The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 2001-2009

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on BBC Sunday AM – 16 July 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC Sunday AM show with Andrew Marr, broadcast live on 16th July 2006.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now I’m joined here in the studio by the former Prime Minister Sir John Major. Welcome.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Good morning.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I’m going to go straight into that same story. I think you’ve known Shimon Peres reasonably well over the years. How did you respond to what he was saying this morning?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I have known him very well. He’s one of the foremost statesmen of the Middle East and a man for whom I have a huge regard but what we’ve just heard over the last ten minutes or so really makes one despair.

    Here you have a classic non-meeting of minds. Both sides think absolutely that they are right. There seems to be no point of compromise at all. And the problem with what’s going on at the moment, with all the violence and the deaths that are going on at the moment, is that it will entrench bitterness, it will entrench hatred, and even if Hezbollah is defeated, even if the head of Hezbollah is cut off, a new Hezbollah will arise.

    At the end of the day this is going to have to be solved by negotiation, and what is happening at the moment – apart from the immediate destruction – is making the prospect of fruitful negotiation almost impossible. So I think we have stepped back from where we were a few months ago very dramatically in the last few weeks.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Grim stuff?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s very grim. It’s very grim, and one sees little reason at the moment for any optimism at all.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Had this not been happening this weekend I suppose the front pages would have been dominated by what’s going on in southern Afghanistan where British troops are being support and increased and have made a major offensive, I think the biggest since the original war in Afghanistan. I know that you’ve been interested in this and observing it. What are your feelings about that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well British troops are superb in the field in terms of conflict. But I think there are a number of reasons to be very concerned about what is happening in Afghanistan. For a start it’s not entirely clear, even to many of the military figures I’ve spoken to, precisely what the mission is. When the troops were first sent there by John Reid it was quite a low key mission.

    There wasn’t any suggestion of any real conflict. We saw just over the last day or so that there’s quite substantial conflict. We’ve seen a number of thefts. And now it seems the mission has escalated in a way that is really quite extraordinary. Apparently rather than just training local policemen and the modest mission that was originally there, it now seems to be to defeat the Taliban, to destroy the poppy crop, and in some form or another to nation build. Well that is a wholly different proposition to achieve with three and a half or four and a half thousand troops with reinforcement.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you think we’re being sucked in to what is in effect a new war in southern Afghanistan?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I don’t know exactly what we’re being sucked into, but I think anyone who looks at the history of Afghanistan would be concerned about the present circumstances. If you look back historically, admittedly a long time ago, there were three Afghan wars in which Britain didn’t even come a good second. In more recent years the Russians were there with 120,000 men for ten years.

    ANDREW MARR:

    During your time as Prime Minister of course, and Foreign Secretary and then …

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Foreign Secretary, yes. It ended just as I became Prime Minister but there was no connection. They were there for ten years, the Russians had 120,000 troops there. They lost, I think, 15,000. They had innumerable wounded, and they retreated defeated. So if we have, if we really have, a mission, as it now looks, that is to begin to resurrect and provide a new stable, democratic Afghanistan, it’s hardly achievable with three and a half thousand troops and nine hundred replacements just coming into theatre.

    And I think it is even less achievable when you consider exactly what those troops are ranged against. They’re ranged against the Taliban, they’re ranged against Al-Qaeda, they’re ranged against the warlords, against the drug lords, against infiltrators from Iraq, bandits from Pakistan, and the local population, who exist through their poppy crop and believe that is going to be destroyed, and if it is destroyed have nothing else upon which to have a livelihood whatsoever. Now if you mix those ingredients together, it’s a fairly unsavoury stew to be handled by three and a half to four a half thousand troops.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Put that way you make it sound virtually like mission impossible.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, if the mission is as it now seems, and if we are going to stick with three and a half to four and a half thousand troops I do not see how the mission can be achieved however skilful the troops are. I have extraordinary admiration for them. I remember going out just before the first Gulf War and seeing our troops and being hugely impressed, but I also noticed they were very young.

    They were 19 to 23, 24, 25 and so will be the vast majority of troops out there. Now I think we owe it to them to be absolutely transparent about what their mission is, to ensure they have the best backup, and at the moment I don’t believe they have. Their Land Rovers are clearly inadequate.

    The helicopter situation I think is dire, both in terms of attack helicopters and support helicopters. The last information I had, and I’ve not heard it denied, is that they were having to cannibalise some helicopters in order to have others flying, and last week we had – I paraphrase, this may not have been exactly what he said – but the Defence Secretary seemed to be saying, “We will try and tease some helicopters out of our NATO partners.”

    ANDREW MARR:

    To fight a war…

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    To fight what is increasingly looking like a very substantial engagement, if not a war.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And yet that leaves the country, Prime Minister particularly, with a very stark choice. Either pull out of what seems to be developing into a war of a kind, or else heavily reinforce and dig in for the long-term. So which way do you go?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well this is largely a NATO exercise. It isn’t just for the British. I think if you are going to ask the troops to carry out a mission of the scale it now seems to be – perhaps the government will say it isn’t that scale and draw it back – but if it is of the scale it now seems to be, then I think there is certainly going to be a need for better equipment, better backups, more troops, much greater liaison with NATO and perhaps more troops other than from the United Kingdom. But here again you have a problem. Many of the other nations who are in Afghanistan have particular national caveats. There are things that they will not do that we will.

    They have different rules of engagement, things they will not do that we will. And I hate saying this when British troops are in the field but I think someone has to make it clear that however skilled they are, however brave they are, however well led they are, they do need the logistical backup and they do need an absolutely clear and unmistakable mission that is achievable.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    And in addition, we need to know what the exit strategy is. What do they have to achieve before the mission is accomplished and they come home? I don’t know and, more worryingly, I don’t think they do either.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Ten years ago, as Prime Minister, you were facing endless newspaper allegations of sleaze and you lost quite a few ministers one way and another. Now we have the prospect of the Prime Minister being investigated by the police and one of his closest associates arrested. It was never quite like that in your time. Do you think this is, in the end, a media storm, or do you think it’s a serious moment for the democracy?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it certainly wasn’t like that in my time because if you actually look at what happened, I mean the question of sleaze and mud was originally invented by the Labour Party who threw it at the Conservative Party to damage us politically.

    What goes around comes around and they’re now suffering from that themselves. But if you looked at what happened in the 1990s, most of the so-called sleaze events in the 1990s were pieces of individual behaviour by people, either backbenchers or on one or two occasions ministers, they did not involve the government as a government. Let us be quite clear about that, they did not involve the government as a government. And those issues that people say were most serious – cash for questions being the most obvious one – actually took place before the 90s, they actually took place in the 80s, they just became apparent in the 90s and were used to wrap around the last government’s neck. But let me finish this point because I think it’s a good point.

    Where there is something that needs to be said, it has become very standard practice to refer to the last Conservative government in terms of sleaze. It is inaccurate. I remember the principle members of that government: Hurd, Heseltine, Clarke, Bottomley, Gummer, Shepherd, Brooke – where are the sleazy members amongst that cabinet and amongst that government? That is short-hand by the press for a whole series of incidents unconnected to the government but sometimes within the government party, that I concede, and on one or two occasions amongst ministers, that I concede.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But now?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    But not endemic to government. So there is, I think, a clear distinction between what happened then and what is happening now. And I think the other point about what happened then was that we had been in government so long, about 15, 16, 17, 18 years…

    ANDREW MARR:

    There’s a natural exhaustion. I understand that.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Everything stuck.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But nonetheless, as a Prime Minister, you had to raise money, or people had to raise money on your behalf to fight general election campaigns. Now any suggestion that Tony Blair has been involved in trying to enrich himself personally, he’s trying to get the Labour Party enough money to fight their next election campaign or in this case the last one, is there an endemic problem with having Prime Minister of the country, leader of the opposition out there with a begging bowl, a cap, amongst all sorts of individuals desperately needing money?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Most of Labour’s money still comes from the trade unions, over 50% over the past few years, it still comes from the trade unions which is why so much of their policy is still subordinate to the trade unions. But as for the rest of it, I can only speak for my time in office. When I was in office the fundraising was done by the party treasurers. Number 10 was not involved in the fundraising, there were no personal envoys. Now what is happening now is the subject of investigation and I don’t wish to cast stones until I know the result of that investigation.

