felt and the helplessness sometimes one felt. But it was a very different form of recession from this one. The recession in the early 90s was once again an inflationary recession.

    For 40 years we’d had inflation bedevilling the British economy and we needed to get inflation down, so it wasn’t open to us to spend a lot of money, to spend our way out of it because it would have just put inflation back up and so we looked particularly heartless sitting there. But I look back and I can tell you why we did it, exactly why I did it. As a boy, I remembered what it was like when the week lasts longer than the money. And that is what happens when you have a recession: the week lasts longer than the money.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And it’s happening to a lot of people just now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it had happened repeatedly between 1950 and 1990 and I was determined then to stop it. So we looked very heartless, we paid a very heavy political price for it, but we did kill inflation for a very long time and the British economy subsequently benefited. But today we have very different circumstances. We have two things in fact: we have what I suppose, without wishing to downgrade it, is a communal garden recession. And on top of that, we have a credit crunch, and the two things have interleaved to make it very complex.

    The Government concentrate on the credit crunch and blame the international community, whereas in fact the domestic recession is entirely as a result of domestic policy.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Because there’s been too much borrowing?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Because there’s been too much borrowing. If you look, we’ve had 15 years of growth now, 15 years of very strong growth. It didn’t start with the Labour Party; they inherited it.

    As Derek Scott, Tony Blair’s adviser said, “Gordon Brown inherited the best economy of any Chancellor in living memory”, and so he did.

    And they’ve squandered it. They have spent and spent and spent.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well except that I mean it could be said that the Conservatives in your day went through a big, long boom, very strong economy, and then it turned to bust. Now it’s happened again.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Isn’t that just a kind of natural part of the cycle?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it ought not to be. It usually follows policy mistakes. I don’t think anyone denies that there was too much of a boom in the late 80s and we paid the price in the 90s. What has happened here…

    ANDREW MARR:

    And then another kind of boom in the 20s.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    What has happened here is continual expenditure above and beyond that which we can afford. We should have been repaying debt. We’ve been adding to it. The Government say they’ve repaid debt, but the only time they did that was when they were following our spending plans in 1998 and 1999.

    Since then, they’ve built up debt. We now have, well we now pay – here’s a horrifying thought – we now pay every day £262 million in interest alone on the debt, and the debt is set to double over the next few years. It’s a frightening scenario.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And what do you think, as an old-fashioned guy, of a government that is saying to people we must go out there and spend more to get ourselves…

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it’s curious.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I mean I’m talking about personal debt.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I think personal debt’s very high. I mean personal indebtedness has risen by 70%, after you discount inflation, in the last 10 years. We have the highest level of personal debt in Europe. We have the highest level of government debt in our history. It’s set to double and the cost is going to be absolutely horrendous. I think that is wholly wrong.

    You’ve seen over years these very distasteful television advertisements – at least I find them distasteful – where you say people are asked to consider are they in debt? Yes. Would they like to roll it up and reduce their outgoings? Well of course they do, but at a higher rate of interest and for a longer period. And it builds up indebtedness and

    ANDREW MARR:

    So?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    So? This is economically disastrous.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So how bad do you think things are going to get? I mean you know we think about Japan, we think about deflation, we think about possibly quite a long period of depression.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it isn’t depression, it isn’t 1929 to 33. I mean in 29 to 33, you had a national income in America fall by over 50%, you had unemployment go up from 3% to 25%. We’re not in that ballpark.

    The depression oratory has been used to justify some areas of expenditure – unjustifiably so in my case – so it’s not, it’s not a depression.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you think ministers are scaring people too much?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think they are. I think they’re overcooking it because they’re concerned and they wish to justify the amount of debt they’re getting us into. I think that is a mistake for a raft of reasons. I don’t downplay the seriousness of this.

    I think this is the worst situation we have had since the Second World War, and after 12 years of Labour government we now have a level of national debt that is the same as we had after 6 years of world war. That is the scale of the indebtedness and the problem we’re in.

