The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 2001-2009

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at St Louis – 6 May 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s “Churchill Speech”, made at St Louis, Missouri, United States, on Tuesday 6th May 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    76 years ago, Churchill spoke in the St. Louis Woman’s Club. He was out of office and out of favour.

    He could not know that – one day, not far away, there would stand a remarkable Museum, dedicated to his life and hidden under a

    Christopher Wren church which was destroyed in the London Blitz, dismantled, shipped across the ocean and re-assembled at Westminster College, Fulton. I saw it today. It is an unsung gem in the heart of Missouri and – most probably – the oldest building in America.

    For Churchill – half American and half English – there could be no greater honour.

    And it is appropriate: for in the long history of the British nation, Winston Churchill stands as one of our greatest leaders, alongside Henry II, Elizabeth I and Cromwell.

    In the most savage war in history, he rallied the British Empire as it stood alone against Nazi Germany until – as he predicted in his own magical phrase: “The New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old”. It is a classic Churchill phrase: compelling, vivid, and touching emotion at a level deeper than prosaic language.

    That gift for language was part of his genius. He used it to inspire, to praise, to condemn and to mock. And, of course, to write. Like Shakespeare, Churchill invented new words by adding suffixes and prefixes: unwisdom and unsordid, for example, were unknown words until he invented them.

    Because Churchill is such a figure of myth and legend it is easy to forget that he held power in the lifetime of our parents. He is not a hero from the distant past. His world was the forerunner of ours. At Yalta, he helped shape that world – though not entirely to his, or our, satisfaction. His leadership at a time of peril will be admired a thousand years from now. In the long march of history, most are forgotten – Churchill never will be.

    In March 1946, he was invited by President Truman to speak at Westminster College, Fulton, and – as an incentive for him to accept – the President offered to travel to Missouri to introduce him. For a romantic like Churchill, Truman’s invitation was an irresistible one, and he responded with one of his most famous speeches.

    The speech is remembered for his sombre warning – added on the train to Fulton – that an iron curtain had descended across the continent of Europe. But, in typical Churchill fashion, the speech contained much else of substance, as he looked ahead to forecast the opportunities and perils through which our generation has lived.

    Nations, said Churchill, would need to be shielded from war and tyranny in a world menaced by poverty and privation. He urged a unity of purpose for the US and Great Britain and forecast – wrongly – so far! – that we might one day share a common citizenship.

    He was trenchant that we should not trust any third country with the technology of the Atom bomb, and he welcomed the birth of the United Nations as a clearing house to prevent war.

    Since then, time has moved on. Were Churchill here tonight, he would look to the future and – albeit as a poor substitute – that is what I propose to do.

    Let me start by reviewing some of the structures Churchill knew.

    NATO has served us supremely well. Its founding purpose was to defend democracy against the Soviet Union. And so it did. But the Soviet Union no longer exists. Even so, it would be folly to let NATO wither for lack of a clear-cut mission: we need to re-define its purpose.

    So, too, the United Nations. Today, it is widely derided – not least in the US. But the UN is an American invention: its Charter signed at the San Francisco Opera House in 1946.

    Its basic aim – to prevent war – is as relevant now as then, but the UN can only be as strong as its Members enable it to be. If its senior Member States are lukewarm in its support, then the UN is bound to disappoint.

    Certainly, it is in need of reform. When it was founded, the US, Britain, Russia, China and France appointed themselves as Permanent Members of the Security Council. But sixty years ago, the UN had fewer than 50 Members. Today it has over 190, and the continued tenure of the same nations is no longer acceptable to much of the world. Yet the Permanent Five remain in place.

    Unsurprisingly, nations like Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, now seek to join them. They have a powerful case – and yet it is denied. It shouldn’t be. If we wish the UN to fulfil its function – and it didn’t exist we’d have to invent it – then the present Permanent Members must admit others and dilute their power. Only then can the ambitions of its Founders be realised.

    Reform of international bodies is vital to the future. It’s not only NATO and the UN that need to be updated. So do the Financial Institutions and – above all – the “Group of 8”.

    The G8 – allegedly – comprises the most powerful industrial nations of the world – yet China and India are excluded from membership: frankly, that is absurd – and must be corrected.

    It’s also instructive to note what Churchill did not talk about at Fulton: the rise of terrorism; the danger of an Islamic Jihad to divide Christian and Muslim; the unstoppable advance of science; and the prospect of near-universal free trade and a global market. Nor did he envisage a world with America as the only super-power. Had he done so, he would have warned that great power attracts great enmity, often without reason. As a child of Empire, Churchill knew that – and lived to see the Empire fade away.

    In the sixty years since his speech, Churchill’s loathing of Communism has been totally vindicated. It was one of the most miserable creeds Man has devised. Around the world, it led to bloodshed, violence, repression and economic failure. Soviet-style Communism confronted the free world in a fifty-year Cold War – until the whole rotten edifice of Soviet Russia collapsed.

    Whatever perils face us now, they pale beside the risk of massive nuclear exchanges between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries. Now – that is gone. New – but lesser – threats lie ahead.

    The American Goliath – and her allies – are learning that massive military superiority in sophisticated weapons, although re-assuring, doesn’t protect against attack by small, highly dedicated groups. Nor does it prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    As a young man, Churchill went to war on a horse in Sudan and South Africa. He lived through an age in which Man learned how to kill his fellows in great numbers, and with great efficiency, on land, in the air and under water. Fifty years of science led to the sophistication of the Atomic Bomb. But that wasn’t the end of Man’s inventiveness. The destructive power of today’s nuclear weapons dwarf those Churchill knew and yet – despite this – the threat is very different and, I would argue, diminished.

    Both World Wars began in Europe. Today, the European Union extends from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia in the East, and military conflict between its Members is inconceivable. One worrying side effect of this new amity – as we learn to our regret in NATO – is that the Liberal democracies of Europe have little appetite for military expenditure.

    The main enemy of our lifetime, the Soviet Union, has gone. But the major portion of it – modern Russia – survives. We have grown up with a 20th century perception of Russia that runs very deep, but is now out of date. If we are to understand modern Russia, we must consider her history.

    The last century was a nightmare for Russia. Tens of millions were killed in the First World War, and yet more in the Revolution and the Civil War that followed.

    The famine of 1921, and the terror campaigns of the 1930s, claimed many more lives even before the Second World War robbed Russia of 70% of her young men between 18 and 32.

    Fifty years of repressive Government followed these horrors. So did economic stagnation, the Cold War and the decline and collapse of Communism as a philosophy – and the Soviet Union as an entity. Even then, the agony continued: economic and political reforms in the 1990s brought turmoil, crime, the Russian mafia and national debt.

    Until 1990, the Soviet Union – Churchill’s Russian “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” – was a persistent danger to us. It was a bleak time, now in the past.

    Today, we watch Russia warily as she becomes a newly oil-rich State. Russia makes money from an oil price of $14 a barrel; at $18 the income is significant; at over $20 it becomes rosy. At $80-$100 oil is an uncovenanted bonus, and offers a stability against which economic reforms and military re-equipment can be afforded with ease.

    Should we worry about this? I don’t think so – at least not yet or for a long time.

    It is probable that America spends as much on her military as the rest of the world combined. Certainly, she spends three times as much each year, as Russia and China added together.

    As a result, Russia is so far behind the US in capability, that any serious threat is negligible. The once Mighty Bear now has very blunt teeth. Nor is China a threat compared to the old Soviet Union. Although she, too, is spending far more on re-equipping her military than she admits – and, of course, has a huge conscript Army – she cannot match the superiority America has built up over decades.

    The gap is widening, not narrowing. In any major conflict, America has – and will retain – unchallengeable military superiority for a long time to come. Any security danger comes – not from large Nation States – but from rogue regimes and terror groups – and here the threat is imminent and serious.

    It is also universal. Every nation has a stake in this. In its different guises, terrorism has hit West and East as New York, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo and Bali can testify. All bear the scars and the fatalities of terrorist atrocities.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, the impact of the phenomenon is seen on a wider canvas.

    The failure to find WMD in Iraq was a disaster. It strengthened international opposition to the War and weakened support for anti-terrorist policies – not least in Afghanistan – where the European military and financial contribution for what is a necessary conflict – has been feeble.

    Although every NATO ally agreed to a military role in Afghanistan, many have offered only token troops and placed caveats on what those troops will do and where they will go.

    This is hopeless: it leaves the military burden unfairly distributed.

    It may take a long time to diminish the potency of terror. But one thing is certain: action against it will be more effective if it is international – and wholehearted. There is a further point too: to be successful, we need to know our enemy. The battle against Islamic terror groups is a war of the mind – in a culture we don’t understand. We should try harder to do so.

    The battle is against Islamic terrorism, but not Islam. If it were, we would be engulfed in a mighty conflict. Instead, we face highly motivated fanatical groups intent on the destruction of everything that does not fit within their philosophy.

    After 9/11, America went into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda training camps: she – and her allies – have ended up fighting the Taliban.
    Al Qaeda and the Taliban are different organisations, with few direct links. Yet they have a similar “inspiration”: both are fundamentalist, ideologically-motivated Muslim groups, seeking a purer Islam through a return to a Caliphate.

    And this emphasises the complexity of any anti-terror strategy: it must confront threats from many disparate groups. In Afghanistan, we have made progress: there is a Parliament, a Government, an electoral process, and central Government Ministers. None of this basic apparatus of order existed in 2001. Even so, we are far from the end game. Our troops will – at best – be there for years, and the diplomatic and financial commitment for far longer.

    In Iraq, much has improved too, but it is difficult to see an orderly withdrawal of troops in under 3-4 years and, even then, the allied involvement of special forces may stretch far beyond that – unless we wish to leave chaos behind.

    If Iraq becomes a stable country, with a form of democracy that survives, it will be a triumph. The War may have been launched under false pretences; it may have done immense short-term harm to America and Britain; but a benign long-term outcome will change the future of the entire region. The right combination of soft and hard power may yet deliver such a result.