    I know what happened before, I know it was arm’s length from Number 10. It was dealt with by the Party treasurers and I know there was a very stringent system there afterwards, not least to the Honours Scrutiny Committee to ensure that everything was proper, as I firmly believe that it was. But I don’t know what has been happening under the present government, and until I do know, I think I’m happy to leave it in the hands of those investigating it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You’ve been pretty keen on the way David Cameron has performed so far, but is ‘hug a hoodie’ going just a little too far for you?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think you have to look at what David Cameron is seeking to achieve. He’s trying to produce a Cameron brand so that people can see that the Conservatives have changed. A long time ago, because of the success of the 1980s and the first two thirds of the 1980s were perhaps the most successful period in government for any party for a very long time, the first two thirds, perhaps up until 1990…

    ANDREW MARR:

    You were about to say 1990, that’s when you took over.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Up until 1987 they were hugely successful, and I think that we have to pay a great degree of credit to that. But some of the people still look at what was appropriate in the 1980s and think it is still absolutely appropriate and nothing else is in the 1990s and in the 2000s.

    And of course the country has moved on, the world has moved on and we have to move on, and that is what David Cameron is trying to do to produce his own brand. And you can always find a single issue, if you look hard enough, that any single member of any party with any Prime Minister won’t agree with. But I think he’s moving us in the right direction.

    ANDREW MARR:

    The right direction. Sir John, thank you very much indeed.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My pleasure.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments at Kensington and Chelsea Conservative Association – 12 July 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments made at Kensington and Chelsea Conservative Association on Wednesday 12th July 2006, also attended by Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Malcolm.

    I’m outside politics now but – when I look at it – I don’t like all I see.

    Certainly I don’t think I can recall a time in which the public were more out of love with politics than now.

    Turn-out at Elections has fallen sharply.

    Politicians are not trusted.

    All this is a huge opportunity for the Conservative Party: if we sniff the political wind, we can smell the decay of this Government.

    We Tories are the oldest political party in the world – with ancient traditions and convictions – but that alone will not bring victories. If we wish to hand on a better future to our children/ grandchildren we would be wise to open our minds to new ideas – even if some of them may be unpalatable.

    We are right to honour our past successes, but if we forever hark back to the past, we betray the future. We should ignore the ancestral voices that denounce any change in policy and look at what is right for tomorrow.

    The world has moved on.

    Our country has moved on.

    Our Party must move on, too.

    We do not want to ape Labour.

    The infamy of what Labour have done is still largely hidden. It will emerge eventually but we need to dis-inter it as swiftly as possible:

    1. they have undermined and politicised the civil service;
    2. the way in which they have awarded Peerages is being investigated;
    3. and from day one, they have offered a diet of half-truths and untruths to promote their policy.
    4. they have brought into Government all the black arts of smear, abuse, sharp practice, deceit and spin that they perfected in Opposition.

    They have turned the serious business of Government into a marketing exercise.

    As a result, their word is now discredited. People believe Ministers have the same fondness for the truth that King Herod had for babysitting.

    Public – routinely – do not believe them.

    Consider one test alone: if the Prime Minister went to Parliament tomorrow to report that our Nation was under threat and we must go to war – would Parliament or the public believe him?

    I think not – and that is unprecedented in modern politics. Rightly or wrongly, by intent – or by accident – the public believe they were misled over the Iraq War and they will not forget that.

    It’s not a question of whether the war was right or wrong. Or whether Saddam was a bad man – he was. Or whether we’re better without him – we are. It’s a question of whether we were told the truth – without spin and without embellishment – and we were not.

    The Prime Minister is reaching the end of his career and there is the expectation Gordon Brown will replace him.

    Not an improvement.

    It was Gordon Brown who taxed pensions by £5 billion a year – ending the security of Final Salary Related pensions. Typically, the Government has refused to hold an enquiry into this policy.

    Brown is also responsible for the fiasco over tax benefits – with millions receiving the wrong entitlement and now being asked to repay it. For no explicable reason he also sold gold largely to China at half its current value. This misjudgement cost the taxpayer over £2 billion but brought a smile to faces in Beijing.

    If Brown succeeds Blair, we are in deep trouble.

    The way Government make decisions is appalling. Their policy making was sloppy on Iraq. Is sloppy on Afghanistan and looks as though it will be sloppy over Trident.

    We are reinforcing our commitment in Southern Afghanistan.

    The objective – to install democracy, defeat terrorism, destroy the poppy crop – is admirable.

    No-one can object to that.

    The question is: is this achievable with the resources available?

    Have policy-makers forgotten the lessons of three Afghan wars?

    Have they forgotten the Russians put 120,000 soldiers into Afghanistan in 1979 – when Russia was still a “superpower” – only to withdraw – defeated with 15,000 killed – nine years later?

    When the Government place our soldiers in such peril – and claim they’ll do everything necessary to win – I wonder what they know the rest of us don’t. I wondered that over Iraq – and it turned out they knew nothing we didn’t know.

    In Afghanistan our own modest forces – less than 5000 troops even after reinforcement – must face the War Lords, remnant of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iranian infiltration, Pakistani bandits, local opposition and destroy the poppy crop upon which they live.

    So far as I can see, no thought has been given to helping to provide an alternative income – though such a policy could earn us local allies to support our troops.

    May be I’m out-of-date but, if we put our troops at risk, should we not give them an achievable objective and good logical support in theatre? I think so.

    A similar incoherence looks likely over Trident. Trident is becoming out of date and we soon need to decide its future.

    It’s not an easy decision: even an upgrade will cost £20 billion. It will have an effect on our total defence posture. We will need to build new nuclear submarines.

    How many? We don’t know.

    Do we wish to redesign rockets? Not clear.

    What is the opportunity cost? Unknown.

    Who would be the target? Not known.

    All this should be discussed. Yet – without discussion – Gordon Brown announces it will continue – presumably to close out discussion and promote his leadership prospects as a man who can make decisions.

    As we differentiate our approach from Labour, there are traps we must avoid.

    I. Election to the Lords:

    In theory, this sounds democratic but in practice is a mistake. We would be exchanging the election of Peers who have reached eminence in their profession, for Peers who could not get elected to the Commons. It would guarantee a constitutional clash.

    II. Party Funding

    Politicians are already pretty alienated from the public. We should not make that worse by dipping our hands into their pockets, to fund our Party. It would be resented – and is a profoundly un-Conservative thing to do.

    III Scotland

    I spoke of a possible clash between the Lords and Commons if ill-considered changes are made. As an example of this, one need look no further than this Government’s ill-considered 1997/8 Devolution Bill. I fought against a devolved Parliament because I believed – perhaps wrongly – it would lead to Independence. Rather like Lloyd George, I feared those two leaps to cross one chasm.

    Devolution I saw as the first leap. Scottish demand for independence the second. That has not yet happened. But English frustration could yet cause a schism. There must be changes made here: the present situation cannot be sustained.

    Now Scotland has its own Parliament, it cannot be right that Scottish MPs determine changes to the law in England that will not affect them or their constituents. This is not an anti-Scottish cry: far from it. It is a concern that unless we address this – it will fester and put the Union at risk.

    Malcolm has suggested two answers to the West Lothian Question: an English Grand Committee whose decisions would be accepted and the need for an English majority – as well as a Commons majority – for English legislation. Either might solve the problem.

    Wherever we look, our world is being re-modelled.

    The fear of global war has gone; today terror is globalising. The worst atrocity has been in New York, but Bali, Jerusalem, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo – and now Mumbai – all bear the mark of terror.

    Terrorism can cause mayhem – but it is comforting to note it often merely entrenches more securely what it wishes to destroy: it is an ineffective way to bring about change.

    Gandhi was far more successful at changing minds than Bin Laden ever will be.

    We need to know – what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists to tacitly support them? How can we make terrorism so abhorrent that terrorists are isolated?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable – but we are foolish if we ignore them. And we must recognise creating martyrs is bad policy. Abu Ghraib is a gift for radicals. Guantanamo Bay is a policy error.

    As for the Radicals case – it is crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, democracy must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured.

    And this needs solid policy – not gestures and empty words.

    For nine years, Labour have been in Government with a huge majority, a benign economy, huge extra tax revenue – and yet nothing is better.

    It is a monumental failure.

    This is a huge opportunity for us. If you sniff the political wind, you can smell the decay of the Government.

    The first politician able to carry his or her voice above the clamour of slogans, and who can offer long-term credible policies – even if they involve hardships or sacrifices – will, I believe, scoop the political pool. That is the challenge for David Cameron, and I’m certain he’ll rise to it.

    Our role is – to restore faith in politics.

    To restore serious policy and scrap knee-jerk populism designed only to appeal to the tabloids.

    To consider long-term policy that is right for the country and the future even if it is uncomfortable today.

    If we can lift our voice above the ruck, above the silly competing slogans, I believe there are millions prepared to listen.

    Tomorrow’s world will be very different.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars. They will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. They will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies. Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination.

    It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears. It is this world we Conservatives must prepare for.

    And the time to do so – is now. In politics, always a moment when the terms of political trade change. It is changing now.

    Can we win?