    ANDREW MARR:

    We’re going to see unemployment rising, sadly, very sharply?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I’m very sniffy about the unemployment figures. The claimant count is said to be 1.84 million, rising to 2 million, and most people think it will hit 3 and above, which is dreadful. It’s happened before. We got very close to that in the early 90s and it is awful for everyone concerned. But in fact the situation may be worse than that.

    We have a total of 5 million people on out of work benefits of one sort or another. Nearly 2 million show as unemployed. But there’s another million at least on invalidity benefit whom the Government themselves say could and should be working. So the unemployment figures are actually far worse than they immediately appear, and I fear we’re going to have an avalanche of job losses in the first three or four months of next year.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And yet in all of this, the Labour Party’s opinion poll rating has improved; Gordon Brown’s personal rating has improved; and your party has perhaps been easy to caricature as a party which simply says, “We don’t have a response to this”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well there are.

    ANDREW MARR:

    At least Gordon Brown is saying something.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well there are some ironies here, aren’t there? If the burglar has ransacked your house, you don’t normally invite him back to fix the security locks. The concept that Gordon Brown, who’s been Chancellor for 10 years and Prime Minister for one and presided over this train wreck, is the person to put right what he’s got wrong strikes me as being ironic, to say the least.

    As far as what ought to be done, it’s very easy to give an impression of action. The question is is the action wise? Now I don’t think most of the Government’s actions are wise. Recapitalising the banks – I agree with that. I think it was inevitable, I think it was right to do it. I congratulate the Government on doing that. That was fine.

    But I think since then, they’ve got their policy badly wrong. The reduction in VAT, you might as well have burnt the money and thrown it away, frankly. I don’t think it’ll do anything that is credible at all. There are two things that we need to address: firstly the credit crunch; and, secondly, the recession, if I might draw that distinction. On the credit crunch, we need to get credit moving. David Cameron’s proposed a National Guaranteed Loan Scheme. Now it is a very big scheme and I think it is exactly the right way to go.

    If we can guarantee the credit, then the banks will lend. I think one thing David might wish to look at in future is incorporating housing within that scheme, so that the banks and the building societies might safely advance say 75% of a £150,000 loan and have that guaranteed as well. I think that would help the housing market.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you’d help the housing market.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    And I think the other thing we might look at beyond that which has already been proposed – and I think David Cameron’s plans to freeze council tax, that sort of thing, I absolutely support them – the other thing I think we may have to look at in the future is the position of savers.
    They are being appallingly treated at the moment. There are millions of people who have saved for their security to supplement their pension in retirement. And what has now happened – those who have been prudent and saved for their retirement are now finding the amount they’re earning in interest on their savings has dropped dramatically because we’re in economic difficulties.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But sorting that out would be hugely expensive, wouldn’t it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No it wouldn’t, no it wouldn’t. What I would suggest we do is exempt from tax the first £5,000 worth of savings income each year. That would help those people who’ve seen interest rates drop in their lifetimes preparedness for retirement. I think that would be a help and I think it’s also socially just. At the moment policy helps the imprudent, but it penalises the prudent. I don’t think that’s either socially just or economically wise.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If you’re against the fiscal stimulus, as it’s been called, aren’t you and your party also saying that President-elect Obama is 100% wrong, that the European Community is wrong, that everybody else is wrong?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    That’s the Labour argument. You’re quite right, that’s the argument that’s being put to us, so let me actually address it. Everybody else, America is a case in point. The dollar is a different proposition from sterling. America is a case in point. Beyond that, there are many very good authorities pointing out that you can only put in a fiscal stimulus if you have the right strength of reserves in order to do so. We don’t. We have spent it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So we’re in a different position?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We’re in a wholly different position. But let me run forward 3 years. If we continue borrowing like this, the world will be coming out of recession. We will have a huge amount of borrowing which will force up interest rates.

    In 3 years time, as the world comes out of recession, in the United Kingdom we’ll have higher interest rates, we’ll have higher national insurance contributions because the Government have already implemented that, and we’ll have higher taxes. Are we going to come out of the recession with everybody else, with higher interest rates, higher taxes and higher national insurance contributions? I think not. What the Government are doing now with this appearance of action, often misplaced action, is ensuring that our recession is longer and deeper than anybody else’s.