    Let me turn now to economics:

    Churchill’s world of yesterday has long gone. He did not foresee the scale of the competitive challenge posed today by China, India, Brazil, Russia. Nor did he imagine the end of a Western economic dominance that had stretched back over two hundred years. But – as a practical politician – he would have recognised one ancient rule that still holds true today: economic power leads to political power.

    We, in the West, need to understand the scale of what is happening.

    It is not my purpose this evening to discuss the financial problems of the Markets – they will work themselves out – but I do want to emphasise the impact of changes now taking place.

    Energy prices have soared as demand has grown from the developing world. Once, emerging nations had a spurt of growth and fell away.

    Now, their growth continues. So, too – I suspect – will high energy prices. And food.

    If one billion Indians – one sixth of the entire world population – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand and price of foodstuff rises. One would need a heart of stone not to welcome the end of such hardship – even as we face the problems it poses.

    In this new world, all Governments are losing economic influence to the free market. Historic weapons, such as exchange or capital or import controls, are almost derelict. Competition in the global labour market continues to transfer manufacturing to low-cost centres in the developing world. Even tax policy is becoming ineffective or unusable since, if countries aren’t tax-competitive, capital moves to a more attractive host environment.

    Some people attribute the huge growth of emerging nations simply to the demand for raw materials, cost-effective manufacturing and the capture of a few niche markets. They are wrong: it is far more substantial.

    Outsourcing is growing rapidly. It is no longer restricted to manufacturing and call centres. Tax, accounting, financial, advertising and some legal services, can all be electronically delivered from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world.

    So, too, computer programming; architectural design; medical records; financial analysis; and research and development in the knowledge-based industries.

    An American economist (Alan Blinder), estimates that out-sourcing might cost the US many millions of jobs. If that is true of the US, it will be equally true – perhaps even more so – of Europe and Japan.

    Don’t imagine for a moment that I exaggerate. For the first time since 1820, world growth comes predominantly from the East. This will continue. Emerging nations hold 70% of the world’s foreign exchange reserves. They consume over 50% of energy and 80% of growth of energy over recent years. Their dynamism is striking. They are re forming the world market, and changing trade and investment patterns.
    China now manufactures 80% of the world’s photocopiers; 60-70% of mobile phones; 60% of digital cameras; and 50% of the world’s computers. If we are not already worried, we should be.

    In order to compete in the future, mature States must develop new science and new services. This is important socially and economically. Let me offer an example.

    America, Japan and the UK are leaders in investment in the knowledge-based industries – and especially Bio and Nano-technology. This requires huge research and development projects into this cutting-edge technology.

    This is likely to prove worthwhile. Demand is soaring for healthy food, pesticides, the control and destruction of pollution, forensic medicine, genetic engineering and new and better drugs to combat disease.

    Biotechnology may be in its infancy, but is already a $30 billion a year industry, with unlimited potential.

    Nano-technology offers similar scope across the engineering and biological sciences. These are sciences for the new century and can be developed by anyone – anywhere – with access to capital and expertise. The social and financial rewards of success promise to be staggering.

    Successful innovation may enable scientists to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research to target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. 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.

    Some commercial applications of Bio and Nano science are already apparent: the technology has revolutionised aspects of dentistry, dressings for burns, and better protection from the sun.

    Already, 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 even be possible to replace heart muscle cells.

    These are innovations which – until recently – seemed fanciful. In Churchill’s world they would have seemed like black magic.

    But soon, what was once fantasy will be an everyday reality.

    And that concept – fantasy becoming reality – may be a leitmotif for the future. No-one should be complacent that the present world order is fixed: it is not. Compare and contrast Churchill’s world of sixty years ago with today. Then factor in the reality that the pace of change is accelerating. Our children and grandchildren will live in a very different world.

    CONCLUSION

    Let me try and bring all this together. As the years unfold, change will invade every aspect of our lives.

    In Churchill’s maturity, one hundred years ago, the UK, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface and much of the world’s economy. No longer: today, the age of Regal Empire has gone and the age of Commercial Empire is with us.

    All over the world, young people dress as they do on the streets of New York and London. Over 200 million Chinese – and hundreds of millions elsewhere – are learning English.

    Investment across nations minimises the risk of significant military conflict. Science is raising the quality of life. In the last 40 years – think of this – since 1968 – life expectancy has risen faster than in the previous 4,000 years. Now, science is on the verge of raising it still further.

    Despite the perils and frustrations of our world – of Iraq, Iran, terror, Afghanistan, Pakistan, a resurgent Russia – it is an exhilarating time to be alive.

    Despite garish headlines, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the confrontation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact has gone. The world is safer. The risk of widespread warfare has lessened.

    Despite some tensions, international relations are more benign than for decades. China and the US have huge inter-locking economic interests. Japan and China are beginning to repair old scars. Latin America is becoming a continent of democracies. Even Africa – poor forgotten Africa – is growing faster than at any time in our lifetimes. There is much to be thankful for.

    Sometimes, I think, we should be more aware – more self-confident – of what has already been achieved. Francis Bacon observed in the England of Queen Elizabeth I that “We have planted things that are likely to last”. So have we in our own time. The English Language. The Free Market. Democracy. All gifts from the West to the world, with America and Britain as the principal donors.

    We need to look at the future with a critical and honest eye, and see how it is – with one prime purpose: if we see how it is, we can shape how it could be. That is what Churchill would have done and – in this as in so much else – we would be wise to take the lead of one of the most remarkable men in the long history of the English speaking peoples.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Chartered Insurance Institute President’s Dinner – 4 March 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Chartered Insurance Institute President’s Dinner, held at the Guildhall in London on Tuesday 4th March 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Aldermen, My Lord President, Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    There is a European debate in the House of Commons tonight – and I’m here: My goodness, life just gets better and better!

    When your President invited me to join you this evening, it was an easy decision. Easy, because of the reputation of the Institute; and easier still, because David Hunt has been a colleague and a true friend for very many years. When he left Government, it was at his request and to my regret. You are very lucky to have him as your President. From what I hear he is doing a superb job.

    Because David worked with me in Government for so long, his invitation to speak “on any subject” of my choosing was irresistible and it encouraged me to take a reflective look at my old profession. I do so, of course, conscious of the mistakes made during my own years in Government.

    It is now eleven years since I left Number 10 at the request of the electorate, and seven years since I left the Commons – so these days I speak for myself and no one else – which is a very liberating experience!

    It is not always easy to speak your mind as freely as you wish and even for the most frank politicians.

    In the last decade, the environment of politics has changed. In some ways, government has become more difficult. The free market has widened many of the prerogatives of Government have been diminished.

    The style of politics has changed, too. Brutal truths are out. Gentle reassurances are in. Now I’m not sure I wholly like this. Frankly, I don’t need someone to “feel my pain”. I much prefer them to remove it. And – if they can’t – on balance, I’ll take the brutal truths, please.

    Because Government is a serious business – even though – in the hands of some politicians – it seems sometimes to be afflicted with legislation by reflex, and communication by sound-bite.

    Many years ago, Francis Pym spoke of the democratic disadvantage of any Government having too large a majority. Now I agree with that, with one caveat: having led a Government with a tiny majority and a large number of irreconcilables, I am no great fan of minority government either.

    But over-large majorities almost always have a democratic deficit as their counter-point. They enable bad legislation to be carried; self-evident truths to be denied; and explanations offered that frankly make the jaw drop.

    Now one of the proudest boasts of this country has always been that we’re the oldest democracy in the world – and the freest. Although – probably – still true, I think events have tarnished that reputation.

    The invasion of Iraq was justified initially by over-egging the threat of Saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction – which I wholly accept may have been a genuine error.

    But the case was then embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York, for which there is not a shred of evidence.

    That misinformation was compounded by the implication that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the UK, which plainly it was not – and is not.

    We need to know how and why that happened.

    We have had Inquiries, four I think so far, of course, but all of them were circumscribed: none I think were on the essential question of how the decision to go to war was made and for the sake of future decision-making, we must have such an Inquiry.

    For the moment, the Government dismisses criticism with the response that it neither regrets, nor apologises for, the fact that Saddam has gone. Neither do I. Nor does anyone else, but that is not the point. One might as well say one does not regret an earthquake, because it helped bring down some old buildings. So it might have been, but what of the wider damage?

    Because, the damage is wider.

    Overseas, it is to our reputation. And, at home – on the back of the threat of terror, and with the impetus of two serious incidents in London – civil liberties are, slowly, being sacrificed.

    We now know that – despite repeated denials – our Government was complicit in rendition, or – to put it in plain terms – the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction, to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.

    Now, although the intent – presumably – was to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world the Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus.

    Nor can any sacrifice of due process be justified by national self-interest. If we are seen to defend our values, in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values altogether. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it might serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to do.

    And that is no longer theoretical: we now have home-grown terrorists – born here in Britain, not in Waziristan. Will they be encouraged or discouraged to rally to militancy if our own actions bypass the sober rituals of law with which we are familiar?

    The Government has introduced a series of measures to protect against terror. These seem to me to go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular assaults on our mainland from the IRA.

    Two years ago, following the London terrorist attacks, Parliament doubled the time suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. I agree that was justified. I supported that change and still do. But – now – Parliament will soon be asked to increase this again – to 42 days.

    Yet there is no proof such an extended detention period would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it would prevent future atrocities. No example of which I am aware has yet been given of why the Police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. Now this is a slippery slope. The argument that it “might be useful” in unspecified future circumstances simply will not do. Assertions are cheap: and assertions are worthless if we are to curtail liberty of the individual, we need more certainty than that.

    We need to be careful. I cannot believe any Parliamentarian would willingly relish a society in which suspects are detained for long periods without charge; in which excessive security impedes the flow of normal life; and in which border checks frequently verge on the frenetic. I fear such a policy – even if it is intended to improve security – will, in practice, play into the hands of the very people who seek to undermine our way of life.

    Nor do I welcome identity cards, likely to be expensive and ineffective. I certainly do not welcome a national register containing the DNA of many thousands of people who have never been charged with an offence.

