The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 2010

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Yale University – 30 November 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Yale University, held on Tuesday 30th November 2010. The speech was entitled “Fantasy to Reality : The World That Lies Ahead” and was the annual George Herbert Walker Lecture held at the university.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m doubly delighted to be here at Yale this afternoon: firstly, because I am in the company of my old friend, Ernesto Zedillo.

    I’ve known President Zedillo for many years. He is one of a too rare breed: a man who gives politics a good name. So it is always a pleasure to see him and it was a delight to accept his invitation to visit this famous old University once again.

    And it is also a special delight and privilege to deliver the George Herbert Walker III Lecture. In my years in politics George Herbert Walker Bush was a close ally – notably during the first Gulf War – and became a life-long friend to cherish. George Bush is a citizen of the world and respected in every part of it. When I became Prime Minister – George Bush was the first to phone me up from Air Force One. There was a slight glitch, he got my brother and the conversation went slightly awry. My brother was wondering who he was and said to the cook in the kitchen there’s a Mr Bush on the phone, “do we know him?” and I was dragged out of an adjacent room to speak to the President.

    When I ceased to be Prime Minister, George Bush was pretty much the first person on the phone yet again, with an invitation to Kennebunkport. George, like Ernesto, is a friend for all seasons.

    For George and Ernesto I would do almost anything – but I do draw the line at jumping out of aircraft on my birthday – even for George.

    My theme this afternoon is the quite extraordinary ways in which the world is changing – and what that means for the future. Let me try and put it in some sort of context.

    My father died nearly 50 years ago. Since then, the world has changed beyond recognition. Fifty years ago, the Soviet Union and the United States were the two super-powers. China was isolationist. Japan had barely begun her post-war rise. Central and Eastern Europe were still under Soviet control. Germany was still a divided nation. Latin America was a continent of revolutions. The European Union was in its infancy. The Gulf was undeveloped. Much of Africa was still colonised. Oil was $3 a barrel and no-one foresaw an Islamic Revolution.

    Little of that world now survives – and the pace of change is accelerating within the span of one lifetime. My father, were he here, would simply not recognise today’s world. And neither would people who left politics much more recently. Someone both George Bush and I knew very well was Boris Yeltsin.

    Now Boris Yeltsin who ruled Russia just over a decade ago, but now seems part of a bygone age. Boris had a great gift for brevity and irony. I remember walking with him once in the Kremlin, this would have been in the mid 1990s, I said to him, “Boris in one word what is the state of Russia?”, he said “good”, I was surprised, it was falling to pieces, I said “tell me in two words”, he said “not good”.

    Even since then, the world has moved on.

    Nothing is as it was. In the future, nothing will be as it is. The great challenge is to identify the changes that are to come and use them and to try and take advantage of them.

    You may say: but we don’t know what is to come. In fact, we know a good deal more about the future than we realise. When Shakespeare put the words: “Nothing comes from nothing” into King Lear’s mouth, he spoke an eternal truth. Change rarely comes as a bolt from the blue, it’s the result of trends we have overlooked or, sometimes, policy we have implemented.

    As evidence, I offer the economic problems we’ve been facing in the last couple of years. They are the result of an unrestrained boom.

    Business and political leadership failed us. We enjoyed the boom but did not prepare for the aftermath.

    As a result, the outlook for all the mature economies – America, Britain, the Eurozone and Japan – is at best sluggish. Consumer demand is fragile. Banks are cautious about lending as they repair balance sheets. Public spending is anaemic. Unemployment is stubbornly high.

    This is a result of policy failures that brings into stark relief a trend that has been developing for decades: other economies – in what we quaintly and rather patronisingly call the ‘third world’ – and I have myself in forty years of politics never discovered what the second is – are catching up on the dominance we have enjoyed for so long. China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, Indonesia are all coming into much greater prominence and will continue to do so in the decades that lie immediately ahead.

    As Westerners, we may regret our shrinking pre-eminence but it does create a better balanced – and very probably a safer – world than we have previously known. And one that helps us: emerging markets will help re-float the Western economies. It has led to something I certainly never expected to see in my lifetime – China funding the American deficit.

    But you and I had better get used to such novelties because the growth of emerging nations has passed the point where it is likely to be reversible: and our future world will be different, wholly different, as a result of it.

    I don’t intend to focus on economic changes this afternoon but we should note them: the flow of wealth from West to East: the growing role of Sovereign Wealth Funds, which is huge; the scramble for commodities, especially perhaps in Africa, and the price inflation that is very likely to follow. All these trends are signposted for the future.