    ANDREW MARR:

    All that being the case, isn’t it astonishing that they’ve become more popular, not less? And isn’t it also clear, I think a senior Conservative said David Cameron and George Osborne haven’t had a good war.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there are two reasons why that’s happened.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you’d accept it as an analysis?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Not entirely, no, because I think you have a good war if you win in the end; not if you win the first skirmish. And I think there’s always a tendency to grab hold of nurse for fear of something worse. Uncertainty always drives people back to the Government. But I think as they analyse what has happened, I think they will see that the Government are leading them into a deeper problem, not leading them out of the problem. And the analogy I gave of the problems we’ll have in 3 years time is a case in point. The biggest idea actually that has yet emerged after the recapitalisation of the banks is the National Loan Guarantee Scheme and I think people need to understand what that means.

    ANDREW MARR:

    OK.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It will get the lifeblood of industry flowing to industry.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Would you like to see… Sorry, we’re running out of time. Would you like to see Ken Clarke coming back? There have been a lot of rumblings about that. Michael Portillo in the papers today is talking about that.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not going to pick David Cameron’s Shadow Cabinet. I had long enough picking my own. I know the difficulties with that. I’m certainly not going to touch that. He’s a very able man, he’s certainly there to help and be very supportive, but I’m not joining this general clamour for change.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You’ve been in the world of international finance and so on really for the past 10 years one way or another. When did you start to see that something badly was going wrong on the banking side? Was there a sort of moment of revelation?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, there wasn’t a single moment of revelation. It’s simply the general aggregation of debt. There has been a belief that the economic cycle had been abolished, we have finished with boom and bust. Well fooey! We’ve certainly finished with boom and we’ve got a huge, great bust.
    And when you see debt piling up year after year, just as with an individual – if you, if you and your family piled up debt year after year after year, there would come a reckoning, you would have to pay it back. And that is what Gordon Brown and the Government have done.

    They have piled up debt and now is the reckoning. Let us not pretend that it is all external factors. External factors are creating the credit crunch. External factors emphatically did not create the domestic train wreck and recession that we now have. That was domestic policy and it has been building up for some years.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John Major, for now thank you very much indeed.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Cambridge University Leadership Forum – 22 September 2008