    In 1906, in power for 20 years and lost by 246 seats.
    In 1945, in power for 14 years and lost by 190 seats.
    In 1964/6, in power for 13 years and lost by 115 seats.
    In 1997, in power for 18 years and lost by 171 seats.
    By 2009, in opposition for 12 years – every chance of winning.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Coningsby Club Dinner – 6 July 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at the Coningsby Club Dinner, held on Thursday 6th July 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think I can recall a time in which the public were more out of love with politics than now.

    Politicians are not trusted.

    Turn-out at elections has fallen sharply.

    Many people turn away from politics.

    All this is depressing – and yet also a huge opportunity for the Conservative Party.

    It is once again, an exciting time to be a Conservative. We have a new generation of leaders, the best Parliamentary intake for decades and, if we sniff the political wind, we can smell the decay of this Government.

    We Tories are the oldest political party in the world – with ancient traditions and convictions – but that alone will not bring victories. If we wish to hand on a better future to our children/ grandchildren we would be wise to open our minds to new ideas – even if some of them may be unpalatable.

    We are right to honour our past successes, but if we forever hark back to the past, we betray the future. We should ignore the ancestral voices that denounce any change in policy and look at what is right for tomorrow.

    The world has moved on.

    Our country has moved on.

    Our Party must move on, too.

    After 18 years in Government people were – quite simply – bored with us. And yet, we handed over the best performing economy in Europe.

    Nine years on, Labour has run out of the Conservative economy:

    – Taxes are up. So are regulations.
    – Personal debt is at record levels. So is the trade gap.
    – Public borrowing rises monthly.
    – And the size of Government is swollen beyond any justification.

    Herein lies our chance.

    After nine years of a huge majority, a benign economy and massive extra spending of taxpayers money – what actually is better?

    – is Education?
    – or Health?
    – or Transport?
    – or Inner Cities?
    – or Crime?

    Generally, I think not. And where it has improved – it is only by a margin.

    This is a monumental failure of domestic policy.

    And remember “we will be whiter than white”. Since then the Labour Party have degraded the conduct of Government and the political system to such a low that when bad practice is uncovered, it barely causes a ripple. We may have had our problems with individuals, but never with the institution of Government.

    Whereas Labour’s problems are with the institution of Government:

    1. they have undermined and politicised the civil service;
    2. they are being investigated to see how they have awarded Peerages;
    3. and they offer a diet of half truths and untruths to promote their policy.

    Labour have brought into Government all the black arts of smear and abuse, the sharp practice, deceit and spin that they perfected in Opposition. They have turned the serious business of Government into a marketing exercise.

    As a result, their word is now discredited. People believe Ministers have the same fondness for the truth that King Herod had for babysitting.

    Public – routinely – do not believe them.

    Consider one test alone: if PM went to Parliament tomorrow to report that our Nation was under threat and we must go to war – would Parliament or the public believe him?

    I think not – and that is unprecedented in modern politics. Rightly or wrongly, by intent – or by accident – the public believe they were misled over the Iraq War and they will not forget that.

    It’s not a question of whether the war was right or wrong. Or whether Saddam was a bad man – he was. Or whether we’re better without him – we are. It’s a question of whether we were told the truth – without spin and without embellishment – and I fear we were not.

    I suspect the public are out of sympathy with party political dog-fights. They win no votes. The smartest politicians these days are those who can appear non-political.

    And, the dilemmas before us – pensions, education, energy, environment, Europe, mid-East – demand reasoned solutions not half-witted soundbites.

    If we are to differentiate our approach from Labour – as well as our policies – there are traps we must avoid.

    I. Election to the Lords:

    In theory, this sounds democratic but in practice is a mistake. Think about it: we would be exchanging the election of Peers who have reached eminence in their profession, for Peers who could not get elected to the Commons. It would guarantee a constitutional clash.

    II. Party Funding

    Politicians are already pretty alienated from the public. We should not make that worse by dipping our hands into their pockets, to fund our Party. It would be resented – and is a profoundly un-Conservative thing to do.

    III Scotland

    I spoke of a possible clash between Lords and Commons if ill-considered changes are made. As an example of this, one need look no further than this Government’s ill-considered 1997/8 Devolution Bill. There must be changes made here: the present situation cannot be sustained.
    Now Scotland has its own Parliament, Scottish MPs cannot be permitted to herald in changes to the law in England that will not effect them or their constituents.

    The first politician able to carry his or her voice above the clamour of slogans, and who can offer long-term credible policies – even if they involve hardships or sacrifices – will, I believe, scoop the political pool. That is the challenge before David Cameron – and I am confident he will rise to it.

    Wherever we look, our world is being re-modelled. The fear of global war has gone; today terror is globalising. The worst atrocity has been in New York, but Bali, Jerusalem, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo all bear the mark of terror.

    Terrorism can cause mayhem – but it is comforting to note it often merely entrenches more securely what it wishes to destroy: it is an ineffective way to bring about change. Gandhi was far more successful at changing minds than Bin Laden ever will be.

    The threat that must be beaten back is the attempt to radicalise Islam; to set Muslim against non-Muslim by playing upon prejudice and by fostering hatred.

    Terrorism and democracy are polar opposites. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to win, terrorism must lose. But poorly thought out Terror Bills, Identity Cards and knee-jerk Home Office populism will only make things worse. Spurious activity is a poor substitute for properly-thought-through policy.

    We need to work with other nations to deny terrorists safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits.

    We must stop the free movement of terrorists; attack money laundering; reduce their supply of weapons; agree extradition; and penalise States that fund terror.

    As we do so we must recognise creating martyrs is bad policy. Abu Ghraib is a gift for radicals. Guantanamo Bay is a policy error.

    We need to know – what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists to tacitly support them? How can we make terrorism so abhorrent that terrorists are isolated?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable – but we are foolish if we ignore them.

    As for the Radicals case – it is crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, democracy must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured.

    Terrorism is not going to go away and, although it is tempting to ignore it – and hope that it will ignore us – we dare not do so. We have to confront terror on a broad front. And better now than later.

    Wherever we look, change is accelerating. On our doorstep, Europe is in the midst of change. The European Union has a larger economy than the US – but its ancient social culture has left it far less competitive. Europe sometimes acts as if America, China and Asia don’t exist, or can be ignored. Yet compared to them, Europe is over-taxed, over-regulated, and under invested: unless it changes, it will slowly decline.

    The rise of Asia emphasises this danger. No-one should be surprised. There is no immutable law of economics to say that growth must always be led by the industrial West. Historically, it was not: 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, once again, the growth of China holds centre stage. China is an ancient nation. She was making silk and pottery before the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and before ancient Britons built Stonehenge. Now she is re-asserting herself.

    It is a remarkable sight: a once closed Communist economy, marching out into the Free Market.

    Today, around the world, change is accelerating.

    In the late 18th century, Prime Minister William Pitt realised he had not heard from our Ambassador in Washington for a long time. He picked up his pen and wrote to the Foreign Secretary: “If we have not heard from our Ambassador in another year ….. we should send a note.” Today, the leisurely world of William Pitt is long gone. We have a global economy. The political map is fluid.

    The speed of medical advance is bewildering. The demand for medical services in infinite. Yet it will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy.
    Science and technology is accelerating change which already takes place at break-neck speed.

    The past hints at the scale of change we may see in the future.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Marie Curie had not discovered radium – nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity. There would have been amazement – even disbelief – at the notion that – one day – it would be possible to breakfast in London and lunch in New York.

    In 1900, the Europeans were dominant. The United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface.

    How things have changed. The Ottoman Empire has gone. The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone. The French Empire has gone. No-one has told them but … The British Empire has gone. The Russian Empire has both come – and gone. The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with China and India on course to become great economic powers. The impact of all this is far beyond economics and politics.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars. They will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. They will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies. Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination. It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears. It is this world we Conservatives must prepare for.

    And the time to do so – is now. In politics, always a moment when the terms of political trade change. It is changing now.

    Can we win?

    In 1906, in power for 20 years, lost by 246 seats.
    In 1945, in power for 14 years, lost by 190 seats.
    In 1964/6, in power for 13 years, lost by 115 seats.
    In 1997, in power for 18 years, lost by 171 seats.
    By 2009, in opposition for 12 years – every chance of winning.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Children for Peace Dinner – 23 June 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at the Children for Peace Dinner, held at the Granada Studios in Manchester on Friday 23rd June 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    [First section Sir John Major thanked everyone for coming and for Wendy and Colin for organising. Sir John Major explained why he was involved, he recalled the day he heard that Tim and Johnathan were murdered, and it nearly ended the peace process, but it didn’t because others might be killed.]

    In the interim I met Colin/Wendy and have seen their extra-ordinary response to a tragedy that, even now, is heard to come to terms with.

    They set up this Charity – and it has grown. They set up the Tim Parry Scholarship.

    They built a dedicated Peace Centre.