    I do want to touch on the inter-dependence of nations where there is one mini-trend I hope is not going to develop.

    Over the last two decades the concept of free trade has become almost universal. Countries that once were collectivist, even communist, embraced free enterprise – and prospered as a result of it.

    The impact of the financial crisis has put a very large question mark on that development in the minds of some of the people running these economies. A body called Global Trade Alert has reported a very significant growth in trade protection – not serious yet but sufficiently widespread to be worrying. A growth in protection that needs watching.

    If more countries adopt protectionist measures, particularly if they are big countries, more particularly of all if they happen to be the United States, their trade rivals will retaliate: this could snowball and have a significant effect on world trade.

    We should remember it was not the Wall Street Crash that caused the depression of the 1930s – it was the policies of Protection that followed the Wall Street Crash that caused the damage.

    Let me now look at the world that is to come – and start with the most basic issue of all: mankind itself. In the 41 years since America landed a Man on the Moon, world population has doubled. Doubled in 41 years. It now grows by as much every twelve years as it grew in the nineteen hundred years from the birth of Christ to the dawn of the 20th century. Startling, isn’t it?

    The trend is accelerating, by 2050 – not far away in planning terms – population will soar to over nine billion souls: this is an increase from today that is equivalent to the population of two more Chinas.

    These are not just statistics: they are people. Men, women and children with hopes, fears, ambitions and needs – for food, water, clothing, education, housing, jobs and every basic of life. As we meet today, pretty much about one-half of the world goes hungry, ill-educated and often without hope: how much worse will the problem be with an additional two billion to care for, 95% of whom will be born in countries who are very poor? Planning for this world needs to begin now: again one illustration will suffice.

    Already, many parts of the Middle-East and North Africa face water shortages; water shortages for families, for agriculture and for industry.
    In North Africa the Nile River has been its supply of water since the dawn of time – but the demands on the Nile will one day become insupportable. In 1900, five million Sudanese depended on the Nile – today it is over 42 million and by 2050 it is forecast to be a minimum of 50 million. Similar statistics apply to every other country alongside the Nile.

    The relevance of this is that action is required now to ensure water supply thirty to forty years ahead. But if no-one acts in time, it will be too late when water shortages become immediate and acute.

    These population projections aren’t fantasy. They’re reality. But they could become a nightmare unless we prepare.

    As population changes so does the future of our world, so does technology. My grandfather – who was in Pittsburgh helping to build the Carnegie Steel Works in the 1870s – never conceived of the combustion engine, let alone aeroplanes. Or the telephone, let alone mobiles. Now rockets and satellites in space arouse little interest amongst the populous as a whole. So what will life be like for our grandchildren?
    We can’t know: but we do know the trend of change. Technology is moving ever faster. It’s getting smaller and more powerful. Cheaper and more accessible. It took the telephone 50 years to reach one quarter of America. It has taken Facebook and Google less than 3 years to reach every corner of the world.

    Science isn’t emotional. It deals in facts. Several hundred years ago it told us the Earth was not spherical – and was not the centre of the Universe. At the time the Christian Church killed men for such heresy – but science was right.

    Now science and technology is the unstoppable motor that is changing every aspect of our lives.

    Consider what it has done. The first integrated circuit – invented by Jack Kilby at Texas Instruments in 1958 – proved to be the fore-runner of silicon chips containing – literally – billions of microscopic circuit elements.

    Nothing in the 20th century has so accelerated change; it led to the computer revolution; to the Digital Age.

    Without that crude circuit board there would be no Silicon Valley; no Internet; no laptop; no Google; no iPods; no iPads, no Blackberrys, no Playstations – and none of the hundreds of millions of jobs they have created. Who knows what challenges lie ahead? – perhaps as a result of the particle beams circulating in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland.

    A few days ago, scientists captured anti-matter for the first time – although only a few grains and only for one-tenth of a second. This may – I emphasise may be a new frontier. It was anti-matter, you may recall, that powered the USS Enterprise in Star Trek – fantasy is becoming reality.

    As science changes how we live, medical science is changing the quality and the length of our lives. 110 years ago, no-one knew of blood groups, hormones or barbiturates. Since then, medicine has given birth to whole new industries. New technologies are delivering better drugs, healthy food, new pesticides, the control of pollution, and advances in forensic medicine.

    Technology and medicine are old partners. The first man to assert that blood circulates and is pumped from the heart was William Harvey. But not until the invention of the microscope in the 1650s was this verified by the discovery of the tiny connections between arteries and veins.