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Cambridge University Leadership Forum, held at Addenbrooke’s Hospital on Monday 22nd September 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:
    In life, change is relentless – and usually irreversible.
    That is certainly true of most economic changes over recent decades: not all of them comfortable to our Western prejudices. Here is an irony: first, the West won the philosophical argument for capitalism and free markets: then, many of those whose ideology was lost have ended up benefiting more from free trade than the West.
    In the Industrial Revolution, it took Britain and America fifty years to double the income per head of their population: China has done so in ten, and others are set to do the same.
    Today – for the first time since 1820 – most of the world’s growth comes from the East. As growth in the Western democracies nears technical recession, much of the rest of the world will continue to grow at between 4-6%, both this year and next. There are no obvious signs that this gap in relative performance will narrow – at least for a long time.
    Nor can we comfort ourselves this is simply a phenomenon based on low-cost manufacturing, the demand for raw materials and the capture of a few niche markets. It is far more substantial, not least because technology now enables the export of professional services – tax, accounting, legal services financial analysis, knowledge-based advice – that once seemed the prerogative of the high-cost economies. As an educated middle-class grows in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, such exports will grow. Something fundamental has changed with globalisation and – more rapidly than we imagined – we are now in a more competitive world than was ever anticipated.
    This hasn’t happened because the West became careless – or degenerate – quite the reverse. Not only did the West win the argument for the free market, but Western science put rocket boosters on it.
    The moment in 1958 that Jack Kilby invented the integrated circuit – the semi conductor chip – we were in a new world: nothing in the 20th Century has so accelerated change. That circuit was the forerunner of silicon chips. It led to the computer revolution. To the Digital Age. Without them, there would be no Internet; no Google; no – well, the list is endless.
    Similarly, spin-offs from the space race have given us global communications, satellites and – less happily – missiles to carry nuclear weapons. The revolution continues – still powered by the West: it is more likely than not that there will be further unexpected advances as a fall-out from CERN’s remarkable experiments with the Large Hadron Collider. Media fears of a “Black Hole” that would devour us all have evaporated – unless, of course, that is where some of our banks have disappeared to in recent days!
    But science has not only changed how we live: medical science is changing the quality and length of our lives. A hundred years ago, no-one knew of blood groups, hormones or barbiturates. Since then, the impact of medical advance has been bewildering.
    Synthetic Biology has brought science and engineering together to design and build biological functions. New technologies are delivering new and better drugs to combat disease, promoting genetic engineering, healthy food, better pesticides, the control and destruction of pollution, and advances in forensic medicine.
    Scientists are examining how to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research to target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine – for example – chemotherapy with only minimal side-effects.
    A handful of commercial applications are apparent already: nano technology has revolutionised aspects of dentistry, dressings for burns, better sun screen protection. As a layman, it seems to be unbelievably complex: once I learned that one human hair is 80,000 nanometres wide, I realised this was a subject with a potential that is almost impossible to circumscribe.
    Nano – and bio technology are changing our lives: advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for those suffering from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon be possible to replace heart muscle cells. These are developments undreamed of until recently.
    As science powers ahead there are two consequences we Westerners would be wise to acknowledge.
    First, the large financial resources of the developing world enable others – notably the oil wealthy – to exploit blue-skies research: the Gulf, for example, is about to pour billions into the research and development of bio and nano-technology. And – more fundamentally – scientists expect their colleagues in the East to gain parity of science with the West within three decades.
    So – economics has changed – science is changing – and so too, is politics.
    Fifty years ago, no-one could have predicted the present social or geo-political landscape.
    The Soviet Union and the United States were the two super-powers. China was isolationist and something of an enigma. Japan had barely begun her post-war rise. Central and Eastern Europe fell under Soviet control. Germany was still divided. Latin America was a continent of revolutions. The EU was in its infancy. Much of Africa was still colonised. Oil was $3 a barrel and no-one imagined an Islamic Revolution.
    Nor did we focus on two socio-political problems that are affecting our world, now and in the future, but which – because of their slow impact – can too easily be relegated to second-order importance: population growth and climate change.
    I know that many regard these issues as marginal: a playground for the liberal thinker; easy to put aside. I don’t agree: if we continue to ignore their impact, we will leave a legacy to future generations for which they would be right to condemn us.
    NATIONAL RESOURCES AND POPULATIONS
    In the last fifty years, the population of our world has grown from less than 3 billion to over 6.5 billion. Most of this population increase is very poor.
    It is hard to imagine the disparity between their life and that of someone in our own society – even if that someone were on the lowest levels of social support. Their lifestyle is lamentable: 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day.
    Here is a cruel irony. As some nations grow and improve their own living standards, they drive up food prices to the further detriment of even poorer nations. The arithmetic is not complicated: if one billion Indians – one-sixth of the entire world population – together with millions of Chinese, Brazilians and Malaysians – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand for food soars.
    That puts up prices – provoking panic and moving the politics of food to the front burner of controversy. The days of cheap food are gone.
    The rich nations do much to help – and have pledged to do more, although many nations have not lived up to their promises. It cannot be right that both Europe and America spend broadly seven times as much on agricultural subsidies alone as the whole world donates to help the poor. Consider that: seven times as much on providing subsidised food for those already well-fed as the whole world spends on all the needs of those who often are not fed at all.
    This statistic is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the chance for poor nations to sell their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets.
    Now, factor in future growth. Between now and 2050 it is estimated world population will grow to 8 or even 9 billion. This is the equivalent of absorbing two more nations the size of China.