    They set up a range of learning programmes to meet the needs of 5-6 year olds up to young adults – and programmes working with adults.

    We will never end terror by force of arms or policing alone. We have to attack causes, win minds as well as territories.

    That’s what the Trust does: its learning programmes are focussed on understanding causes of conflict and resolving them peacefully.
    Governments can try and change attitudes but they need help: organisations like Children for Peace.

    Terror is at its weakest when the Community turns against it – rejects bigotry and violence – sets up “Ambassadors” for peace: this Charity does all of that. That is why I’m involved.

    When the Peace Process began in the early 90s, Albert Reynolds and I both shared the view that terrorism could not prevail and that the better aspects of human nature would be bound to win. I won’t reproduce all the many twists and turns of the Peace Process but let me simply say I believe we are nearly there and we need to build on what has been achieved in Northern Ireland. That is one of the reasons, of course, why the Peace Centre is so important although its remit is wider.

    Over the years, we have become used to Irish terror but now the threat is much wider.

    Terrorism is not new: it has been with us since ancient times; but now, like the economy, terror is globalising. Terrorism is Al Qaeda; Hezbollah, ETA, IRA, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, Kashmiri and Punjabi Separatists; Pattani United Liberation Organisation; GIA … the list goes on.

    Groups that are secretive, diverse, with their money, men and weapons hidden as effectively as their minds are closed.

    Today, terrorism is a threat we can’t ignore. It is not targeted only against the Governments of the West. Think of the bombs in Bali. Or Jerusalem. Or the school siege in Moscow. Or Sarin gas in Tokyo. Or atrocities in Kashmir. The signature of mass-casualty terrorism can be seen worldwide. Around the world – other Tim’s and Johnathan’s.

    Most people find violence abhorrent and yet, terrorism has never been short of apologists. Over many years, it has grown bolder and more deadly. Many nations have suffered.

    And for no purpose because terrorism has not been effective in the post-Colonial world.

    When Spain, Portugal and Greece dumped Fascism – it was not because of terrorism.

    When Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe – it was not because of terrorist pressure.

    When Apartheid ended – terrorism played no part in its demise.

    Nor have the IRA gained from terror. Their political end is unrealised and their Community has seen through them.

    Terrorism can claim none of these victories – it exposes frustration but it often entrenches what it wishes to destroy: it is – ultimately – immoral.

    What is the purpose of terror? It varies. For many Terrorist Groups the predominant aim is to radicalise Islam; to set Muslim against non-Muslim; to play upon prejudice; to foster hatred. For others, as in Northern Ireland, it is to pursue specific political agendas or to unsettle democracies.

    In Northern Ireland, the intent was to absorb the North into a united Ireland. Always, the effect is to create chaos.

    And it does. The economic impact of terror is to de-stabilise markets and interrupt the flow of commerce. The political effect is to undermine Government by consent and civil order.

    So, whatever reservations there may be about how this War on Terror is being fought – these are sound reasons why it must be fought – and why it must be won.

    Terrorism and democracy are fundamentally opposed. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to win, terrorism must lose.

    The oxygen for terrorism is hatred: hatred of specific countries and their values or – sometimes – resentment of long-standing grievances. We know, too, that social and economic marginalisation encourages political radicalisation.

    In considering terror, one question must be asked: can a war against terror be won at all? Is it possible that such a shadowy concept as terrorism can be identified, isolated and defeated?

    My answer is – Yes, it can.

    So, if democracy can win, how can it do so?

    The answer to that question is complex. It involves action against existing terror groups now, and political measures to prevent such groups obtaining support today and spreading their contagion tomorrow.

    To win, all those nations threatened by terrorism need to co-operate. This coalition of the willing must embrace every country that is – or wishes to be – democratic. These States must work together to deny terrorists their safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. They must deny them their causes. And, to defeat the ideological threat they pose, we must understand the motives that drive them and re-educate the minds of those who have sympathy with them.

    We must accept we cannot win by military power alone, but concede that we cannot win without it.

    International co-operation is vital: we will win more speedily if we co-ordinate action against terror; inhibit the movement of terrorists; outlaw them in every respect; attack money laundering; penalise States that are known to fund terror; act to reduce their supply of weapons; agree world-wide extradition of terrorist suspects. So much, I think, is obvious – although not all of it is done.

    But these measures are simply policing action against existing terror groups. We need to know – what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists to tacitly support them? What can we do to make terrorism so totally abhorrent that terrorists are utterly isolated?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable – but they must be faced.

    Inequalities – poverty, AIDS; injustices – political repression, social exclusion. All these play a part.

    In much of the world ideological radicalisation has fed the perception that the religion of Islam is under attack. Al Qaeda assert this every day. Radicals use this belief as a recruiting sergeant to fuel their cause. Events such as the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have fed this perception as has the failure to bring the Middle East Peace Process – or the Kashmir conflict – to a successful conclusion.

    The Radicals case is crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, democracy must lessen the chance of demagogues exploiting hardship to promote terrorism. They must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do: they must accept obligations that illustrate the morality of democracy.

    One example stands out. Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$ 2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of morning coffee. It is hard to imagine the disparity between the life of these three billion people, with the life of someone in richer countries – even if that someone was on the lowest levels of social support.

    The rich nations do much to help – and, at the recent G8 meeting, pledged to do more. I welcome that. At present, the rich nations spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone. A statistic that is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the chance for poor nations to sell their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets.

    I believe that common humanity suggests that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well and fill bellies that are empty.

    In removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. Moreover, as we act, we increase demand, we begin to create tomorrow’s market – and we undercut the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    There are many reasons why the action promised by the G8 must be delivered: undermining hate campaigns is only a side issue but an important one. If we under-perform, the problem will worsen. In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion.

    Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. This is not sustainable if we wish to sustain a free market in a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    But if the world acts early, acts now, acts out of conscience – not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, is such a threat to our security and our prosperity.

    Over the years, terror has so unsettled the political climate that trust has gone and a lasting solution is elusive. This plays entirely into the hands of the terrorist for it gives this dispute a much wider fuse: it is used to justify terrorism elsewhere.

    Sometimes, it has been difficult to see how this could ever be brought to a peaceful solution. It is depressing beyond belief – but it forces us to face the reality: in Palestine, as elsewhere, political progress remains the only way forward.

    I want to say something here about politics and terror. It is based on my own experience in dealing with the IRA.

    For years, the IRA had bombed and murdered in Northern Ireland – and on the mainland of the United Kingdom. Successive Governments reacted strongly and gave no ground to terrorism. But – whilst not conceding their objectives – we did look for a peace process to wean them off violence and to undercut their support in the community.

    It took a long time – and there were many setbacks – but it was right. We are now near a political settlement, without conceding the united Ireland that the IRA sought through bomb and bullet.

    The lesson is clear: never negotiate from fear, but never fear to negotiate. It is tempting just to denounce terrorism. But if you wish to save lives, you must sometimes engage with them as well.

    That is what the Peace Centre does: why it is so vital; why it is important to continue.

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to Mike Gatting – 16 June 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s tribute to Mike Gatting, held at a dinner on 16th June 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    If I learned only one thing from my old profession, it is to ignore the spin – ignore the hype – for the only thing that matters is substance, action and delivery.

    And for the Lords Taverners, Mike Gatting has – in spades – delivered all three. Mike has presided over the biggest fundraising year in the Taverners’ history: he has travelled the length and breadth of the country for them. He led a 38 day Ashes walk to raise funds. And in the midst of all this, he has even found the time to play a bit of cricket for them. His has been an extraordinarily successful Presidency.

    But Mike’s contributions to charity are not new. At home, on my wall, are two cricket bats. With one, Mike scored his first Test century, and with the other, he scored his last. How come I’m lucky enough to have these two great pieces of memorabilia? Because Mike gave them away to be auctioned – [pause] – for charity.

    Most of us, if we scored a hundred, would consider the bat a miracle worker and cling on to it … but not Mike.

    77 not out in Nigeria was my own best cricketing moment. I was clearly on a roll and had visions of making my first century, but a plane landed with the weekly mail at square leg and the match ended.

    This was deeply frustrating, but at least I got a letter: it began “I hope you are getting a lot of cricket.”

    I am also indebted to Mike for providing us with one of the most memorable of all sports interviews.

    Everyone remembers the famous incident in which he was hit in the face by a cricket ball. Desperately painful to watch. God alone knows how painful to bear.

    But, even so, Mike agreed to be interviewed for TV. His eyes were black and swollen. One was nearly closed. His cheeks were puffy, his nose – that once elegant adornment to his face – was flattened. There was a plaster across what remained of the bridge, and a trickle of blood seeped from one nostril.

    The reporter looked straight at Mike as he posed his first question: “How are you?”. Mike replied – rather politely I thought in the circumstances. Whereupon the reporter followed up with his second question:

    “Tell me Mike, where exactly did it hit you?”