    In a modern parallel, scientists are examining how to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research so they can target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine – for example – chemotherapy with only minimal side-effects.

    Such science is leading a revolution in medical care: advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for sufferers of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon be possible to produce artificial heart muscle cells.

    Stem cell research may enable us to grow replacement body parts – experiments in San Diego have already grown a human bladder. We can expect further advances.

    A decade ago, scientists mapped the human genome system. We are daily learning more about how we live and why we die. On the day the mapping was announced, I was lunching with some eminent medical surgeons at one of Britain’s great teaching hospitals.

    What does this mean, I asked? It means – they told me – medicine may determine in a child how that child may die as an adult and, knowing that, they can determine the treatment that may delay death. The life-span for a new baby, born in a country with an advanced medical system, that uses the science that is now available, may rise from the 79/81 years of today to well into the 90s. Consider the social implications of that.

    A few years ago, all this would have seemed like Black Magic. Very soon, fantasy will become reality, in a world we are only barely beginning to glimpse.

    Change is almost always two-faced: sometimes it brings danger.

    Consider our Earth: our blue and green planet has altered. Continents have drifted; Oceans have been formed; Africa and South America have split asunder; species have evolved and become extinct.

    These changes happened over literally hundreds of millions of years … but a few thousand years ago – like everything else in our modern life – it all speeded up. Agriculture began. Vegetation changed. The growing population began to deplete raw – and rare – materials.

    Now, in the last few decades, we have begun to emit radio waves from television, radar and cell-phones, and carbon dioxide emissions have absolutely soared. Planes have filled the skies, and missiles, satellites and space-craft have been propelled beyond our biosphere into orbit.

    For the first time in the long life-time of the Earth, our way of life can affect the future of our planet.

    This is the defining challenge for the future: can we utilize the science that has given us so many innovations to protect our way of life from the effects of those innovations? Once more, a single contemporary example may suffice.

    Science tells us the risks of climate change are real. Arctic summer ice is disappearing faster than we thought: without it, the sea absorbs the sun and melts the permafrost that keeps the lid on Greenhouse gases.

    The burning of fossil fuels continues to raise dioxides. Most – not all, but most – scientists expect this to lead to global warming of between two and five degrees. Does this matter? Yes – it does.

    NASA tells us that when temperatures last rose 2-3% (which they did 35 million years ago) sea levels rose by 25 metres. Even 5 metres would swamp large parts of London, New York, Sydney, Vancouver, Mumbai and Tokyo. Regions of Florida, Louisiana, Bangladesh and the Netherlands would vanish. Singapore would sink. No wonder green energy is such a growing business.

    But here is the dilemma for the policy-maker : we must have energy.

    Our modern world is powered by energy. It is indispensable for economic and political stability. A world without readily available energy is a world that cannot power industry, light homes, cook food, drive cars – it would be chaotic.

    Without energy, we return to life before the industrial revolution: it is unthinkable and it is unimaginable. We have been shamefully wasteful of our energy resources in the past half century and are now paying heavily for it. Oil has risen from $3 a barrel to $80 and rising, as demand has grown and grown.

    And it will not slacken – demand cannot slacken, as Latin America, Africa and Asia continue to industrialise and as population increases.

    So the role of science is going to be pivotal. It must mitigate the impact of fossil fuel degradation and prepare for the post fossil fuel age: this is still many decades ahead of us but, one day, it will come.

    Already science is far advanced in effective methods of capturing and storing carbon before it leaks into the atmosphere although many of the worst polluters around the world don’t yet utilise this technology.

    Alternatives are being developed – solar energy, advanced bio-fuels, fusion, other renewables: all of them have a role to play. So does the safe expansion of nuclear power, probably a bigger role than any of the others, which an increasing number of nations – not least in the Middle East – see as essential to future prosperity.

    We also need science to finalise the electrical car to reduce CO2 emissions. As an estimated 100 million cars are sold each year there will, by next year, be an incredible one billion cars on the planet. An electric motor can make a big contribution.

    Challenges such as these are daunting – and so is the cost but no-one dare ignore them. If we take no action, my generation will not be seriously inconvenienced, but our children/grandchildren may face a disastrous scenario.

    As we look ahead there are acute political and social challenges in nearly every country of the world. The rising cost of caring for more elderly people. The provision of pensions for them. Sufficient leisure and work to keep minds occupied and life worthwhile. Such challenges will alter more than the number and the length of lives: they may change nearly everything that is familiar to us.