    Now I understand the concerns the Government has – of course I do. And – I do not question their motives. But I fear over-reaction is more likely to alienate than protect, and it is precisely that alienation – “motivated by perceived antagonism to Muslims” – that led to the London bombings in 2005. Do we really want terrorists to see the havoc they are causing; the freedoms they are infringing – and thus to be encouraged to cause even more social disruption?

    A free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our instincts and – once put in place – will be very difficult to dismantle. It is not a road down which we should go.

    I suspect one reason for over-reaction is that we live in a scapegoat society. If some thing goes wrong, doesn’t matter what it is – it is assumed some one must be culpable. And not only culpable but criminally culpable. The impact of this blame-game is wholly negative on our national life. I think we would be wiser to acknowledge that no Government or individual can foresee and protect against every eventuality. It’s always a mistake to believe there is a solution for every problem. Often in Government the reverse is true: a new solution merely identifies a different problem.

    Now, of course, much of this revolves around too much legislation – and, sometimes, poor legislation – is a problem that goes far beyond the security remit – and has been so for decades. I am certainly prepared to accept a certain mea culpa for my own years but – having done so – I think it is fair to note that the situation has worsened: moreover, new procedures mean a compliant majority now votes much of that legislation through the House of Commons undebated and untested.

    I could illustrate this unappealing trend in many ways: one will do. The public are worried about crime – and rightly so: how could it be otherwise, when so many are intimidated by robbery, yobbery and thuggery on too many council estates and on too many streets?

    So, each year, we have a Criminal Justice Bill: often containing a lot of sensible policy – let us acknowledge that – but sometimes, as if in homage to knee-jerk reactions, containing measures to appease the sort of opinions heard in a four-ale bar late at night. (Well – in the old days – late at night with 24-hour drinking. Now – of course – heard any time day or night.) And – if you think I exaggerate – ask yourself this question: if I exaggerate, why in subsequent years, are large sections of some of these Bills repealed, having never been implemented?

    Meanwhile, crime still rises, the prisons overflow and the Justice Minister – a veteran of the “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” era – is reduced to pleading with Judges to impose less draconian, non-custodial sentences.

    The “tough on crime” sound-bite is an illustration of how simplicities in politics often backfire. It is not alone. “Education, Education, Education” – was first said by Lenin, who didn’t mean it either; and as for “24 hours to save the NHS” or “Whiter than White” – discretion forbids any comment at all.

    After the experience of how sound-bites so often lead to a political blind alley, anyone who gives houseroom to them in future plainly needs adult supervision. Government can – and must – do better than that.

    Mr President, I have focused on short-comings this evening, but that is not the whole story. Let me leaven the criticism.

    Throughout the last ten years, I’ve travelled constantly around the world. If that has given a degree of perspective to my criticisms – it has also shown me no better system of government.

    Over many decades, successive Governments have presided over a growth in personal and national well-being. This City audience – despite disagreements over individual policies – has seen their financial industries flourish.

    And here – in the midst of the most successful financial centre in the world – that is a real cause for optimism.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 16 December 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 16th December 2007.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now of course one of the big events from the past year was Tony Blair’s exit from office.

    Already the histories and political obituaries have been written, but so far his predecessor in No. 10 has been virtually silent on the New Labour years. John Major joins us now to look back over the last year. Welcome, thank you very much for coming in.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My pleasure.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s start with the economy, because some people might say it’s a sense of déjà vu, house prices under pressure, coming down again, the kind of outlook that we haven’t maybe had since the immediate days around Black Wednesday?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well that of course was exactly what I inherited when I became Prime Minister, there were some similarities with now, we were going into a recession, it was clearly going to be very deep. And it took a long time to get out of it.

    But if you recall, when we left office in 1997 I think we probably left the best economy any government has left for the last 50 years. We had had five years of consistent growth every quarter, falling interest rates, falling unemployment, increasing growth, for a long period.

    It wasn’t created by the present Labour government it was there in place when they took office. But of course they have always used Black Wednesday to mask that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I mean it has to be said that they then picked up that ball, as it were, and ran with it for a long time?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes they did, to a certain extent and the fact that they haven’t wrecked the economy is something one can give them credit for. But I think it’s now beginning to unravel in quite a serious way.

    If you look at what has happened over the last ten years, there were going to be no tax increases, specifically there were going to be no tax increases on pensions. In fact a specific tax increase on pensions has wrecked final salary pension schemes and wrecked the security of many pensioners.

    But you now see over the full ten years we have dropped significantly in competitiveness, productivity is down over those ten years. We have had a tax increase almost every month for the last ten years, on average. We’ve had 111 tax increases over that period.

    The economy is now clearly running into some significant difficulties, and there are two events, two events that are specifically related to the government policy that have caused huge problems. One of them you’ve referred to them already this morning, Northern Rock, and I’ll come back to that in a moment.

    The other of course was the then Chancellor’s decision to sell gold. He sold gold quite gratuitously, something like 395-400 tonnes of gold at an average price of, I think, about $275. The loss to the exchanges from that decision is now in excess of the loss to the exchanges on Black Wednesday, in excess of the Black Wednesday costs.

    ANDREW MARR:

    From your point of view, Golden Tuesday or whatever it was, is worse than Black Wednesday?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well in terms of the loss to the exchanges most certainly it’s a different political damage. But in terms of the loss to the exchanges it most certainly is. And I hope it will stop the Prime Minister talking about ten successful years because they haven’t been entirely successful. And that absurdity that he sometimes turns to, that he appears to blame David Cameron who was a bag carrier for Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday, as though David was at all responsible, for he wasn’t.

    The second point of course is Northern Rock. We don’t yet know what the cost of Northern Rock to the Economy will be. But it is quite likely, not certain, but quite likely that it will exceed the cost for the taxpayer of either Black Wednesday or of the sale of gold. And that runs specifically from changes to the system introduced by the then Chancellor in 1997.

    ANDREW MARR:

    The regulatory system?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The regulatory system.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Right. I wondered in the final film that Tony Blair made about looking back over, looking back in part, over his ten years, what you felt when he said maybe he’d been a little bit rough in going for you over sleaze?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I didn’t watch it, I didn’t watch the film, but I read about it. But I think there is a clear-cut distinction between what was called sleaze in the 1990s and what has happened since 1997. Lots of people misbehaved in the ’80s and in the ’90s, but they were all individuals, it was never institutional, it was never related specifically to the Conservative Party or to the Conservative Government.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You don’t think there was a culture of overseas business people putting money in, sort of behind the back of the political system?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think there was a culture. I mean I devolved responsibility for party fundraising when I became Prime Minister, so I had no direct hand in it. But, no I don’t think so. But what happened in the 1990s, there was a deliberate attempt to portray the Conservative Party as an institution, it was almost McCarthyite frankly, as though it were sleazy, and it wasn’t.

    The distinction is that sleaze has seemed to be systemic since 1997. I mean, I can see a clear pattern, you probably remember the Ecclestone affair in, I think, November 1997. We have Abrahams in November 2007, and serial offences in between those two dates. 2002, when I think they were taking money from Mr. Desmond, the Labour Party set up a committee and decided they would vet every future donor. Well it clearly wasn’t very successful vetting, from what we’ve seen subsequently.

    So I do think that they have every reason to regret what they did in the 1990s, but I must say I was sorry when the Prime Minister apologised for the fact that it had bounced back on the Labour Party. I think he should have apologised for the fact that it wasn’t true what he was saying in the 1990s. And to accuse people in the Cabinet, a Cabinet that had people like Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Malcolm Rifkind, Ken Clarke, Gill Shepherd, Virginia Bottomley, John Gummer, Peter Brooke – to accuse them of being part of a sleazy government is just unscrupulous.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Do you think that Tony Blair has presided over a corrupt government?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think it’s corrupt, no I don’t use the word corrupt, I think they have been careless. I think they have had a huge majority and they have been careless, I think that’s what it is. I don’t accuse them of corruption and I wouldn’t accuse them of corruption. I don’t think most politicians, occasionally there’s a bad apple in the barrel. We are in parliament a microcosm of the nation, there are bad applies. But I don’t think that. But I do think it was institutionally careless in the grand manner.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And why do you think that happened, simply because they thought when Tony Blair said I’m a pretty straight kind of guy, he sort of believed it therefore?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think if they were to say today, whiter than white or purer than pure, I think people would just laugh. And I think that is sad for the sake of the whole system. But there were of course a whole series of slogans then that look pretty stupid now – Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime – well we now have prisoners being let out early, gun crime up, violent crime up, total crimes up.

    It really hasn’t lived up to the billing and you could say that in the National Health Service, 24 hours to save it, well it’s a lot longer than 24 hours. And you don’t have to take my word, take Derek Wanless’s word, we are not on our way yet, to a world class health service despite huge extra taxation going into it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I imagine that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair would say we’ve all had the same problem with party funding, it’s something that’s bedevilled British politics in Margaret Thatcher’s time, in John Major’s time, and now in our time too. And there does need to be a better way of dealing with this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think a better way is more money from the taxpayer, I know there seems to be a communal view that it is a good idea from all the parties, I don’t personally agree with it. And I don’t agree with it specifically for this reason – I think, apart from the fact I don’t think it’s right for the taxpayer to pay, but let us even put that to one side, there’s another practical reason. If too much of party funding comes directly from the taxpayer a great deal of the activity at the grass roots that brings a party together, that makes a party, that keeps the politicians in touch with the grass roots, gets swept away.

    And I think politicians are remote enough already from the electorate as a whole, I wouldn’t wish to see them made even more remote, and my fear apart from the undoubted desirability of the principle, my fear would be that if party funding too much came from the centre that it would diminish grass roots activity even more, that would be a thoroughly bad development.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes. I mean you were swept out of power by Tony Blair and the Labour Party saying that you were sleazy, that your government was riddled, if not with corruption but certainly with sleaze which was the slightly politer way of saying corruption, as I recall. The old Chinese saying about if you wait long enough the bodies of your enemies float past, does it occur to you?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, just a touch. But I mean, what they did at the time was absolutely unscrupulous. I don’t think that’s what cost us the election, frankly we’d been there so long if the leader of the Conservative Party had been the Archangel Gabriel and the Cabinet had been a choir of angels, I think after 18 years we would have lost.