    We are here tonight in one of our nation’s most historic buildings, which houses some of our nation’s most treasured possessions. How appropriate. For Mike Gatting is himself one of our greatest national treasures.

    Take a good look round this room, Mike, which could have been filled many times over. We are all here for one reason: to celebrate your extraordinary achievements, to salute your endeavour, and to thank you – from the bottom of our hearts – for the compassion you have shown to those most in need. Without spin, without hype, you have well and truly delivered.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Worshipful Company of Farmers Livery Luncheon – 6 June 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at the Worshipful Company of Farmers Livery Luncheon, held at the Farmers Fletchers Hall on Tuesday 6th June 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    When Henry Plumb invited me to join you today, I was delighted to accept. I was the Member of Parliament for a rural constituency for 22 years and enjoyed a close relationship with the farming community.

    So, I wasn’t surprised to be told I could speak on any subject I wished – whenever I met farmers in Huntingdon, they were always happy for me to say whatever I liked, before they told me what they thought! I am glad to see Lord Plumb is upholding that tradition.

    In this private lunch, I would like to exercise a few hobby horses – starting with farming.

    In all its long history, farming has had many highs and lows – times of prosperity and hardship. But, in many ways, it faces more complex challenges today than ever before. Modern husbandry and all the implications of free markets has changed the industry fundamentally. As a result, farming will never be tomorrow what it was yesterday.

    But – when one looks at the macro position – some of the old truths remain:

    As a nation, we are foolish if we don’t maintain a full variety of agriculture and we must never make ourselves too dependent on imported food.

    In today’s world – so the free marketeers tell us – price rules. That’s it. End of story. I don’t agree. Price is important but supply is more so. If competitive pressures are permitted to turn farming profit into loss, then farmers will diversify and domestic supply of food will fall. Over time, we would be at the mercy of other Nations’ production – and price.

    In areas of manufacturing that may be unavoidable – but for food it is simply not sensible policy.

    We may argue and discuss about what needs to be done about CAP, about Single Farm Payments, about so much else – but unless the central point of supply is understood, and acted upon, then we are laying up problems in the future.

    In a micro way, farming has some weapons it doesn’t use. If individual farmers negotiate with supermarket chains, so be it – but the small supplier is at a huge negotiating disadvantage. The supermarkets are interested, first and foremost, in the price to their customers – that is their job – not the future well-being of agricultural supply, a decade hence. The farmers would do better to negotiate co-operatively and not individually and Government should help them exploit the quality and value of their produce. I hope the Competition Commission inquiry will address this.

    These days I am out of politics – but I observe it with interest.

    In our changing world, Government becomes more complex. Many decisions that were once the prerogative of Nation States are now made either collectively in wider fora, or predetermined by the impact of globalisation. Many of the levers of power available to Nation States twenty years ago are no longer there. As the free market grows in power, politics loses it. All this adds to the frustration the electorate often feels about the performance of Governments.

    I don’t wish to stray into partisan politics but, in the interests of the health of our political system, we do need to correct the present negative impression of politics.

    What the electorate sees today is a new approach in politics – more concerned with appearance than reality, less able to distinguish fact from fiction, more inclined to blame officials than themselves. Responsibility always lies elsewhere. This is an unattractive trait and one that adds to public dis-illusion.

    I have noticed, too, that whenever the present Government are in difficulties (and this seems increasingly often) they tend to trot out the familiar line that Margaret Thatcher and John Major had the same problems. Even if that were true – and often it is not – this playground response is hardly credible after nine years of government. These spats of blame attribution do no-one any good – and harm the perception of politics.

    Then, of course, there is spin. Spin is merely a polite term for deception – and the sooner it is brought under control the better. Of course, politicians will always put the best gloss on things: they would not be human if they did not. But there is a distinction between putting a gloss on politics and downright deceit – and, when the line is crossed, the whole political system is the loser.

    Obsession with spin not only degrades politics – but obscures serious policy. Let me now shock you: I believe some of the things the present Government are doing – are right. They are right to look again at nuclear energy – which will, I think, prove inevitable. They are right to reform health and education, although I am bound to note that their reforms today are precisely those I was implementing over a decade ago that they reviled, rejected and have now re-adopted.

    I fear our political system may be about to suffer another blow. For reasons of electoral fairness we limit the sums that can be spent in elections. That is right. It would also be right to limit the size of donations to a party from any individual or company or union in a single Parliament. But, it would not, in my view, be wise to move further down the route of party politics simply being funded by the taxpayer. The taxpayer should not be a bran- tub into which hard-up political parties can dip their fingers. By all means, change tax law to encourage widespread donations of modest size to our political Parties – even possibly some system of matching funding – but not straight-forward subsidy.

    Until then, parties should match expenditure to income – and if that means an end to expensive negative advertisements attacking their opponents – then so much the better.

    Many of the problems facing future governments will be long-term. Adversarial politics has served our Nation well but, for some issues, we may need consensus, even coalition government. We should not close our minds to that.

    There is one reform upon which I believe I may be an unreconstructed minority. Present opinion seems to be moving towards a reform of the House of Lords that would include a very large, if not completely, elected Upper House. I am very wary of this. I can – with extreme reluctance – accept a minority of elected Peers but I believe majority election would be a fundamental error. An elected House of Lords would be within its right to challenge the supremacy of the Commons. Moreover, this elected Lords would probably consist of new Peers who had failed to get elected to the Commons, rather than those with specialist knowledge who can bring their experience into what should be a revising Chamber. Much experience and dispassionate public service would be lost. I accept some reforms might be necessary and desirable, but a largely elected House of Lords seems – to me, at least – to be an option that owes more to the appearance of democratic principles than the reality of what produces good democratic government.

    Given my views on such matters, it is perhaps rather a good thing that I am no longer in politics – but, having been a Member of the House of Commons for 22 years, it is impossible not to care about what happens in our country; not to despair when things go badly wrong; and not to voice dismay when the electoral system itself malfunctions.

    In a world that changes, politics must change but – as a Conservative with a small “c” – I only wish to see change that is an improvement.

    I do believe we need a new, more considered, view of politics in future. A politics that confronts the uncomfortable. Politics that rises above the short-term and the soundbite; politics that is long-term; politics that knows it no longer controls all the pieces on the chequerboard; politics that adopts common ideals and rejects common abuse; politics that is directed to issues and not to personalities. We need joined-up commonsense politics.

    And frankly, the sooner – the better.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Washington University – 19 May 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Washington University, St Louis, held on Friday 19th May 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Chancellor Wrighton, thank you for that warm welcome. I often come to St Louis but it is a special pleasure to be here for this wonderful occasion.

    I would like to direct my remarks specifically to the stars of today – the graduates who will soon be awarded their academic degrees.

    For all of you, today’s ceremony is not only the result of years of study and hard work – but also the beginning of the next phase of your life.

    I envy you. I never attended university. I left school at the age of 15. Circumstances compelled it. My father was sick and blind and bed-ridden. My mother was chronically ill. They had many needs – and no money. In 1959, the US $8 a week I could earn was crucial to our family finances.

    So the choice to leave was easy. But I can still see the tears in my father’s eyes when he realised there was no alternative.

    I began my working life with employment that had no future, while I studied morning and evening, in an Aladdin’s Cave of literature and reference books that served also as my bedroom.

    I gained some academic qualifications and joined a bank. Once there, I took a banking degree and applied to work overseas. My employers must have felt I was disposable, because they sent me to Nigeria during the Biafran Civil War. Whilst there, I witnessed scenes that I wish I had not. As a young man starting out in life, it made me realise how lucky I was to live in a civilised democracy.

    I mention my own background, only to point out that learning continues well beyond academia. In the University of Life, it never stops.

    My own experience has taught me that a good education benefits not only the recipient, but everyone influenced by them. It is a priceless asset.

    Socrates taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle. Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. Three of the great minds of the ancient world shaped one of the great Commanders of history. In just such a fashion, knowledge accumulates and is passed on through the generations.

    That is one reason I am confident about the future, despite the myriad problems confronting our world. It is likely that many of today’s graduates will be tomorrow’s leaders. By leaders, I don’t just mean statesmen and women, or captains of industry, or military heroes. I mean leaders in the professions, our communities – in all aspects of life – who will look at the resolution of long-term dilemmas.

    “Soundbite” leadership will not do. You know what I mean by soundbites: a glib phrase that is supposed to cure a serious problem. Such statements are a fraud. If it’s a serious problem, it can’t be solved by a soundbite. And if it can be solved by a soundbite, it’s not a serious problem.

    It is an odd concept, leadership.

    There is no template for it. Abraham Lincoln was a leader who we revere. So was Stalin – a psychopathic monster – who we emphatically do not.