    The implications for every human are staggering. At its most basic, let us recognise that the world will need all the food we can grow – even if Australian harvests recover from a ten-year drought, and Ukraine and Zimbabwe once again become the agricultural producers nature designed them to be. If Europe were brave enough to reform its agricultural policies, it would be a truly wonderful signal to the world.
    CLIMATE CHANGE
    Many opinion formers see climate change as an optional policy, too – but I can’t agree: hard-to-ignore science warns us that the long-term risks are real. Anyone who visits China regularly would be likely to agree: last year, China built 100 coal-fired power stations and her sky is hidden behind a fog of pollution. In some cities – simply breathing is a struggle.
    Coal, oil and gas are going to dominate energy supply for decades to come – irrespective of any advances in solar energy, advanced bio-fuels, fusion and other renewables.
    Since this is so, the first priority must be to develop carbon capture and storage before it leaks into the atmosphere. And then we need to store it where it is safe – probably for centuries.
    As dioxides rise, scientists warn of global warming of up to five degrees: this sounds small – but isn’t: in the depth of the last ice-age the temperature fall was – five degrees. However, a single figure is utterly misleading: the land warms more than the sea and high latitudes more than low. So the impact of global warming is not uniform. Nor is it localised: innocent non-polluters may suffer – and the guilty may not.
    There is much we don’t know. Climate scientists are not able to predict where the flood, or hurricane, or drought risks will be, which does not make it easy to persuade the polluters to stop.
    Nor do the time-lags: the main downsides of global warming lie a century ahead. It takes decades for the oceans to adjust, and centuries for ice-sheets to melt. For all its uncertainty, climate change is a challenge we should not, dare not, ignore.
    POLITICS
    Politics offers too many challenges – and changes – to examine this evening. But let me say a broad word about future foreign policy.
    We worry about Iraq, Iran, Arab-Israel and the stability of the Middle East – but often, it seems we let these concerns get in the way of credible policy.
    We talk sometimes of the Middle East as though it were one problem – which it is not – and without looking at history in order to understand the roots of conflict.
    In its diversity, there are tensions between Christian, Muslim and Jew; Arab, Persian, Kurd and Turk; Shia and Sunni; between Monarchies and Republics; Secular and Islamic societies. Some countries have oil, some not. Some are large, others small.
    The Middle East embraces nations in which references to the Prophet Mohammed, or the Old and New Testaments, are part of everyday language. For some – the Salafists – Islam was perfect when Mohammed founded it and cannot be changed or improved.
    It is a cauldron. It is not a liberal democracy.
    We – in Europe – choose democracy. Others – China, Russia, much of the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa – seem to accept, even welcome, a form of autocratic quasi-democracy, accompanied by an authoritarianism that relegates social expenditures below the need to enhance competition.
    As we go forward, the West will need to take account of this. We cannot – other than by example – presume to impose our own democratic system of government – which has evolved over centuries – on others with their own histories and cultures.
    Often we conflate Islam and fundamentalism: and yet fundamentalism is a perversion of Islam, that threatens it as much as us. Bin Laden hates the Saudis even more than he hates the Americans!
    It might be a good time to recalibrate foreign as well as economic policy. We have a political genius for compromise – for bringing together competing ambitions. It is a gift of value, and one we should use to maximum effect.
    RUSSIA
    Not least with Russia. For generations, the Soviet Union was the enemy: the Warsaw Pact and NATO pointed nuclear missiles at one another and a Cold War froze relationships.
    Then she imploded. The rump of Russia imploded, too. Then, oil wealth became Putin’s Aladdin’s Cave: a basket case economy became the sixth largest in the world.
    Now – post Georgia – there is fear of a new Cold War as the Russian Phoenix flexes her muscles.
    It is arguable who started the Georgia conflict: unarguable that Russia over-reacted. Now the world must deal with the political dilemma. Over-reaction may provoke Russia. Under-reaction may encourage her into more adventures. It is a fine balance.
    How should we react? We can’t be blind to Russian misbehaviour, but – for the time being – I believe we should leave the response to the diplomats – not least since the financial markets have already delivered an unmistakeable message.
    When Russia interfered over Yukos, Shell and TNK/BP, her own stock market suffered badly. Then came her incursion into Georgia.
    (i) In one day the market wiped US$ 16 billion off Gazprom, and US$ 6 billion off Rosneft (State-owned oil company).
    (ii) In one week, FEX reserves fell by US$ 16.4 billion.
    Post Georgia:
    – Hopes of a rally are low.
    – Investors are wary.
    – Russia is finding it difficult to raise capital overseas.
    All this may give Russia pause to think and – while she does – those who wish to chastise Russia might also bear in mind that – as a nation – she is indispensable to:
    – Action on climate change.
    – Hindering drugs from Afghanistan.
    – Preventing Iran from getting the bomb.
    CONCLUSION
    My theme has been that – in order to frame future policy – we need to understand changes in a world re-shaping economically, and re-balancing politically.
    Inevitably, there is much I have not touched upon: the high price of oil that will give Sovereign Wealth Funds an extra US$ 1 trillion to invest for every year the oil price stays above US$ 80 a barrel. Nor have I touched on the risks of nuclear or biological terrorism. Or the insecurities created by the arc of uncertainty from Syria to Pakistan.
    All these will create headaches for modern governments, but let me add a little balance: despite the economic downturn, we have just enjoyed fifteen years of high growth – hundreds of millions have been lifted from poverty.
    One advantage of global markets is that investment across nations minimises the risk of wars. Science is raising the quality of life. In the last forty years – since 1968 – life expectancy has risen faster than in the previous 4,000 years.
    China and the US have huge inter-locking economic interests. (I never thought I’d see China fund America’s deficits). Japan and China are beginning to repair old scars. Democracy is expanding. And Africa is growing faster than at any time in our lifetimes.
    Sometimes, I think we should be more self-confident and more aware of what has been achieved. We should not fear change.
    In a preface to some famous essays, Sir Francis Bacon flatteringly observed to his Patron that “You have planted things that are likely to last”.
    So have we – in our own time. The Free Market. Democracy. The English language. All gifts from the West to the world – with Britain a principal donor.
    Through all our history, change has been our ally: if we embrace it in the future as we have in the past – it can be so again.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Prostate Cancer Charity Dinner – 18 September 2008