    I think what their pretty unscrupulous use of facts did, was to magnify the defeat, to turn a defeat that was always likely into a much bigger defeat. And I think that they did do very successfully but I think in a manner that scarred politics in the long term.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And turning to your party now, it strikes me that what we said about New Labour back in the mid-1990s could apply to the Conservatives now, which is terribly inexperienced. Very, very successful in the polls at the moment, beginning to look like a party that could win an overall majority at the next election, long way away and all the rest of it. But nonetheless, is that a worry, the inexperience?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think the government are pretty inexperienced, in this sense. I mean half the Cabinet were special advisors two or three years ago.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Everybody’s only been a special advisor in politics these days.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I know, it’s a great mistake to get to the top of politics that way in my judgement. But if you look back in Margaret’s time there were always three people who could have been Prime Minister. When I became Prime Minister, if I had been run over by a bus and some people rather wished for that, there were several…

    ANDREW MARR:

    Depends who was driving the bus?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There were several people who could have taken over – Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind – who may well have done a better job, maybe people thought they would have done. If Gordon Brown were run over who would be Prime Minister?

    There was one very senior member, Jack Straw, beyond that nobody with any experience whatsoever. It is the most inexperienced Cabinet that I can remember. So I don’t think the relative inexperience of the opposition is a problem. Particularly, if I may say so, because of the way David Cameron is now going abroad regularly.

    I’ve just returned from China, I was in China last week and I met some senior Chinese there and David Cameron is going there next week, and we were talking about his visit and they’re very much looking forward to seeing him. And I think these overseas trips are very important for him to do and I’m delighted he’s doing them.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One of the younger members of the Cabinet, David Miliband, I was just talking to in Basra. It is all’s well that ends well, is it finally over down there, how do you read that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I’m uncertain. I mean, if you take an audit, we went into Iraq on what turned out to be a false premise. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein I think undoubtedly is a bonus.

    Everything else looks pretty bleak to me. If you look at life within Iraq at the moment, most of the major decisions that needs to be taken haven’t yet been taken by the Iraqi government. If you look at life in Iraq, inflation is 70%, unemployment is 50%, about 3,000-3,500 Iraqis over recent months have been killed every single month.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Was it worth it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    That doesn’t look to me like a stable situation as a result of policy over the last few years. I don’t think this is going to be looked back on with any pride by the policymakers. I think the Army were given an impossible job which they did as well as it could have been done, but it was almost impossible and the outcome is bleak.

    ANDREW MARR:

    For now, John Major, thank you very much indeed.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to Trinity College Dublin Historical Society – 21 November 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made to the Trinity College Dublin Historical Society on Wednesday 21st November 2007.

    Mr Chairman, Mr Auditor, Provost, Ladies and Gentlemen of College Historical Society, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    My privilege to propose “that the Best Thanks of the Society are due to the Auditor for his Paper”.

    Well done, Tim.

    Chancellor, Provost, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    It’s always a pleasure to come to Dublin and doubly so to be at this famous University.

    As you know, Albert Reynolds is unwell and can’t be with us this evening. However – the good news is – he’s recovering and will be out of hospital in a few days. I visited him this afternoon and he was in fine form. I know I speak for Albert Reynolds as well as myself in thanking you for the privilege of receiving this Award for our work on the Irish Peace Process. Timothy Smyth has presented a Paper full of insight and I am delighted to respond to it.

    Let me begin with a disclaimer: many people – some acknowledged, many not – contributed to the Irish Peace Process. They came from the Civil Services – I am delighted to see Roderic Lyne and Martin Mansergh here this evening – both of whom were pivotal figures in the whole process. They were crucial. When tempers heated, they cooled them. Tempers cool – they backed us in a way that rose them. They were magisterial. So were members of the Catholic and Protestant communities; the Churches; as well as figures from local and national politics.

    Paddy Mayhew, Peter Brooke, Dick Spring, John Bruton come to mind, as significant contributors. So – in different ways – do Jim Molyneaux and John Hume. And – it must also be acknowledged – individuals within the paramilitaries on both sides who realised violence was failing and opened their minds to a political settlement.

    Before I arrived at Downing Street, I had very little contact with Ireland – North or South – despite the presence of an Irish grandmother in my family. But, once there, Northern Ireland became a priority, and for long periods the priority. I held meetings beyond number in Westminster and in Belfast. Some were friendly. Some were rancorous. Some were full of hope. Some were interminable. Some ended in walk outs. It was a panorama of protest and progress. I knew from the outset that progress would be two steps forward – and one back: and so it proved.

    Invariably, I was struck by the disparity between the personal warmth and charm of those I met, and the depth and savagery of the rivalries that divided them.

    The roots of the Northern Ireland Troubles lay deep in history, and were made worse by generations of distrust, recrimination, hatred and outdated tribal attitudes. But, although the roots were ancient, the perceived inequity of the old Stormont Parliament, and the divisive gulf between Unionist and Republican aspirations, kept mutual loathing burning fiercely.

    And that loathing had led to carnage that, by the early 1990’s, seemed a permanent and irreversible way of life in Northern Ireland, with violence spinning off to the British mainland. Another atrocity. Another hooded victim. Another soldier dead. Such violence seemed to be so common-place, it often lost its place in the daily news. Shock receded to acceptance. Familiarity stilled the horror of butchery.

    But I did not believe the situation was irreversible. Nor, when I met him, did Albert Reynolds. I will now embarrass Albert. I’m sorry, Albert, but what I’m about to say is true. When I met Albert, I liked him instantly – not always the case among politicians. The man I came to know was a pragmatist with convictions – never an ideologue. He was a deal maker: a man who would offer something to gain something. It felt as though I was looking in the mirror. There was hope.

    At our very first meeting in No. 10, Albert and I agreed to put a peace process at the forefront of our political agenda. We knew we might well face hostility. Deep-rooted scepticism was certain. Political setbacks were likely. At worst, our careers might end. But at best, innocent people would no longer be killed. During the nearly seven years I worked on the Peace Process, that was the easiest decision I had to take.
    In his Paper, Timothy Smyth observed that there were lessons learned that might offer sign-posts to solving other conflicts. He is right: there is one, above all.

    Any Peace Process means dialogue: dialogue with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and dialogue – indirect at first – with the paramilitaries. That point about peace making is absolute: you cannot reach an agreement with someone to whom you do not – or will not – talk.

    That was my view – and Albert’s too. Yet it was not received opinion.

    For years, the IRA had sought a political objective through violence. For years, they had been resisted. It was a dance of death -interminable and pointless. It was also a stand-off that was convenient to the warriors of each side. The IRA could say they were not cowed by the power of the British – and would fight continuously for a United Ireland. The British Government could parade its strength by refusing to talk until the IRA disarmed which, without progress, they would never do. These so-called “strong positions” – these “positions of principle” – merely served to entrench the violence and the killing. And – as Mr Smyth observes – there was a cumbersome baggage of ideology on every side.
    Albert Reynolds and I approached the problem in the belief there would be a settlement because there must be. That ideology must give way to common sense. Some thought that was a triumph of hope over experience: we did not.

    It seemed to me the groundwork for a settlement was obvious:-

    (i) We had to agree objectives between London and Dublin for – if the two Governments had opposing agendas – the chance of a settlement was minimal.

    (ii) We needed to get inside the mind of the paramilitaries. People would be astonished at how many hours I spent trying to think myself into their minds – particularly those of the leaders of the IRA. What were their motives? Why did they act as they did? What constraints did they face within their own organisation?

    (iii) We knew we had to address the grievances that made it so easy for mischief makers to stir up hatred and foment disputes between the two communities.

    (iv) And we had to offer an end product that would encourage those within the paramilitaries, who had begun to realise violence would never succeed and were looking for a political settlement.

    (v) We also had to address contradictory ambitions and fears. Unionists feared a united Ireland. Nationalists favoured it. Both communities needed reassuring.

    Returning to Mr Smyth’s observation about lessons learned: the above approach, with modifications, has to be the bed-rock of any approach to end violent conflict.

    Putting together a Peace Plan in the early 90s was like playing multi-dimensional chess. It was a Rubik’s cube in Gaelic. What pleased London often worried Dublin. What was acceptable to the Unionists was anathema to the Nationalists. What was welcomed by some in Parliament was condemned by others. A peace process was never going to be a smooth ride – and it wasn’t.

    The Joint Declaration

    In his Paper, in a masterpiece of under-statement, Mr Smyth refers to “elements of mistrust” on both sides. He is absolutely right. Mistrust was a serious impediment to progress. Time and again committed advocates on both sides used leaks to the Media – often half-truths – to highlight fears and submerge progress. Everything that emerged from a Republican source (or was welcomed by Republicans) was poked at suspiciously and denounced by Unionists. The reverse was also true. The history of the Joint Declaration is a classic illustration of this tendency.

    In retrospect, the Joint Declaration stands out. But – in the early 1990’s – other avenues were being considered too.

    There was, of course, the three-stranded talks between the constitutional Parties; London and Dublin and North and South. They had many frustrations and deficiencies and ended up as a blind alley, but they were a source of ideas to determine what was acceptable to all sides, and what was a show-stopper. One point we learned was crucial for later: the political Parties would talk to the British Government but not to each other – yet we learned they would do so if elected to the same body. Years later, that led to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the unexpected partnership of Mr Paisley and Mr McGuinness. In the 1990’s that would have seemed impossible, yet it is only when extreme positions are isolated, or neutered or brought together that a solution is possible.

    There was also the “back-channel” communication between the British Government and the Provisionals – a crucial clearing house and test bed. It was politically risky for the British Government, but also – let us not forget – for the Provisionals as well. When a newspaper “leaked” the existence of this channel, many were affronted by its existence – but making peace is a messy business and neither then nor now do I have any apologies to offer on this score: it advanced the Peace Process; it spelled out to the Provisionals what was – and was not – on offer; it removed misunderstandings; it helped save lives. To my mind, that is ample justification for it.