    Genghis Khan was a leader. He laid waste to half the known world. So was Mother Theresa – who laid waste only to poverty and hardship.

    As you take leadership roles you will discover leadership has many facets. It cannot easily be defined.

    Is it winning personally … or is it taking long-term action to benefit others – perhaps beyond one’s own lifetime?

    Is it achieving something worthwhile … or heading off something damaging?

    Is it defeating an aggressor, or preventing the aggression in the first place?

    It may, of course, be any or all of the above.

    Sometimes, successful leadership brings odium.

    Take Mikhail Gorbachev:

    Changed face of Russia. Hero in West. Not in Russia – very unpopular.

    Stood for election as President. Polled only 1% in election.

    [Indistinct, anecdote about Gorbachev].

    GLOBAL TERROR

    Two of the daunting problems we face today may need leadership beyond one generation:

    The fear of global war has gone; only to be followed by the fear of global terror. Terrorism has been with us since ancient times: but now it is globalising. Thus far, the worst atrocity has been in New York, but Bali, Jerusalem, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo all bear the mark of terror. Moreover, terror has developed a particular flavour: it has become a tool of extreme religion, and a vehicle to oppose the free market.

    But we should put terror into a proper context: so far, it has failed to gain any of its political objectives.

    The threat before us is the attempt to radicalise Islam; to set Muslim against non-Muslim by playing upon prejudice and by fostering hatred.

    This campaign can cause mayhem – but often it merely entrenches more securely what it most wishes to destroy: it is – ultimately – ineffective. Gandhi had far more success at changing minds than Bin Laden ever will.

    Terrorism and democracy are polar opposites. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to win, terrorism must lose.

    We will win this battle – but we will win it more swiftly if we work with other Nations threatened by terrorism … to deny terrorists safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. We must stop the free movement of terrorists; attack money laundering; reduce their supply of weapons; agree extradition; and penalise States that fund terror. Above all, democracy must deny terrorists their causes.

    Terrorism is not going to go away and, although it is tempting to ignore it – and hope that it will ignore us – we dare not do so.

    The Radicals case may be crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, we must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do: we must accept obligations that show the morality of democracy.

    POVERTY

    One of these takes me back to what I saw in microcosm as a boy in Nigeria. Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$ 2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee from Starbucks. The rich nations do help: at present, they spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone.

    Let me put that to you as the radicals – who wish to do us harm – put it to their audiences: America and Europe spend seven times as much subsidising cheap food for those already well-fed, as the whole world spends on all the needs of those whose bellies are swollen with hunger.
    Greater help is not simply altruism. It is in our interest to remove grievances. It is in our interest to cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. It is in our interest to foreclose on misery and hardship to come. It is in our interest to undermine the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    And it is in our interest to build the alliances that will result – unless we want a bitter and divisive world.

    Moreover, if we do not, we may let fester a problem that will – quite simply – overwhelm us.

    In twenty years, 6 billion people will become 8 billion. Of that additional 2 billion, 97% is in that part of the world that live on less than $2 a day. I cannot think of a more potent recipe for an unstable, unsafe world.

    Some years ago, I was in Peru and visited a small shanty town outside Lima: a dismal place, which seemed to be entirely without hope. The local Priest invited me to breakfast. “There is”, he said, “something I’d like you to see”.

    I was intrigued. We ate early and, just as the church clock struck 8.00, went into the street.

    Almost in concert, the doors of the hovels opened and out poured children on their way to school. All were spotlessly clean, their uniforms immaculate. Their faces smiling in greeting at one another as they carried their rather well worn and bulging satchels towards the schoolhouse.

    The Priest stopped one little girl: “Tell me”, he asked, “what do you want to be when you grow up?”.

    She looked up at him puzzled – for she knew that he already knew the answer. But nonetheless, her eyes shining with optimism, she replied:

    “I want to be a brain surgeon”. I have never forgotten than moment: it was a soaring ambition for a child from the slums of Peru.

    That little girl will now be around 30 years old. I don’t know if she will ever realise her dream. I do hope so.

    The message from that little girl is unmistakeable for the educated graduates of a great university like Washington.

    Be ambitious. Aim high. Do today what your instincts tell you could wait until tomorrow. Never under-estimate what you can achieve. With luck and skill and effort there is no ambition that is closed to you.

    In your world of tomorrow, change will accelerate. In the late 18th century the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, was reflecting on Britain’s relationship with America and realised he had not heard from his Ambassador in Washington for a long time. He picked up his pen and wrote to his Secretary of State: “If we have not heard from the Ambassador in another year ….. we should send a note.” Today, the leisurely world of William Pitt is long gone. We have a global economy: In China, India and Asia, an economic revolution is tilting world growth from West to East. Around the world, every emerging economy is out-performing every mature economy.

    The political map is fluid: The Middle East is a powder-keg. Iraq, Iran, and the Arab-Israel conflict are inflammatory problems. Events in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, are all capable of de-stabilising the region.

    In our world, each day, there are ground-breaking new developments, and the speed of medical advance is bewildering. The demand for medical services in infinite. Yet it will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy.

    Science and technology is accelerating change which already takes place at break-neck speed. The past may give us an idea of the scale of change we might see.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Marie Curie had not discovered radium – nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity.

    Charles Lindbergh could never have imagined that – one day – it would be possible to breakfast in London and lunch in St Louis.

    In those days, the United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface. How things have changed. The Ottoman Empire has gone. The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone. The French Empire has gone. The British Empire has gone. The Russian Empire has both come – and gone. The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with China and India on course to become great economic powers. The impact of all this on our future is far beyond economics and politics. Those of you who graduate today will see the conquest of the stars.

    You will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. You will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies. Live with technical innovations beyond your wildest imagination. It will be a world unrecognisable to your forebears.

    Today is a proud day for all graduates – and one you will never forget. But it is – believe me – an even prouder day for your parents and grandparents. For them, it is the day you have begun to achieve the high hopes and dreams they have always had for you.

    They will wish you many things: A happy life. A healthy life. A life of personal and professional fulfilment.

    On the early canvas of your life, you have today painted in a great achievement. May there be many more.

    I wish you ALL every success for the future.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Hope and Homes for Children Dinner – 16 May 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Hope and Homes for Children Dinner, held at the House of Lords on Tuesday 16th May 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We are lucky.

    Whatever problems we have, we have a roof over our heads. We are fed and clothed.

    So are our families.

    Our children and grand-children are cared for. Never lost or alone. We share their triumphs and disasters. We make provision for their future.

    The children Hope & Homes care for have none of these comforts. I am not part of the charity, but from the moment I learned about its work, I have been hugely impressed.

    The children face hardship for reasons that are not their fault. They are the victims – the flotsam and jetsam – of the failure of earlier generations.

    130 years ago – not far from here in the British Library – an elderly man who actually did care for the underclass wrote a book that changed the world – not – as he anticipated – for the better, but for the worse.

    Das Kapital attacked the failings of the world in which Karl Marx lived, and prescribed a remedy that led to misery for countless millions of people. Until only 30 years ago, one-third of the world lived under Marxist regimes, including many of the countries whose children now need the help of Hope & Homes. Marx did not intend this, but the perversion of his philosophy brought it about.

    Today the free market and democracy has won its battle with Marxism. Only North Korea and a handful of despotic states cling to that failed philosophy. As a result, our world is changing for the better – though not yet for everyone.

    ECONOMIC RELIEF

    But it is a world of change. In China and Asia an economic revolution is tilting world growth from West to East. Every time I visit the Far East, I come away with two emotions: admiration at their progress and foreboding about how competitive they have become.
    China is not alone.

    India is 15 years behind her – but with enormous potential.

    Turkey is industrialising. So are parts of Eastern Europe, although – as Hope and Homes knows as well as anyone – not fast enough for the victims of economic failure.

    Russia is energy-rich. Putin has made democracy worse – but the economy better.

    Today, the revolution in Latin America is as much economic as once it was military.

    Between 1986 and 1996 inflation was 180%, today it is between 6-7%.

    All these are advances.

    Over recent years every emerging economy in the world has outperformed every mature economy.

    This fore-shadows a different world:- 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. As a result, growth in the world economy will be better balanced than ever before.

    This is encouraging as it does offer long term hope for many of tomorrow’s children – but does not diminish the need for help now – and for decades to come.

    CHANGING WORLD

    Over a lifetime, you see a lot. Often, things you would have preferred not to see.

    Sometimes, what you see gives you hope:

    [Small section indistinct].

    In the midst of change, despite overall economic improvements, there are many millions of people who are falling behind. These are not mere statistics – they are individual human lives.

    Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee on their way into work each morning.

    The rich nations do help: at present, they spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone.

    To put that into context: we spend seven times as much subsidising cheap food for those already well-fed, as the whole world on all the needs of those whose bellies are swollen with hunger.