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Prostate Cancer Charity Dinner, held at The Dorchester on Thursday 18th September 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Some may wonder why I am here – let me tell you. John touched on it.

    Last year, my brother died of prostate cancer. Many – thank goodness – are cured, but Terry was not: and it was a tragic sight to see his bravery as the battle was slowly lost; and fear of the outcome turned into the inevitability of defeat.

    I shall never forget seeing my brother shrink and fade: desperately trying to project hope and faith in a recovery that was never going to come. Cancer is a wicked enemy which – in recent years – has robbed my family of my brother, and also a much-loved mother-in-law and son-in-law. That is why I am here.

    The Prostate Cancer Charity fights cancer through vital research as well as offering support and information to sufferers.

    But – in today’s circumstances – it is not easy to raise funds – to touch people’s hearts – which is why occasions like tonight are so important.

    The Charity is doing wonderful work, and the 100 men every day who are diagnosed with the disease deserve all the support they can get.

    Very little in life is certain, but it is encouraging that medical science continues to improve – and that new treatments and cures become available.

    Advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes and cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing more cells for those suffering from Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. It may soon even be possible to replace heart muscle cells. These are innovations that once would have seemed like black magic. Soon, what was once fantasy may be an everyday reality.

    Current research may enable scientists to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research to target drugs to treat specific parts of the body more effectively than ever before. Imagine the benefits to patients if chemotherapy could be so targeted in cancer treatment that it caused only minimal side effects. All this lies ahead.

    GLOBAL CHANGES

    I was asked to talk for a few minutes tonight about something topical. I thought, of course, of the credit crunch and recession, but however painful they are – and they are – they will pass.

    I’d prefer to touch on something wider.

    Fifty years ago, no-one could have confidently predicted the social or geopolitical landscape of today.

    Russia and the US were the two super-powers. China was isolationist and a mystery. Japan had barely begun her post-war rise. The EU was in its infancy. Germany was divided. Oil was US $3 a barrel, and the Islamic Revolution unthought of. Nor did many foresee the economic rise of what we patronisingly called “The Third World”. And who would have imagined America would be on the verge of electing either a black President – or a lady only a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

    In the Industrial Revolution, it took Britain and America 50 years to double the income of their populations: China has done so in less than 10 years, and others look set to follow suit.