    It was in February 1993, through this “back channel”, that I received the following message:

    “The conflict is over but we need your advice on how to bring it to a close. We wish to have an unannounced ceasefire in order to hold a dialogue leading to peace. We cannot announce such a move as it will lead to confusion to the volunteers, because the press will misinterpret it as a surrender. We cannot meet the Secretary of State’s public renunciation of violence, but it would be given privately as long as we were sure that we were not being tricked.”

    In London, we gave this message a very restricted circulation. Even so, amongst close colleagues, some were suspicious. Some saw a political trap to lure the British Government into concessions. Few thought it would yield anything worthwhile. Doubt, as well as distrust, was ever-present on all sides throughout the process.

    The advice I received from the Security Services was that the message was from the Provisional Army Council – more specifically, they thought, from Martin McGuinness – although I should place on record that he has always denied sending it. This is a pity since – even in the darkest days – those words encouraged me to believe a settlement was possible. And there were many dark days.

    In his Paper, Mr Smyth reminds us of the bombs at Bishopsgate, Shankill Road, and Warrington to which he could have added the Loyalist murders at a pub in the village of Greysteel, in revenge for the IRA’s bungled bombing at Shankill Road. These atrocities were pivotal in hardening the public mind against violence, and boxing in the paramilitaries.

    I remember those bombs with the clarity of yesterday. I was in my garden in Huntingdon on a bright and beautiful Easter Saturday when I heard news of the Warrington bomb which fatally injured two little boys. It came only days after I had received assurances of progress from the Provisionals through the “secret link”. It was the only time I seriously considered breaking off the Peace Process. I did not – for two reasons: – firstly, I did not want any more loss of life – not least those of children: and secondly, I had begun to understand the psyche of the IRA. They believed they had to show themselves to be “strong” to placate their volunteers: that meant violence would accompany progress as, in their own way, they sought to show they were not making concessions, not – in their own mind – giving ground. Blood and progress marched together. It was a bitter assessment, but I believe it was the right one.

    The concept of a Joint Declaration had been around for some years. John Hume and Gerry Adams had pioneered the idea in 1988. Various private enterprise and Government texts had been floated but none was remotely likely to gain the support of the Unionist community. They were seen as too “Green” in complexion. Therefore – to the Unionists – they were flawed. Therefore, they were denounced. As so often in Irish politics, a sound idea was spoiled by its parentage – only a text jointly negotiated and agreed by the British and Irish Governments had any chance of acceptance North and South of the Border. And any negotiated text was bound to be very different from the early cock-shies. Nonetheless, the Hume-Adams’ dialogue was important and opened a window.

    It was not easy to agree a text. Officials – North and South – worked at it incessantly. Road-blocks were common. Disputes were frequent. I had innumerable hours of meetings with my own Officials, as no doubt, did Albert on his own side. Frequently we met – or resolved points over the telephone lines. I recall a meeting at a European Summit that dwarfed the importance of the Summit itself. And a stand-up row – in private – in Dublin Castle, when Albert and I deserted our Officials for one of the fiercest rows I ever had in Government. We survived it and returned to negotiation: that afternoon, I knew we’d reach a settlement.

    Albert Reynolds and I resolved the final points in the text of the Joint Declaration over the telephone on 14th November 1993 and announced it publicly sixteen hours later.

    What was the Declaration about? Was it worth all the effort?

    I believe it was. After 74 years of partition and almost 25 years of violent conflict, the British and Irish Governments – for the first time – had agreed principles upon which they could both unite.

    The Joint Declaration promised fair play to both communities. The Unionists were guaranteed there would be no imposition of a United Ireland, and the Republicans were guaranteed their traditions and aspirations would be respected. It was implicit that if there were ever to be a majority in the North for unification, that the British Government would not stand in the way. In addition – and crucially – the Paramilitaries were promised a full place in democratic politics once they abandoned violence. It was a powerful symbol that pointed the way to a very different future for Ireland.

    The impact of the Joint Declaration was immediate. It received massive public support at home – and worldwide. It isolated the men of violence. Encouraged the IRA to offer a cease-fire. And drained from all the paramilitaries the subliminal sympathy that earned them funding, recruits and public tolerance from their own communities. I believe, too, it offered hope where none previously existed.

    Much work still needed to be done. Political restrictions on the paramilitaries were eased. The Joint Framework Documents, negotiated with Albert Reynolds and finalised in 1995 with John Bruton, bridged a gap towards a final settlement. Indeed, re-assembled they were the basis for The Good Friday Agreement – when a new future was finally put in place for all Ireland.

    Prior to 1990, the Prime Minister and The Taoiseach met irregularly as sparring partners, often playing to their own gallery: today, the political relationship between London and Dublin is a relationship of allies – of friends; old opponents – once viscerally at war with one another – now work together.

    Ireland saw a new future and grasped it – putting an end to a black history that cost too many lives and dashed the hopes of too many generations. The pessimists were confounded. Reason prevailed – and the winner was – is – Ireland.

  • Sir John Major’s Letter to The Times – 10 January 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s letter to The Times on the subject of the Kate Middleton, published on 10th January 2007.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Sir,

    I was dismayed to see television pictures of photographers in persistent pursuit of Kate Middleton, so eerily reminiscent of those who haunted the life of Diana, Princess of Wales.

    Ten years on from the tragic death of the mother of Prince William and Prince Harry – and in the midst of the inquest into the circumstances surrounding it – it seems that we have learned nothing.

    Chance brought Prince William and Kate Middleton together. So far as I am aware, Kate Middleton has never sought publicity for either personal or professional gain. It is grotesque that, due to her relationship with Prince William, she should have to endure such an invasion of her privacy.

    We are told that laws exist to prevent such intolerable behaviour. If so, they are not effective. We are told that further laws could be introduced to tighten up that existing legislation. This is sheer bunkum. Must everything be done by legislation? Whatever happened to common decency?

    There is one sure way to put an immediate end to this hunting down of private citizens, and that is for the proprietors and editors of all British newspapers to state that they will no longer buy or print any photograph taken without the knowledge and consent of their quarry. Rupert Murdoch has instructed his UK newspapers accordingly and I commend him for this. I hope that other proprietors and editors will follow suit. No public – or private – figure should be pursued down British streets against their will, nor should their homes be besieged.

    In September 1997 we were assured that serious lessons had been learned. Learned, perhaps, but how soon forgotten.

    One day, Prince William will become King. Hopefully, there will be someone by his side to share that heavy burden of responsibility. We, as a nation, should afford Prince William, and those to whom he is close, the same degree of personal freedom, consideration and compassion that, in due course, we will receive from him as our Monarch.

    Yours faithfully.

    John Major
    London SW1

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to Sir Michael Marshall – 8 December 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s tribute to Sir Michael Marshall, given at the memorial service for Sir Michael on Friday 8th December 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Michael Marshall was a man of many and varied interests, none of which consumed him to the exclusion of the others.

    To know Michael was to know someone who was – in the true sense of the word – a gentle man. His long and happy marriage to Caroline, and the strength of his Christian faith, made him a man contented with his life.

    Michael loved Stanley Holloway monologues. One of them aptly sums him up. It tells the tale of a cockney who was much criticised for wearing brown boots at a funeral. But then the truth comes out:

    “E’d given ‘is black boots to Jim Small

    A bloke wot had no boots at all,

    So, p’raps Aunt Hannah doesn’t mind,

    She did like people who was good and kind”.

    Michael was, in his very essence, “good and kind”.

    He had a mature perspective on life that acknowledged duty but found time for pleasure. One of his guiding passions was the game of cricket, about which he wrote some stunningly good books. In his last months – when he knew he was very ill – we lunched together and discussed a book I was writing on the social history of early cricket. He was animated and enthusiastic, and phoned and wrote to me with fresh ideas, helpful suggestions and new source material.

    Another lunch was planned and aborted – first by Michael’s illness, and then by my absence abroad – and then – alas – it was too late.

    Michael believed in serendipity, and enjoyed the fact that he lived in Slindon, the tiny village that provided one of the greatest of the mid-eighteenth Century cricket teams. Slindon had such a pull in those far-off days, that its patron – the then Duke of Richmond – once delayed a meeting with the Prime Minister so that he could watch “pore little Slyndon” beat all-Surrey by an innings. It was a proper selection of priorities and only his natural courtesy might have stopped Michael making the same choice. Now he has joined those old cricketers and will rest forever in the village that helped shape the game that helped shape him.

    Throughout his long illness, Michael’s Roman Catholic faith sustained him. His God was ever present and the future held no fear. To those he leaves behind – to Caroline above all, and Debbie and Katie – he bequeaths memories of a self-effacing, undemonstrative man of solid worth and character, of conviction without dogma, of reassuring warmth, a man who carried with him an air of gentle and infectious fun that was shared with all who knew him.

    Such men are rare. While they are with us they make our world a better place. And when they are gone we can only be grateful that we were lucky enough to have known them.

    Michael Marshall was such a man.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Foreign and Commonwealth Office Association Event – 29 November 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at an event run by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Association, held at the Locarno Suite at the Foreign Office in London on the morning of Wednesday 29th November 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m delighted to be back at the Foreign Office this morning.

    Foreign Secretary 94 days: golden age: went to war with no-one.

    My time here was too short: I wish it had been longer. Today I can speak as an individual – nothing I say should be regarded as anyone’s policy other than my own.

    We live in a world that is changing comprehensively and rapidly. There are short term imperatives that cannot be ignored: and long term issues that should not be ignored.

    Today – nothing is as it was: nothing will be as it is.

    Economically, the world is turning to the East which – for the first time since 1820 – now produces the majority of world growth. No-one should be surprised at this return to the past: for 1800 years, China had the largest economy in the world: then in the early 19th century, the West had an industrial revolution – and the East did not.

    Now, China is re-asserting the old order.

    Some people worry that China will be a threat to the West. Economically, of course, she already is. Politically, she is becoming more influential. But neither politically nor militarily is China a threat in the sense of the former Soviet Union. China’s focus will be on internal problems – widespread unemployment, pollution, water scarcity, public resentment of the growing disparity of wealth; demands for a social welfare system; the appetite for more self-government.

    Their hands are full.