    The call for greater help is not simply altruism. It is in our interests to remove grievances, to cut away the resentment of the “have-notes” for the “haves”. It is in our interests to foreclose on misery and hardship to come and undermine the message of hate that fuels radicalism. And it is in our interests to build the alliances that will result from that.

    Wherever we look, change is accelerating. In the late 18th Century the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, was reflecting on Britain’s relationship with America and realised he had not heard from his Ambassador in Washington for a long time. He picked up his pen and wrote to his Secretary of State: “If we have not heard from the Ambassador in another year …. we should send a note.”

    Today, the leisurely world of William Pitt is long gone.

    We have a global economy. The political map is fluid. Each day, there are ground-breaking new developments.

    The speed of medical advance is bewildering. The demand for medical services is infinite. Yet it will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy.

    Science and technology is accelerating changing which already takes place at break-neck speed.

    The past may give us an idea of the scale of change we might see.

    At the beginning of the 20th Century, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Marie Curie had not discovered radium – not had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity.

    There would have been amazement – even disbelief – at the thought that – one day – it would be possible to breakfast in London and lunch in New York.

    In 1900, the Europeans were dominant.

    The United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface.

    How things have changed.

    The Ottoman Empire has gone.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone.

    The French empire has gone.

    The British Empire has gone.

    The Russian Empire has both come – and gone.

    The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with China and India on course to become great economic powers.

    The impact of all this is far beyond economics and politics.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars.

    Most will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. They will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies.

    Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination. It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears.

    But not for all children – and we need to ensure that those children left behind do not suffer the hardships of their forebears.

    That is what Hope & Homes is about. That is why it is necessary.

    That is why I support it.

    And that – I hope – is why we are all here tonight.

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to Lord Barber – 27 April 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s tribute to The Rt Hon Lord Barber of Wentbridge, made on Thursday 27th April 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    As I walked to the lectern – I fancied I heard the silent question – “Why him?” After all, I come from a later political generation than Tony Barber.

    The answer is that I worked for Tony after he left politics.

    I was a very young member of a large Bank. He was the Chairman. It made no difference. Tony offered me his friendship and wise counsel with the warmth that was his hallmark.

    I came to know a man to whom pomposity and self-regard were alien. I naively assumed – I was very young – that all politicians were as straightforward, considerate, courteous and loyal: this was a mistake.

    Tony Barber was special. Gregarious, with a real sense of fun – he would listen as well as transmit. Because of these human qualities – because he wore no mask of self-regard – it was easy to underestimate him – but a mistake to do so.

    Throughout his life Tony Barber showed a tenacity, a will to succeed and an ability to accomplish the unexpected. In 1976, he called me to his office. Standard Chartered owned Banks in California and he wished to mark the American Bicentenary.

    “Do you think” he asked, “we could borrow the Magna Carta and take it there?” I demurred: it was, after all, a seminal document in 1000 years of British history and only three copies were known to exist.

    “Lincoln Cathedral have a copy” he mused – here I saw him begin to smile – “and a lot of work needs doing on the Cathedral”.

    After much negotiation, all was agreed. It was a huge operation to protect the priceless document, insure it, transport it – but everything was put in place.

    Tony decided to invite the Dean of Lincoln, Oliver Twistleton-Wykeham-Fiennes, and his wife, to accompany the document. But somewhere in the Bank this arrangement went awry. Instead of two, six airline tickets were booked. Two for Twistleton, Two for Wykeham and Two for Fiennes. “It made me”, said Tony, “check the insurance very carefully”.

    Tony had an exceptional War.

    He volunteered for the Army and, at first, was in a Royal Artillery anti-aircraft battery in Belgium and France. At Dunkirk, he was among the last to be evacuated having rowed back and forth from the beach, ferrying wounded men to the waiting ships. On his return home – undeterred by this experience – he managed to wangle himself an attachment to the Royal Air Force as a Spitfire photo-reconnaissance pilot.

    In 1942, he was flying home from Gibraltar – in thick cloud and against a head wind – when he ran out of fuel and was forced to bail out. He was captured.

    From a German point of view, Tony was a very bad Prisoner of War. He escaped several times, once travelling across Poland and Germany, before recapture. He was grilled by the Gestapo for a week and then taken outside – he believed to be shot.

    This could have been done with impunity, since no-one knew where he was imprisoned. But – even in the courtyard where he thought he was to die – he continued to resist interrogation and was returned to his cell. The threat to shoot him was what he later called – with characteristic understatement – “a ruse”.

    Tony did not waste his time in prison camp. When not planning escapes, he studied to obtain a law degree, and learned, when he was liberated by the Russians, that he had got a First.

    He then took another First in PPE at Oxford, won a scholarship to Inner Temple and was called to the Bar. His first client was a professional villain whose case was hopeless. Tony persuaded him to plead guilty. For this, Tony got three guineas. The old lag got seven years.

    When Tony was adopted as the Conservative candidate for the safe Labour seat of Doncaster he had two strokes of luck. First, he met Jean, his future wife, who was the candidate for the even less promising seat of Hemsworth. Their marriage was long and happy and they had two much-loved daughters. Louise and Josephine. With Jane, Tony’s half-sister, it was a close and loving family. The last words Tony spoke to me were of Roberta, his granddaughter – who, he felt, had no peer in her generation.

    And, second, the Boundary Commission re-shaped Doncaster into a near-marginal seat. In 1950, he narrowly lost, but won the following year: a key win in Churchill’s slender majority.

    As a reward, he was invited to second the Loyal Address to The King, a daunting prospect for a new Member. But war and a prison camp puts such ordeals into perspective and he rose to the occasion with aplomb.

    Tony was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Harold Macmillan, when he was Prime Minister, and learned a lot from the old master. He treasured a tape recording made at an election hustings in 1964, when the floor of the hall degenerated into a fight. The tape reveals Macmillan’s commentary on the chaos: “Oh, look! He’s hit him again”.

    Three years later, Tony was appointed Chairman of the Party. In the 1970 campaign only he and Ted Heath really believed the Conservatives could win – but win they did. In Government, Tony was given responsibility for negotiations to enter the Common Market but when Iain Macleod tragically died six weeks later, he became Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    As Chancellor, he was a reformer. He introduced VAT, abolished Purchase Tax and Selective Employment Tax. He simplified Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax and set his policies for growth and employment – the Holy Grail of every Chancellor.

    But events intervened. OPEC quadrupled the oil price, leading to severe and unpopular cuts in public expenditure. Inflation flourished and statutory controls were introduced to curb it.

    The Miners’ Strike and the 3-day Week culminated in the February 1974 election which the Conservatives narrowly lost. It was an unhappy period and – unsurprisingly – Tony accepted far more of the blame than was due to him.

    After retirement from politics, Tony was not interested in taking things easy: he became Chairman of Standard Chartered Bank; a member of the “Eminent Persons Group” which helped lay the foundations for the eventual end of Apartheid; he sat on the Franks Committee reporting on the Falklands War; and was one of a group of “international personalities” who made a pioneering trip to China as she emerged from isolation.

    He also took an active role as Chairman of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund and during his stewardship raised the extraordinary sum of £29 million. “It was” he joked, “his third career”. And, also – alas – his last.

    Some years after Jean died, Tony married again – to Rosemary – and was blessed again with another happy marriage.

    But in his latter years, Tony was cursed by ill-health and suffered from Parkinson’s Disease. Even so, his good humour never faded. As he shuffled around, he was hugely amused that his carer had once been a dancer at the Moulin Rouge. It was the sort of exotica he loved.

    He enjoyed anonymity but was amused when a taxi driver mistook him for Roy Plomley, and congratulated him on Desert Island Discs.

    Gentle, decent, thoughtful, kind. A lover of life with a generous spirit. A man of wisdom. A brave man. True to himself – and true to others. A man whose infectious humour remained with him to the very end.

    Tony Barber was a good man – one of the best – in politics and in life. I was lucky indeed to fall under his tutelage.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech on Sport and the Nation – 24 April 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech on “Sport and the Nation”, held at the Professional Cricketers’ Association Annual Business Conference at the Oval on Monday 24th April 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The theme of this Annual Business Conference is Building Partnerships. Sport and business have built partnerships and, I think, to their mutual benefit. More can be done – and I hope will be. But those of us who love sport should be grateful for the increasing involvement business has had. Long may it grow.

    But – it is in the interest of sport and the nation for other partnerships to grow in parallel.

    The essence of is two-fold: mutual dependency and the belief that the whole is greater than the component parts.

    That has been true of sport and business and of sport and the nation – the combination of the two adds value to both.

    Many historians would argue that the love of cricket in particular helped hold together an Empire and cement a Commonwealth. I saw some of this myself some years ago at a tricky Commonwealth meeting.