    As we prepare for what lies ahead it is re-assuring to recall the past challenges that have been met. For most of my lifetime the world was at risk because NATO and the Warsaw Pact were facing one another with nuclear arsenals that, if unleashed, might destroy much of life as we know it. Reason – and wise politics (not least from past American Presidents like George Bush) prevented such a catastrophe.

    Today, inter-continental carnage on that sort of scale scale is very, very unlikely but – if the world is safer – the dangers of proliferation of nuclear weapons, of regional conflicts and of terrorism loom much larger as viable risks.

    Iran

    Winston Churchill once referred to Russia as “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”.

    Much the same could be said of Iran today. Since the flawed re-election of President Ahmadinejad, there has been widespread internal dissent by hundreds of thousands of individual Iranians. There have been marches, coded speeches, intellectual dissent, as liberty has raised its voice.

    The regime, as we might have expected, has responded with repression but, like others before them, they will find that the demand for change, for something better, for a free and open society, is impossible to smother forever. You cannot arrest freedom and keep it in jail.

    The fear of a nuclear Iran is real. So is the effect of it. If Iran obtains a weapon, the risk of proliferation is very, very high indeed. Iran worries everyone – and destabilises much of the Middle East.

    Why is Iran doing this? The economy is in a mess. The currency is weak. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment are all very high. It’s a very sad comedown for a nation that was a great Empire, when the British and Americans lived in mud huts.

    Nothing is explicable in Iran without understanding the nature of the regime. It is nationalist and hard-line. The real source of power is the Supreme Leader, backed by the Revolutionary Guards, the Army, the Intelligence Services and the Police.

    The President, Ahmadinejad – so often the face of Iran – is in truth a secondary figure. He is not the decisive decision-maker. Too many people over-react to his provocative remarks without realising his subordinate position. He is the Apprentice, not the Sorcerer. The monkey, not the organ-grinder.

    What should we do? First, remember the regime is not the nation – as the internal dissent vividly makes clear. Even so, while the clerical regime survives, we have to deal with it. It is possible negotiations may improve relations; and of course we should continue to try. But, because of the threat she poses, we must supplement dialogue with incentives and sanctions.

    Some advocate military conflict – and, unattractive though it is in every conceivable way, we cannot emphatically rule it out. But, for the time being, sanctions and political pressure seem the right way forward. We can only hope that they are sufficient.

    Arab-Israel

    The Arab/Israeli dispute colours the view of the Middle East. It spills beyond its own borders and it has scarred politics for decades. And is it not absurd that we know the two-State solution we seek, but cannot turn it into reality? Morality, as well as practicality, says we need a solution.

    After several decades, a bilateral negotiated settlement is still far away: many wonder whether if it will ever be possible. Attempts at incremental agreements – “confidence building” in the jargon – have failed again and again. Peace negotiations resemble nothing so much as the mating of the Black Widow Spider. Once the dance is over, death and destruction invariably follow. How often we have seen that, and how damaging it is.

    The present situation is close to stalemate. Palestinians are split. Secular Fatah control the West Bank. Islamic Hamas rule in Gaza. Hamas deny the right of Israel to even exist. They will not renounce violence nor accept previous agreements made by Palestinian negotiators. Meanwhile, Israel builds settlements the world deems illegal.

    Is there a solution? Yes, of course – the obvious one, a negotiated settlement. But, if that cannot be achieved, if negotiators from Israel and the Palestinians cannot – or will not – make the concessions necessary to compromise because of their internal politics, what then?

    Can the international community allow this dispute to run on and on forever – or will the time come when, in the wider interest, they have no choice other than to press more firmly their own ideas for a settlement?

    Understandably, the protagonists would hate this: but, if both sides take positions that impede progress, what alternative exists?

    Will this be difficult? Of course it will. It is a gamble, a high risk toss of the coin, and one that will require great political courage with all concerned. But in the Middle East, as much as anywhere and more important than in most parts of the world, statesmanship is essential to enable the region to fulfil its potential, without fear of conflict.

    One conflict is now worldwide. It is important to understand that terror – Al Qaeda being an example – threatens Muslim societies as much as, and in some cases, more than, Christian societies. Al Qaeda hate the Saudi Arabians more than they hate the Americans and the British. The Taliban, too, would change societies back to pre-enlightened days with a rigid approach to religion and to civil life that is abhorrent to most people. We have seen vivid – and terrifying – examples of that intolerance recently in both Iran and Pakistan. The concept of stoning a woman to death, or executing another because she advocated Christianity, is something that to us seems to come out of an age many centuries ago, but still exists in parts of the world.