    INDIA

    Behind China – perhaps 10-15 years behind – comes India, who once had nearly one-quarter of the output of the whole world.
    Today, once more, she is in the midst of an explosion of ambition and has cornered a large part of the market in knowledge-based industries; in R&D; in IT; in Bio-technology and Molecular Biology. But India’s potential for manufacturing and engineering is also enormous and she is now more cost competitive than China.

    LATIN AMERICA

    Nor is Latin America the “old” Continent of lost opportunities.

    Between 1986-96 – inflation in Latin America was 180%.

    Today – between 6-7%.

    Budget deficits and country debts are falling.

    AFRICA

    Even Africa – poor, forgotten, disregarded Africa – is benefiting from high commodity prices and growing faster than for many years.

    For the last quarter of a century, the principal engines of world growth have been the US, Japan and the EU. Soon, China, non-Japanese Asia and India will join them.

    Moreover, over the last two years, every emerging economy in the world has out-performed every mature economy. As a result, growth in the world economy is becoming better balanced than ever before – which is excellent news for future economic stability – but the price for the democracies of the West is that political power will be more widespread. As the world economy re-configures, so does politics.

    So, too, has the mode of political thinking. In the last 25 years – in the UK and the US – political thought has seemed to move away from the gravity-based centre and become more ideological.

    I am suspicious of ideology. Policy is often at its best when compromise and pragmatism are seen as virtues – not a betrayal of the true path.

    The tabloid certainty of ideologues is a fiction for the ignorant.

    Before I turn to some pressing problems, let me make some brief assertions that, hopefully, may stimulate questions.

    Britain is a medium-sized, relatively rich country, in a world whose growth is outstripping ours. To protect our future political and trading interests, alliances and diplomacy will be vital.

    I, therefore, consider it an extremely bad policy to cut our overseas representation at a time when we should be increasing it. If that seems like special pleading to this audience – then so be it. It is what I believed as Prime Minister. Budget cuts for the Foreign Service mean people. We should be increasing our profile not preparing to diminish it. I travel 4 months in every year to every part of the world and I don’t like the reductions I see. They are not in Britain’s interest.

    Secondly, international bodies.

    There is a mode of neo-thinking that dismisses the UN as if it were an irrelevance. Frankly, this is madness. If we didn’t have the UN we would have to invent it. Our British interest is to make it more efficient, eliminate its short-comings – not pander to the mode of thinking that undermines it. The UN is our servant: it can be as relevant as its Members choose to make it.

    EUROPE

    On Europe, I’m not sure what British policy is at the moment. Certainly it is in flux.

    For over 30 years – with a few exceptions such as the Single Market and Enlargement – we have been on the back foot in Europe. The growth to 25 – soon 27 – Members offers an opportunity to put that right. Our great phobia over too-deep-an integration seems less likely now.

    I think we should be looking for policies to help Europe work more efficiently – at a time when we are not under pressure over a new currency or a new Constitution (although the latter, I think, will come back in diluted form after the French Presidential Election). Greater economic competitiveness is vital for all Europe: we should be developing the case – and arguing for it.

    Some issues are very pressing now.

    Much of the Middle East is in conflict. Our task in this generation is to ensure that future generations do not have to re-live the extra-ordinary number of problems that have come together in our own time: terror, Iraq, Iran, MEPP, Afghanistan, Lebanon. North Korea is a dilemma too, but of a different nature.

    We need a dose of reality, too. We had better accept that may be no ideal solution. We may have to compromise.

    And we should recognise that every situation will require diplomacy and statesmanship to be enlisted alongside military power.

    Our preferred outcome may be un-achievable. But, sometimes, even compromise solutions are a triumph.

    It may be unfashionable – and dare not even be spoken of in some quarters – but it still seems to me that the core issue remains the Arab-Israeli conflict. The lack of a serious peace process has left a vacuum which has been filled by bloodshed and mayhem. A Peace Process – however difficult – offers hope and we badly need that. If benign neglect remains the policy, then this problem can only get worse.
    It is unprovable – of course – but I suspect that neglect of a credible peace process has done more to encourage Muslim militancy than Iraq.
    In Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to be clear about the mission, and we need an exit strategy. If I asked everyone in this room to write down what they thought that mission was, I would get a wide variety of different answers.

    Iraq is messy and getting messier. Those who predicted the coalition would be greeted as liberators on flower-strewn paths are wiser now.

    We are not – alas – remotely where we had hoped to be.

    Both casualties and civil violence are mounting especially in the 30 miles radius of Baghdad. As American soldiers clean up districts, the insurgents move to neighbouring areas. As the troops move on, the insurgents move back in, because the Iraqi armed forces cannot hold the ground. This failure to hold the territory gained, means that to some extent, policy is simply chasing its tail.

    At the same time, the Iraqi Government refuses permission for troops to enter the most violent areas, on the grounds that it would be inflammatory. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland decision, that provides a haven for militancy.

    Decisions that are fundamental to the future of Iraq are not yet made. We do not yet know how oil revenue will be shared. The boundaries of the future Federalist system are not known. The future of Kirkuk is still uncertain. The new Police Force is – to put it kindly – inefficient and with divided loyalties.

    For the average Iraqi, life is dire. Many are killed each month. Unemployment is huge. Inflation is at 70%. Electricity supplies – in Baghdad for example – fluctuate wildly during every 24 hour period: a few weeks ago it was 3-4 hours only; more recently, I believe they had the luxury of 10 hours power. All of this, in turn, creates instability – and a deep resentment of the coalition forces on the ground.

    Many Iraqis are arrested and detained a long time without charge. You will never build a democracy without rule of law and due process is badly needed. So is money. The Chancellor’s £150 million is welcome – but petty cash: General Dempsey has US$5 billion a year to spend.
    In the US and Britain there is pressure to leave.

    Yet – if we did so prematurely – our departure would create a double-dilemma: not only would it be humiliating for us to leave without stability, but if Iraq was then torn apart by civil war, the implications of a militant Islamic Government emerging scarcely need to be spelled out.

    From where we are today there are no simple solutions, but it is clear we need diplomacy and statesmanship alongside military power. And – it would help in the future – if we factored in the lessons of history.

    AFGHANISTAN

    Much of this is relevant to Afghanistan.

    To promote democracy and destroy terror is a noble mission but the justice of the cause doesn’t lessen the need for a clear-cut objective, good planning and adequate resources.

    The Afghan mission is uncertain.

    Is it a peacekeeping mission?

    Or a nation-building one?

    Is it to catch Bin Laden?

    Or to defeat the Taliban; drug barons; warlords; Iraqi infiltrators; Pakistani bandits; and the local population fearful of their poppy crop being destroyed?

    Or is it all of the above – and more?

    History tells us Afghanistan is a very tough place to be. In the Afghan Wars – during the height of the British Empire – Britain did not even come a poor second. And, more recently, between 1979-1989, the Red Army was defeated in Afghanistan: 120,000 troops, ten years on the ground – and then defeat.

    We have 5,500 soldiers in Helmand Province of whom less than 2,000 are – in the terminology – men with bayonets. Most are logistical support. We are under-resourced in men and equipment. We are bastardising helicopters to make others airworthy. We are short of armoured vehicles. Our NATO allies are slow to help and have different “rules of engagement”. This is lamentable.

    It is a woeful tale for young soldiers who – when we sent them there – were told they may not have to face a shot! Now, they find themselves in a shooting war.

    The conclusion I draw is that there must be a political as well as a military strategy. A senior British General warned recently of the danger of an aggrieved population turning back to support the Taliban.

    From our perspective of the Taliban – as a brutal force with a medieval culture – that seems absurd. But the local population see the UK and America painted each day as invading interlopers – much like the Russians over twenty years ago. It is a crude untruth – but an effective one.

    Moreover, as we destroy the poppy crop – an evil trade, but the only way of earning a livelihood for many Afghans – we need to put in place alternative sources of income. If we fail to do this, we will simply turn the population against us – and back into the arms of the Taliban.

    There is a common thread that runs through Iraq and Afghanistan: both are ideological conflicts that must be fought by intellectual as well as martial force.

    TERROR

    One continuing problem is terror. It pre-dated Iraq and it will post-date present conflicts. It has been rising for a long time – Iraq is a focus but not the cause although I suspect it has been a recruiting tool. If we are to render terror impotent – we must win the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured.

    Without an intellectual victory, there will be no lasting military victory, and no respite. If we are to safeguard our way of life we must mobilise our best instincts as well as our military might.

    The West must counter the malign way in which it is misrepresented. We will not be able to persuade the hard-line militants but we can siphon off their support. We can dry up their recruitment. We can isolate them. We can ensure our allies are active in our support, and not passive.

    All around the world, even in the grimmest of circumstances, people hope for something better. Hope for something better is the most powerful antidote to anti-Western propaganda. And to gain the allies necessary to isolate and defeat terror, we must offer that hope.

    This is not some impossible dream. We saw hope triumph when the free market defeated communism. Now it must do so again, to help democracy defeat terror.

    We have one great advantage. The on-rush of the free market is delivering material benefits to nearly every part of the world. Politics must offer hope too.

    This will mean dialogue. It will mean enlisting other nations. It will mean working with regimes of whom we strongly disapprove.

    Some say this can’t be done. I say it can. Tough – yes. Long-term – yes. But it can be done.

    Sixteen years ago, I began a dialogue with the IRA when they were still bombing Northern Ireland and the British mainland. Many in our own Party opposed this. More doubted it would ever succeed. Some said it was folly. Others were less kind.

    And yet it began a peace process that has transformed Northern Ireland.

    The same principles apply, even to the core disputes in the Middle East, and the ideological divides that are so dangerous today. Dialogue can be productive. But that dialogue cannot be with a megaphone. It must be face-to-face.

    The alternative – a lack of dialogue – enables an enemy to distort our motives and mis-represent our policies. This is folly.

    CONCLUSION

    I know it sometimes seems as if there are a vast array of insurmountable and daunting problems.

    Well, there are – but we should put all of them into context.

    None is as dangerous as the nuclear confrontation that preceded the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Today, the free market has comprehensively won the battle of philosophies that scarred most of the last century.