    This extraordinary change in the world economy partly explains high energy and commodity prices, including food.

    If one billion Indians – one sixth of the entire world population – together with millions of Chinese, Brazilians and Malaysians – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand for food soars.

    And so does the price: this has caused panic in large importing countries like the Philippines; and food riots from Cairo to Haiti. The politics of food is moving to the front burner of controversy.

    So is climate change.

    One element crucial for economic and political stability everywhere is energy supply and energy security. And this is linked – to a greater degree than is comfortable to Governments – to the dangers of climate change.

    And hard-to-ignore science tells us it is changing. Some enthusiasts over-exaggerate the changes, but they are real. The burning of fossil fuels – and last year, China alone built one hundred coal-fired power stations – continues to raise dioxides: by 2050 they are likely to be double the pre-industrial level.

    The fact that CO2 is growing at this pace is generally agreed among scientists, and most – but not all – expect this to lead to global warming of between two to five degrees.

    This sounds small – but isn’t: in the depth of the last ice age, the temperature fall was – five degrees. However, a single figure is utterly misleading: the land warms more than the sea and high latitudes more than low. So the impact of global warming is not uniform.
    Nations can adapt to some of the adverse effects of warming – but it is too costly for the very poor nations of Africa and Asia.

    As yet, climate scientists are not able to predict where the flood or hurricane risks will be. We don’t yet know what parts of the world could face drought. This highlights a difficult part of the problem – the effect of global warming is not localised. Innocent non-polluters may suffer – and the guilty may not. To put it at its mildest, this does not make it easier to persuade the polluters to stop.

    There are also time-lags: the main downsides of global warming lay a century ahead. It takes decades for the oceans to adjust and centuries for ice-sheets to melt entirely. Even so, a hundred years may be in the lifespan of our grandchildren and so it is close enough (and the damage great enough) for us to take serious action.

    Here, politics intervenes. The great emerging economies have not caused this problem, but without their restraint we can’t solve it. It is a difficult political sell – but global CO2 emissions need to be reduced to only one-half of the 1990 level by 2050. It won’t be done without new technologies: we may not be able to survive without energy – but nor will we do so without clean and sustainable energy.

    Let me touch on one final change that will affect us all.

    In the last fifty years, world population has grown from less than 3 billion to over 6.5 billion. It is projected to reach 8 or even 9 billion by 2050 and nearly all the growth is in the developing world.

    In some countries, fertility has fallen below replacement level – in Italy and Singapore for example – but Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda are countries whose population is set to more than double.

    These changes – in medicine, science, economics, climate and population – are ushering in a different world from the one we have known.

    It will need different skills and longer-term decision-making by our leaders – not least in politics – to protect our interests. And it presents a challenge that none of us dare ignore.

    But – to return to my initial remarks – nor should we ignore the risks of Prostate Cancer, or neglect to help the charity.

    Tonight, you are here doing precisely that. It is only with your help that the charity can fund the research which is so crucial to identifying new ways to detect and cure this wretched disease.

    Alas, for my brother, that research is too late. But with your help, it will come in time to save the lives of many thousands of others. And for that, I am enormously grateful.

  • Sir John Major’s Article on the National Lottery – 24 August 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on the National Lottery, published by the Sunday Telegraph on 24th August 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    One would need a heart of stone not to have enjoyed the wonderful British triumphs at the Beijing Olympics. Day after day, young British athletes have surpassed themselves and the whole country has been uplifted by their performances. As we celebrate the most successful modern Olympics we have known, we can marvel at the dedication of the athletes who have sacrificed so much in pursuit of their dreams.

    But such commitment needs support. Athletes need gymnasiums, swimming pools, velodromes and running tracks upon which to hone their skills, and the Lottery has helped pay for them: talent is the first ingredient for Gold, but the best coaching and facilities are indispensable.

    Of course, the purpose of the Lottery is much wider than support for our sporting elite – important though that is. The genesis of the Lottery lay in my belief that sport, the arts, our heritage and charities enhance the quality of life for millions of people – and I noted at the Treasury that, in the scramble for taxpayer funding, they always lose out to Health, Education, Social Services and Defence. As Prime Minister, my solution was the Lottery: additional funding, free of Government interference, to provide resources to replace dilapidated facilities, repair decaying buildings, and boost the arts and charities.