    This battle against intolerance and unreason is one in which every State has an interest. It is not a short-term conflict, nor one capable of a clear-cut finite ending: it is too complex, too chaotic for that.

    But it is one from which no nation can safely exclude itself – we all have an interest in the outcome.

    One final thought about the future. Sometimes in politics – and in life – it is necessary to stand back and take stock. Now is such a moment.

    Our world has many complexities, but far more opportunities. If we arrange our affairs to take advantage of them, our future can be so much more promising than even the most pessimistic can believe.

    Sometimes I think we should be more aware – more self-confident – of what we can do. Young men and women today will see things, do things, know things, be things, that their parents and grand-parents would never have dreamed of. We must make sure that they can take advantage of those opportunities.

    As much of what I have said is about science, let me conclude with a quote from the man Voltaire called “the Father of modern science”.

    In the preface to his essays, Francis Bacon – a philosopher in Elizabethan England – observed, and I quote, that: “We have planted things that are likely to last.”

    So have we, in our time, planted things that are likely to last.

    Throughout history, change has been an ally. In the future – if we are wise – it will continue to be so.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Churchill College – The Churchill Lecture – 26 November 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech, “The Churchill Lecture”, held at Churchill College in Cambridge on Friday 26th November 2010.

    THE LIMITS OF POWER : CONSERVATIVE EXPERIENCE AND OPPORTUNITY

    This year is the 50th Anniversary of Churchill College, which was founded as a Memorial to arguably the greatest man in the history of our Islands.

    Sir Winston would be proud of this College. Proud that it focuses on science and technology. Proud that it houses the Archives of men and women who have influenced public policy. And proud that his daughter, Lady Soames – my friend, Mary – is not only with us this evening but is an Honorary Fellow of the College.

    I, too, am proud – that Churchill College has offered a permanent home to my political papers.

    Most are already here, and those that I’ve held back – personal notes, contemporary thoughts, partial diaries, even poems – will follow in due course. I hope that, taken together, these will add to knowledge, and be of use to historians. Tonight, I want to draw lessons from my own experience, and look to the future.

    I speak as a politician. Not an ideologue and not a theorist. I became a Conservative over fifty years ago, when I was barely in my teens and living in a multi-occupied, multi-racial house in Brixton. I have never regretted my choice.

    I don’t claim that every aspect of Conservatism was – or is – to my taste but, taken as a whole, I believe the philosophy offers more choice, more individual liberty, more opportunity and more hope than any other.

    Some have wondered why a boy with no money, no influence and no family background in politics should become a Conservative.

    The answer is simple. Socialism told me a benevolent State would help me – eventually. Conservatism offered a way up and out of modest circumstances. It told me there were no boundaries.

    Not everything turned out as I hoped: in politics, as in life, it rarely does. I had hoped my background would enable me to make

    Conservatism the natural choice for future generations from communities like Brixton. But events took over. When I became Prime Minister, the economy was broken and needed mending. And when it was back to full health – and the way clear to tackle the problems of under-privilege – we lost the election.

    But, even in failure, there are lessons and I shall try to set them out. Some of what I say may re-write perceived history, but the truth deserves an airing even if it up-ends myth. I shall then turn to the future.

    Let me set some context.

    Over the last 60 years, the world has changed at a pace without precedent in human history. Nothing is as it was, nor will be as it is.

    Instant, accessible and cheap electronic communication has changed the very nature of politics. Direct face-to-face contact with electors is diminishing. Public meetings are out of fashion. Mass membership of political parties is over. Door to door canvassing is falling away. More than ever before, the political message is filtered through the media or, increasingly, the internet. Even soap boxes are out of date.

    The once hallowed distinction between “news” and “views” has gone. “News” is now part of a sharply competitive entertainment industry: one might call it – “infotainment”. Editors select what is “news” and determine its prominence. They can “run” with a story, or close it down. They may – or may not – be dispassionate. None of this is new. But the scale of it is.

    Satellite coverage has multiplied the number of channels. Competition has made the media more demanding, more intrusive. Media outlets thrive on drama and sensation and – in its absence – are likely to create it.

    There’s no point in complaining about this: it’s the world in which we live. And politicians cannot simply blame others for public intolerance towards them. To be elected, they set out promises but – all too often – reality intervenes and the promise falls. Initially, the voter is merely annoyed but, where this re-occurs, they assume the promises were at best foolish, or at worst, fake. Sometimes they were. But, more often than not, it is the unforeseen event that turns an honest intention into a broken promise.