    Our long-term ally, America is – and will remain – the most powerful political, economic and military power in the world.

    Future generations will see the growth of democracy in Europe as a huge achievement.

    The growth of emerging economies will give more nations of the world a greater stake in a peaceful future.

    Ahead of us is a new world, with many intractable problems. We must see this new world as it really is if we are to help shape how it could be.

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to The Lord Monro of Langholm – 28 November 2006

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s tribute to Hector Monro, The Lord Monro of Langholm, at a memorial service held on Tuesday 28th November 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:
    The more one thinks of Hector Monro – the more he grows in the memory.
    His circle of friends was wide. So were his interests: Politics, Scotland, the Armed Forces, the countryside, and any vintage vehicle that went fast. In leisure he was a fine sportsman; a good shot; captain of the South of Scotland Rugby XV; an enthusiastic golfer; a lover of cricket. These affections lasted all his life.
    Hector was comfortable in his own skin. He was true to himself. He didn’t need – or ever try – to strike attitudes. If he supported you, he was at your side. If he opposed you – it was face to face. His ideals and beliefs were the noblest and he lived up to them. Hector left a mark on the lives of everyone he knew.
    I first met Hector 30 years ago. We talked of rugby and cricket – and how – in order to build war-ships to fight Napoleon – Scotland had been denuded of trees. And they’re important subjects. Politics was barely touched upon. Over the years, we had many such conversations and – more often than not – we were on the same side – except, of course, at Twickenham and Murrayfield.
    On both sides of his family, Hector came from a long line of soldiers – and a few seamen but at Cambridge – perversely – he joined the University Air Squadron and then, in 1941, the RAF. For 5 years in the war he flew Sunderlands on patrol in the Atlantic and Catalina’s in the Far East. He had a good war that reinforced his love for planes. It was no surprise that – later – he became Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and an Honorary Air Commodore.
    In 1949, 27-year-old Hector, war veteran and farmer, married Anne Welch and they lived a happy life together for 45 years. They had two boys, Seymour and Hughie, of whom they were immensely proud. Both of them inherited the Army strand of the Monro genes. Seymour retired as a Major-General and Hughie is still serving as a Brigadier. I knew his sons by proxy long before I met them. Only once did I know Hector to be discomforted by them – when he discovered they were earning more as junior Army officers than he was as a Government Minister.
    Politics – to Hector – was a duty more than a passion. His political philosophy was pragmatism with a healthy disdain for dogma. After serving on the County Council, he was elected as the Member for Dumfries in 1964 – the only constituency he ever wished to represent. He served it faithfully for 33 years and retired in 1997 having won every election he contested.
    In Parliament, Hector gravitated naturally to the Whips Office, then under the stewardship of his regular golfing partner, Willie Whitelaw. Willie had a combustible character, and Hector often exerted valuable influence on him. “Steady on, Willie, steady on”, he’d say, until the Whitelaw eruption subsided.
    He had similar man management skills in the Commons. If an unwelcome question was put to him at the Despatch Box he would look up with a pained expression: “The hon Member really should know that” he’d tell the House: “go and look it up in the Library”. Few suspected that Hector sometimes needed to look it up as well.
    Hector served on the front bench in Opposition – and as a Minister – for many years, generously returning to Office when the Government needed him in the 1990s, even though it meant severing other interests. It was typical of him to do so. Among Hector’s other virtues he was a team player with a grace that endeared him to colleagues and officials alike.
    In – or out – of Government his affection for the Armed Services never wavered. It merged with his family history to make him fiercely defensive of the Army and, in particular, the Scottish Regiments. He once came to see me, to put a rational case against amalgamation of the Regiments. He arrived as an earlier delegation stomped out having made all sorts of rebellious noises over Europe, peppered with dark hints of the consequences if policy did not change. “It was”, said the Whip who was with me at the two meetings, “like gold after dross”. Hector’s civility was one of his many political assets. Some may have attained higher Office. None earned greater respect.
    As the MP for the county he loved, his name was a byword for integrity, hard work and concern for all his constituents. This was never better illustrated than in December 1988, when a Pan Am airliner, destroyed by terrorists, crashed on to the town of Lockerbie.
    For days, weeks, months, Hector was there – comforting and caring for his cruelly bereaved and injured constituents – long after others had been and gone. They were his people. By common consent, this was his finest hour – and it left a lasting affection for him across all political parties.
    By 1994, his love of golf had led him to Doris, whom both he and Anne had known. It was another very successful marriage and I, personally, can attest to the affection in that happy home. Hector gave so much of himself to others – but with Anne and Doris – he was a self-confessed “very lucky man”!
    Very occasionally – usually in the Summer – Hector would arrive at the Commons in a very old Black Bentley. He talked with great affection of that car. I was one of a group sharing a pre-lunch drink with Hector when an elderly colleague came up and – quite poker-faced – told us all that there had been an accident in the car park and some fool had smashed into an old Bentley and caved in the front wing. “A real mess”, he said. A pale-faced Hector was half-way to the door before he realised he was being teased. The offender made amends with a bottle of champagne – although a restorative Whisky might have been more appropriate. Hector, glass in hand, his equanimity restored, looked balefully at his tormentor and proposed a barbed toast to “vintage cars and senile old fools”.
    To all of us lucky enough to know Hector his fixed memory is a happy one.
    Hector Monro was a fully rounded man. By instinct, a countryman. In leisure: a sports-lover and enthusiast for cars and planes. In public duty: a JP, Deputy Lieutenant, politician, County Councillor, Minister of the Crown, Privy Counsellor, Knight, Peer of the Realm. And, above all, in his essential self – family man, patriot and Scot.
    These were but the labels of a very full life – the real achievement of which lay in the very nature of the man himself.
    Hector leaves a tremendous gap in the lives of those who loved him most: Doris, Seymour and Hughie, his sister and his six grandchildren. Today, all of us who were privileged to know this engaging, multi-faceted man, celebrate a life worth living and a man who, for eighty-three years, lived it to the full – and left, to his family and friends, some imperishable memories.
    Our lives are richer for having known him – and richer still for having him as a friend.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Sir Edward Heath Memorial Lecture – 14 November 2006