    And it has done so. Since its launch in 1994, over £21 billion has been distributed to over 300,000 local projects, as well as to the many mega-schemes of national importance. Without the Lottery there may have been no new Wembley Stadium, no National Cycle network, no velodrome in Manchester, no Eden Project in Cornwall, no renovation of the Royal Opera House at Covent Garden. Nor would there have been new village and community halls, bowling greens, cricket nets, arts clubs and so much more in towns and villages in every corner of our country. Over the past fourteen years, the Lottery has been the essential ingredient in the greatest enhancement of cultural and sporting life in Britain over the last century.

    But it is more than that. The provision of grassroots facilities for sport and the arts offers lasting social benefits. Where would we prefer our young people to be – in clubs or gymnasiums or on street corners? Members of teams or gangs? Given worries about obesity – do we wish them to be fit or fat? And – for the more mature in our society – do we approve or disapprove of increased social and sporting facilities, such as bowls? Such questions have easy answers.

    Lottery funding has also benefited our heritage and the arts, with repair and renovation to churches and ancient buildings, and encouragement of artistic talent.

    And, at the top level of sport, we love to win. Our national characteristics may enable us to accept defeat with good humour, but we cherish success.

    Success uplifts our nation: witness the impact of the Olympics, or the 2005 Ashes win or, sadly long ago, the 1966 World Cup win. We will enjoy more such triumphs only if we develop the grassroots of sport. And we love to celebrate our icons. The success of Freddie Flintoff or Chris Hoy or Rebecca Adlington, or the talents of Kenneth Branagh or Judi Dench, are more exciting to us than the activities of politicians or businessmen. If we nurture grassroots talent, a new generation of icons will surely follow.

    The Lottery is more than a cash dispenser: it is a social tool and the present Government has a mixed record in caring for it. To their credit, they have widened the use of Lottery funds – as I would have done myself. To their discredit, they have siphoned off funds for their own pet projects. In 1997, one-fifth of Lottery proceeds went to each of the long-term good causes. In 1998, the Government cut that to 16.6%, and later the Big Lottery Fund dipped into the bran tub yet again – and sport, the arts, heritage and charities were the losers.

    It is not easy to disentangle by how much the four main good causes have lost out, but it is literally billions over the last decade. At present, I calculate annual funding has dropped by about one-third from its peak.

    Additionally – although once more the figures are unclear – grassroot schemes have lost about a further half a billion pounds to fund Olympic infrastructure. A contribution – as with the Commonwealth Games at Manchester – is acceptable but half a billion is far too high a loss for grassroots sport. This reduction is in direct contravention of the promise which helped London win the Olympic bid: “To capture the imagination of young people and leave a lasting legacy”.

    What of the future? I would like to see Lottery proceeds returned in full to their original purpose so that sport, the arts, heritage and charities would each receive 20%. The final 20% could be ring-fenced to re-introduce sport into the State sector of education – a plan I would have implemented had I won the 1997 Election. The opportunity to enjoy sport – and to excel at it – must be as great in State Schools as in Private Schools: we need to unearth and develop that talent. I shall forever regret that I did not ensure that provision was put in place when I was in a position to do so.

    I should also like the distributing bodies to set out their objectives for the next decade – and be prepared to stage funding over many years. Where appropriate, I would hope objectives could be agreed with Government, so that taxpayer and Lottery funding could work in harmony. If Lottery largesse is to continue at a high level, prizes must remain attractive even though they are often controversial. I am not personally offended by instant wealth – nor, I believe, are the 70% of the public who play the Lottery each week.

    Over time, Lottery proceeds can further advance the renaissance of British sport and the arts; widen leisure for every age group; improve services for the disadvantaged; and repair our ancient buildings for future generations to enjoy.

    My hope is that, with the help of Lottery funding, our 2012 Olympians may be able to build on success in Beijing, to win an even greater haul of medals on their own home soil.

    I, for one, will be cheering them on.