    A charity match was arranged. The Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke and I opened to gentle bowling and began to settle down with Bob stealing the bowling towards the end of each Over. I didn’t mind: it was a joy to be there. We tapped the ball here and there and ran our singles. After a few Overs the wisdom of the Hawke strategy was revealed: “Off you go”, said the Umpire, waving us off the pitch as he added, rather pointedly, “it’s time for the real cricketers”. A roar of applause greeted our departure.

    Hawke had scored over 20, whilst I had less than 10. “Did you know we didn’t have long?” I asked Bob as we trudged back to the pavilion.

    “Jeez, yes,” he admitted, “didn’t you know, John? Arrh, heck – I thought you did”. Not for the first or last time, I noted that Australians play hard.

    It was at that same Conference that Robert Mugabe talked to me about cricket. “I want Zimbabwe”, he said “to play cricket. It civilises people and creates gentlemen.” Subsequent events show that may not be entirely true!

    2,300 years ago, Aristotle regarded politics as the most interesting profession of all.

    No longer. Today, sport is more likely to be the consuming interest of the citizen. Indeed, as politics declines as a public passion, sport rises – and rightly so, for sport and recreation impacts powerfully on the lives of millions of people.

    Sport is an instinct. Centuries ago, a rustic living in or around the Weald plagiarised an ancient game like Club Ball, or Trap Ball or Stob Ball – and cricket was born. Some misbegotten historians have claimed that the traveller Adam Olearius saw the Persians play cricket centuries ago. It seems to me unlikely that the Ayatollahs of old were any more likely to be cricket lovers than the Ayatollahs of today and I think we can safely dismiss that possibility. Whatever Adam Olearius saw – it wasn’t cricket!

    Others have suggested that the French played cricket, referring to a particular text that, upon examination, turns out to say something quite different. Frankly, the concept of the French inventing cricket is double-dutch. On balance, I think it is safe to say that cricket is an English game.

    The first secure reference to it was in a court case in 1598, when a local coroner gave evidence that, as a child forty years earlier, he had played cricket on a piece of common land. I conclude, therefore, that together with the English language and English law, cricket is our greatest export to the world.

    People with stuffy minds may regard sport as a peripheral interest – but, of course, it isn’t. First and foremost, sport is fun. It brings enjoyment to millions. It promotes good health – physical and mental – and is a key component of a balanced life.

    It is also a core interest: far more people are interested in sport than politics. Freddie Flintoff’s fitness and David Beckham’s latest haircut is of greater national fascination than any debate in Parliament could ever hope to be.

    I have no wish to denigrate politics. It is of primary importance to our nation and our way of life – and, as such, it should be in the business of promoting sport, and never of disregarding it. As Prime Minister, I was concerned that leisure pursuits were being – if not ignored, sidelined – which is why I appointed a Cabinet Minister with specific responsibility for Sport, Arts and Heritage. I followed this with the formation of the National Lottery.

    The genesis of this was that, at the Treasury, I saw at first hand that leisure pursuits could never expect to receive sufficient money or encouragement from public funds: in any race for resources, the demands of health, education, pensions and defence would – and perhaps should – always come first.

    Yet sport mattered. So did the Arts: my solution to this was to supplement their funding through a National Lottery.

    I saw it as a way to raise additional money – free from the control of Government – that could be used to improve the enjoyment – and the lifestyle – of many millions of people.

    I had high ambitions of what could be achieved. Money is the route of all progress. I believed it could revolutionise leisure. I wished to nurture excellence and encourage the emergence of new icons similar to the Bothams, Beckhams and Branaghs who gave such pleasure.

    I saw also a huge opportunity to upgrade the national infrastructure that supported our favourite leisure pursuits. And, above all, I saw the chance of providing grass-roots sporting facilities throughout the UK to encourage active involvement by children and adults alike.

    It was – I planned – a partnership.

    A series of questions arise from this: should not commercial sport pay for itself or, if it cannot, fade away? Should not individuals bear all the cost of their leisure activities? In particular, should the taxpayer provide any funding for sport? Many thought not. I disagreed. I thought – beyond a doubt – the taxpayer should contribute … and not only because the Treasury receives far more in taxes from sport than it distributes to sport. Socially, the expenditure is good value. To me, the case for it seems to grow each year – not diminish.

    Taxpayer funding should continue and should be increased. But there is one aspect of media and public debate on funding that focuses on a more serious criticism: the independence of the funding. Direct Government funding is always going to have strings attached – taxpayer accountability ensures that. But when the Lottery Bill was wending its way through Parliament, the then Opposition was at pains to stress the importance of Government keeping an arms-length relationship from disbursement of the funds and, in particular, grant distribution. I agreed: I shared that view. I still do – but in Government, the Labour Party do not.

    From the moment they took power, they have diverted funding into areas away from sport that have, historically, been funded by the Exchequer. Their action has been explicit. Indeed, the so-called “Big Lottery Fund” has a specific remit to fund health, education and environment projects when taxpayers would rightly expect many of these projects to be funded direct by Government. This may be worthwhile expenditure – I have never denied that – but they diminish funds that sport had reason to expect.

    This loss of revenue for sport leaves it vulnerable and forces it to spend more time and energy raising money from commercial sources. That is difficult at any time and will become more so when the economy turns down – as, I believe, it is. The Lottery should not be Ali Baba’s cave and the Government should not raid it like the Forty Thieves. If larceny of sporting funds continues; if sport – and other good causes – are continually raided in order to boost the Exchequer, there will be less and less available for schemes that can enhance the quality of life for many people.

    This is happening now. In 1997, 20% of Lottery funds went to sport. In 1998, it was cut to 16.6% when the New Opportunities Fund was established. When that fund was rolled up into the Big Lottery Fund, 50% of all proceeds were lost. Although this Fund can distribute money for sport, its record is poor.

    The overall figures for distribution to sport are opaque but we know Sport England’s share of Lottery Receipts fell from a high of £280 million, in 1997/8 to £125 million in 2004/5 – and is projected to fall further. As a result – today – Sport England can meet only a fraction of worthwhile applications – and often with only partial grants.

    Is sport a frivolous expenditure or is it socially justified? I have no doubt it is justified.

    What gives more pleasure than sport? Very little.

    Does sport give a love for life? Yes, it does.

    Does sport enhance fitness? Yes, it does.

    Does sport provide interest and involvement for young people? Yes, it does.

    I could continue – but there is no need. The nation benefits from sport – imagine no Test Matches, no soccer or rugby, no athletics, no Wimbledon, no golf – what a dreary outlook.

    Let me turn to a partnership every one in sport should lobby to bring about.

    Sport in Schools and the establishment of Sporting Academies can be a great benefit socially and to sport. Socially, the case is compelling. Children benefit from sport in many ways – not least in improving their health in these days of sedentary entertainment such as computer games. Obesity is becoming a serious problem. I want children to be fit not fat. We should be encouraging a generation of team players, not home-aloners. Even more, we should be helping children enjoy themselves on playing fields, not misbehave on street corners. School sport should, once again, become an integral part of a child’s education.

    My intention had been to divert money from the Millennium Fund (which wound up in 2000) to the Education budget to put sports teachers back into mainstream schools. It would have delivered around £300 million a year – sufficient to provide a sports teacher at every Secondary School and a peripatetic teacher covering several Primary Schools. Instead – sadly – the money was siphoned off for other expenditure.

    I believed – and still do – that such an initiative is essential if we are ever to force physical recreation back fully on the school syllabus. I bitterly regret that I did not legislate to this effect before 1997 but, of course, even if I had, it could have been negated by the incoming Government. Their alternative priorities certainly suggest it would have been. Even so, I regret my oversight – and I shall lobby to put it right.

    School sport is part of a wider canvas. Schools can be the base of a pyramid of sporting opportunities. The love – and need – for sport does not stop when pupils exit the school gates for the last time. If we are to maximise the role of sport, we need partnerships all the way up: school links to Clubs and Club links to higher levels through all the tiers of ability up to national level. I set up such a scheme in the mid-1990’s with Colin Cowdrey but it fell away after 1997. All this is achievable – and should be achieved. It does need money – and enthusiasm – but the latter is available and the former should be.

    We need a change of culture at Whitehall: it does undervalue sport – but that mindset can be changed. Sport should lobby harder, more frequently and use national icons to highlight their case. Governments respond to stimuli. Sport should provide that stimuli.

    And the case is good: on health grounds, on social grounds, on educational grounds, on grounds of national pride, on grounds of providing pure enjoyment – the case for more people playing sport, being coached in sport, watching sport, on grounds that are well-equipped – is overwhelming.

    Our nation loves sport: so do many politicians. So do many policy formers. Use them. Tempt them to help. To do so would not only be right: it would be popular!

    That is a campaign that must be fought – and can be won.