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Sir Edward Heath Memorial Lecture, held at the British Embassy in Paris on Tuesday 14th November 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:
    This is the last of a Series of Lectures to commemorate the life’s work of Sir Edward Heath. It says much about the current political mood in Britain that these Lectures are in Paris.
    Ted Heath had many passions – sailing, music, art – and, in politics, the binding together of Europe and Western relations with China. They remained consuming interests until the end of his life.
    And upon such matters he was resolute and immovable.
    Very little is immovable today. We live in a world changing more comprehensively than ever before. In politics and economics, we can no longer rely on many of the assumptions we have lived with for generations.
    Old disciplines once available to Government – exchange controls, for example – are redundant. Common standards and specifications are often international, rather than the prerogative of the Nation State. Even tax policy must bow to the need for competitiveness and, in small and medium sized economies, can be determined by the demands of footloose international capital.
    In recent years, corporate leadership has given us the global economy, the cellnet revolution, the internet and e-commerce. The landscape of investment has been changed by Private Equity and Hedge Funds.
    In the face of this revolution, Governments often fall behind, out-paced, as the private sector and the free market set the agenda.
    In the future – more than ever before – the influence of the private sector will be a key factor, not only in the prosperity of nations, but also in our way of life. As politicians diminish; the private sector grows. It is merging our tastes and shrinking our planet.
    When Kipling wrote those famous lines:
    “East is East and West is West
    And never the twain shall meet”
    he had not factored in the global market.
    Today – nothing is as it was: nothing will be as it is.
    CHINA
    Economically, the world is turning to the East which – for the first time since 1820 – now produces the majority of world growth. No-one should be surprised at this return to the past: for 1800 years, China had the largest economy in the world: then in the early 19th century, the West had an industrial revolution – and the East did not.
    Now, China is re-asserting the old order. The Chinese were making silk and pottery before the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and before the ancient Britons built Stonehenge.
    Today, China is utilising her natural advantages. She has space, and an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour. The lure of her gigantic market attracts US$ 60 billion of foreign investment each year. This combination has made her hugely competitive.
    She does not have energy – and so she is buying up oil fields, petro-chemical facilities, technology, mineral and natural resources whenever she can. She is short of many commodities and – as a by-product of her huge purchases of food, soya, rice, wheat and minerals – she is making political alliances around the non-aligned world.
    As her economy grows, so does her political influence. It is a sight I never thought I’d see: a once closed Communist economy challenging the Capitalist world.
    But not all is rosy for China. She is not El Dorado. Accepting the advantages of the free market means she must face the problems of it as well.
    Unemployment in China is huge. Hundreds of millions of workers from rural areas are migrating to the cities, in the hope of finding work. China faces serious problems of pollution, lack of water and shortage of energy.
    Ironically, even her 9½% annual growth brings political problems. Greater economic wellbeing leads to greater expectations: resentment of a growing disparity of wealth; demands for a social welfare system; an appetite for more self-government. Shanghai does not wish to be micro-directed from Beijing.
    Some people worry that China will be a threat to the West. Economically, of course, she already is. Politically, she is becoming more influential. But neither politically nor militarily is China a threat in the sense of the former Soviet Union. China’s focus will be internal for many years to come.
    Some of their problems are unexpected. The divorce rate in China has tripled as women exercise an independence they have never known before.
    Above all, China must overcome a paradox that will challenge Communist rule: to retain popular support, the Government need successful economic growth, but to obtain that they must loosen their grip on the regions. This is alien to their philosophy, but essential to China’s well-being.
    INDIA
    Behind China – perhaps 10-15 years behind – comes India, who once had nearly one-quarter of the output of the whole world.
    Today, once more, she is in the midst of an explosion of ambition and has cornered a large part of the market in knowledge-based industries; in R&D; in IT; in bio-technology and molecular biology. But India’s potential for manufacturing and engineering is also enormous and her employment costs are now more favourable than China. Within twenty years or so, she is likely to be one of the four biggest economies in the world.
    Although China and India are the biggest single ingredient in the economic shift from West to East they are not alone. Japan is an established economic giant but all SE Asia is growing.
    There is even a North-South movement as Latin America ceases to be the “old” Continent of lost opportunities.
    Between 1986-96 – inflation in Latin America was 180%. Today – between 6-7%.
    Budget deficits and country debts are falling. Prospects are rising.
    Even Africa – poor, forgotten, disregarded Africa – is benefiting from high commodity prices and growing faster than for many years.
    Other countries, too, are in phoenix mode.
    RUSSIA
    Politically, Russia under Putin is regressing. Economically, she has problems with corruption, with the Russian mafia, with bureaucracy, but business performance is strong with many niche opportunities for investors – if the right partner can be found.
    The reason for economic growth in – by our standards – a lawless background, is that Russia is blessed with natural resources. She:
    – Can lift as much oil as Saudi Arabia;
    – Has one-third of the world’s supply of natural gas; and
    – By any yardstick – has enormous scope for future growth.
    There are concerns about internal democracy.
    – President Putin has re-claimed too much power for the Kremlin.
    – The judicial system is neither swift, just nor independent.
    – The free press has all but disappeared.
    I am, in no sense, a Cold War warrior, but we do no favours to Russia if we overlook this authoritarian, anti-democratic trend.
    Externally, Ukraine and Georgia might also welcome the West letting her disapproval be known, so that Russia is aware there will be a price to pay if she slips back into her old ways. But – even as we watch political developments – it is time to recognise that the “New” Russia is not the “Old” Soviet Union.
    Even within the EU, there is a drift from the mature democracies of Western Europe to the new European nations. It is easy to see why: the cost of a skilled engineer in Slovakia or Romania is 14,000 Euros a year, whereas in Bonn, Paris or London it is 92,000 Euros a year.
    The free market has many virtues – but it is ruthless in pursuit of competitiveness, and mature economies must recognise this.
    Let me pull all this together:
    For the last quarter of a century, the principal engines of world growth have been the US, Japan and the EU. Soon, China, non-Japanese Asia and India will join them.
    And, added to the economic mix, is a new ingredient: over the last two years, every emerging economy in the world has out-performed every mature economy. As a result, growth in the world economy is becoming better balanced than ever before – which is excellent news for future economic stability – but the price for the democracies of the West is that political power will be more widespread.
    POLITICAL CHANGE
    We can see this new phenomenon taking shape. As the world economy re-configures, so does politics. The political map of the world is fluid.
    The battle between Communism and the Free Market has been comprehensively won.
    But the conflict between competing religious ideologies – so long dormant – is re-engaged. Radicals wish to unite Islam and pit that religion against the rest of the world.
    Much of the Middle East is in dis-array, as an extraordinary number of problems have come together in our own time: Oil; Terror; Iraq; Iran; MEPP; Afghanistan; Lebanon.
    Although these problems may seem insoluble – they are not. But it is essential to focus on the objectives we seek and then set out a route to achieve them.
    Every situation will require diplomacy and statesmanship to be enlisted alongside military power.
    We need a dose of reality, too. We had better accept there may be no ideal solutions. We may have to compromise.
    Our preferred outcome may be un-achievable. But, sometimes, even compromise solutions are a triumph.
    IRAQ
    In Iraq – and Afghanistan – we need to be clear about the mission, and we need an exit strategy. If I asked everyone in this room to write down what they thought that mission was, I would get a wide variety of different answers.
    Iraq is messy and getting messier. Those who predicted the coalition would be greeted as liberators on flower-strewn paths are wiser now. If they had known their history, they would have been much wiser much earlier on. We are not – alas – remotely where we had hoped to be.
    Both casualties and civil violence are mounting especially in the 30 miles radius of Baghdad. As American soldiers clean up districts, the insurgents move to neighbouring areas. As those troops move on, the insurgents re-occupy the area, because the Iraqi armed forces cannot hold the ground. This failure to hold the territory gained, means that policy is simply chasing its tail.
    At the same time, the Iraqi Government refuses permission for troops to enter the most violent areas, on the grounds that it would be inflammatory. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland decision, that merely provides a haven for militancy.
    Decisions that are fundamental to the future of Iraq are not yet made. We do not yet know how oil revenue will be shared. The boundaries of the future Federalist system are not known. The future of Kirkuk is still uncertain. The new Police Force is – to put it kindly – inefficient, and with divided loyalties.
    For the average Iraqi, life is dire. Many are killed each month. Unemployment is huge. Inflation is at 70%. Electricity supplies – in Baghdad for example – fluctuate wildly during every 24 hour period: a couple of weeks ago it was 3-4 hours only; this past week, I believe they had the luxury of 10 hours power. All of this, in turn, creates instability – and a deep resentment of the coalition forces on the ground.
    The situation is full of ironies. The Iraqi Government is weak and unstable. It is possible that only the presence of the coalition prevents a coup.
    And yet – to buy domestic popularity – the Government may be tempted to tell the coalition to leave.
    But such a departure would create a double-dilemma: not only would it be humiliating for the coalition to be asked to leave, but if they did so, and Iraq was torn apart by civil war, the implications of a militant Islamic Government emerging scarcely need to be spelled out.
    From where we are today there are no simple solutions, which is why I spoke of the need for diplomacy and statesmanship alongside military power. And – as we consider policy – we should factor in the lessons of history.
    AFGHANISTAN
    All of this is relevant to Afghanistan. The catalyst for democracy’s response to terror was the attack on New York five years ago.
    To promote democracy and destroy terror is a noble mission, but the justice of the cause doesn’t lessen the need for a clear-cut objective, good planning and adequate resources.
    In Iraq, the most dangerous place is Baghdad, where American forces take the lead. In Afghanistan, it is Helmand and Kandahar Provinces, where British and Canadian forces are in the front line.
    The Afghan mission, as seen from the UK, is uncertain.
    Is it a peacekeeping mission?
    Or a nation-building one?
    Is it to catch Bin Laden?
    Or to defeat the Taliban; drug barons; warlords; Iraqi infiltrators; Pakistani bandits; and the local population fearful of their poppy crop being destroyed?
    Or is it all of the above – and more?
    History tells us Afghanistan is a very tough place to be. In the Afghan Wars – during the height of the British Empire – Britain did not even come a poor second. And, more recently, between 1979-1989, the Red Army was defeated in Afghanistan: 120,000 troops, ten years on the ground – and then retreat – as they were beaten back to Moscow. And this was when Russia was still, herself, a superpower.
    A senior British General warned recently of the danger of an aggrieved population turning back to support the Taliban.
    From our perspective of the Taliban – as a brutal force with a medieval culture – that seems absurd. But the local population see the UK, America and Canada painted each day as invading interlopers – much like the Russians over twenty years ago. It is a crude untruth – but an effective one.
    Moreover, as we destroy the poppy crop – an evil trade, but the only way of earning a livelihood for many Afghans – we need to put in place alternative sources of income. If we fail to do this, we will simply turn the population against us – and back into the arms of the Taliban.
    There is a common thread that runs through Iraq and Afghanistan: both are ideological conflicts that must be fought by intellectual as well as martial force.
    TERROR
    If we are to lift the curse of terror from the next generation – or, more realistically, render it impotent – we must win the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured.
    Without an intellectual victory, there will be no lasting military victory, and no respite. If we are to protect our way of life we must mobilise our best instincts as well as our military might.
    The West must counter the malign way in which it is misrepresented. We will not be able to persuade the hard-line militants but we can siphon off their support. We can dry up their recruitment. We can isolate them. We can do more to encourage our allies to be more active in our support.
    All around the world, even in the grimmest of circumstances, people hope for something better. Hope for something better is the most powerful antidote to anti-Western propaganda. And to gain the allies necessary to isolate and defeat terror, we must offer that hope.
    This is not some impossible dream. We saw hope triumph when the free market defeated communism. Now it must do so again, to help democracy defeat terror.
    We have one great advantage. The on-rush of the free market is delivering material benefits to nearly every part of the world. Politics must offer hope too.
    This will mean dialogue. It will mean enlisting other nations. It will mean working with regimes of whom we strongly disapprove.
    Some say this can’t be done. I say it can. Tough – yes. Long-term – yes. But it can be done.
    Sixteen years ago, I began a dialogue with the IRA when they were still bombing Northern Ireland and the British mainland. Many opposed this. More doubted it would ever succeed. Some even said it was folly.
    And yet it began a peace process that has transformed Northern Ireland.
    The same principles apply today, even to the core disputes in the Middle East, and the ideological divides that are so dangerous. Dialogue can be productive. But it must be dialogue – not monologue – and it cannot be with a megaphone.
    The alternative – a lack of dialogue – enables our motives to be distorted, and our policies to be mis-represented. It would be folly to allow that to happen.
    CONCLUSION
    The political and economic challenges arising from the Near and Far East are more complex and far-reaching than any we have faced before. They will not fade away.
    I’ll read you a poem you may know and I learned as a child:
    For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.
    For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.
    For the want of a horse the rider was lost.
    For the want of a rider the message was lost.
    For the want of a message the battle was lost.
    For the want of a battle the war was lost.
    For the want of a war the kingdom was lost.
    And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
    Benjamin Franklin, 1758
    It is the classic illustration of how a chain of events can follow on – one from another.
    If that was true in the world of Benjamin Franklin, how much more true it is in the integrated global world of today.
    Our task in this generation is to look at our world with a critical and honest eye and see how it is – so we can try and shape how it could be.
    We have the ability to do so. Only time will tell whether we have the wisdom – and the will – to channel that knowledge into policies – to safeguard our future.

  • Sir John Major’s Statement on the National Lottery – 30 July 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s statement on the National Lottery, made to the Sunday Telegraph on 30th July 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My original vision for the Lottery was to fund a renaissance in sport, the arts and our heritage. I saw the opportunity to fund projects that the Treasury would never be able to afford.

    In ten years much has been achieved, but far more could have been done if the Labour Government had not perverted the original aim of the Lottery by diverting billions of pounds from each good cause for their own purpose. It has been larceny on a grand scale.

    I am absolutely delighted that a future Conservative Government will restore the Lottery to its original purpose. We will all be the richer for that.