    Today, every Government is at the mercy of the global market. François Mitterrand – always more of an historian than politician – used to express alarm that the volume and velocity of financial flows were beyond the control of any Government. He was right. Sterling’s exit from the ERM taught us that seventeen years ago. Today, the Market is even more powerful.

    As the Global Market has grown, the influence of Governments has shrunk: even basic policies such as tax must conform to international norms, or investment moves away.

    The same internationalism is evident in foreign policy.

    More than ever before governments only share in the solution of common problems after negotiation in a plethora of international bodies.

    This is frustrating: and one reason why successive British Prime Ministers are less pro-European when they leave Office, than when they enter it.

    The uncomfortable truth is that the limits of power for politicians are narrower than many suppose. The modern Head of Government may wish to bestride the political stage like a colossus, but events can reduce him (or her) to no more than a cork bobbing on the waves.

    But not always. Consider: if Labour hadn’t imploded during the “Winter of Discontent”, would Margaret Thatcher have been able to enact such wide-ranging reforms in the 1980s? I doubt it. But the Trades Unions had exhausted public patience. And a lurch to the left made Labour unelectable.

    Out of this chaos, came opportunity. Margaret Thatcher saw her chance and seized it.

    Even so, she was fortunate. She had a clear cut majority in Parliament. It is far easier to be bold with troops united at your back, than dis-united at your throat. In the 1990s, the number of euro-sceptic MPs exceeded our majority, and made European policy an exhausting daily battle: this battle spilled over beyond matters European.

    That is why David Cameron was wise to agree a five-year coalition with the Liberal Democrats. It secures a Parliamentary majority, without which the unpopular policies that are now necessary could too easily be blocked.

    But, even with a working majority, Prime Ministers must bend to reality. Again, let me draw from my own experience.

    In 1989, Margaret Thatcher and I took Sterling into the Exchange Rate Mechanism. We did so to general acclaim.

    For 50 years, inflation had bedevilled the UK economy. Two Chancellors, Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson, both believers in the free market – had wished to enter the ERM. Margaret said no. As Chancellor I, too, then advocated entry. Margaret said yes.

    She did so with her eyes open. She was persuaded by reality. There was no alternative. Prices and mortgages were soaring and we had to bring them down. We entered the Mechanism to do so. This mattered to Margaret. Those for whom she most cared – the strivers and hard workers – were among those most hurt by rising prices. And because of my own life experience, it was crucial to me: I knew what life was like when the week lasted longer than the money. That is the evil of inflation.

    The ERM medicine was acutely painful, but it did drive prices down, and set us on a path to economic well-being that lasted over fifteen years. Let us not forget that Britain began many years of non-inflationary growth in April 1992 – not in May 1997.

    As we returned to growth, I wished to exit the Mechanism. It had done its work and I’d never thought of it as a stepping stone to economic and monetary union. It was time to leave. But the dilemma was how to do so without ending up with a lower exchange rate and higher inflation. This dilemma was still unresolved when the Market swept Sterling out of the ERM: an economic liberation, but a political disaster that grew to dominate the perception of all we did in Office.

    After our ejection, the myths began. We had entered at the “wrong rate” said free-market critics, forgetting we entered at the Market rate.

    Then, early Tory tea-partiers suggested that Douglas Hurd and I had “bullied” Margaret into submission. If they believed that they must have been drinking more than tea.

    It was widely asserted that this episode had “wrecked our reputation for economic competence”. At the time, such a sentiment had resonance. But critics should pause. The decision I had taken at Maastricht – to opt Sterling out of the Euro – has served Britain well. It was an economic decision based – not on sentiment for Sterling – but on the judgement that diverse economies would not converge and a crisis, one day, would follow. There can surely be no doubt now that my decision has proved to be right – politically and economically.

    As ever, facts are more potent than the words of critics or supporters. On the day I became Prime Minister, interest rates were 14%, unemployment was soaring, the economy was collapsing, inflation was 9.7% and the tax burden 36.3%. When I left Office, interest rates were 6%, unemployment was falling, the economy was growing healthily, inflation was 2.6% and the tax burden 36.6%.

    No other Government had passed on such a sound legacy. Yet few acknowledged the turnaround, or credited the Government with it.

    We Conservatives are to blame. In Government, we should have explained more and assumed less. In Opposition, after 1997, we shouldn’t have let myths take root: but we were demoralised by defeat – and did. This enabled Labour to take credit for the economy we had created, and helped keep us out of Office for thirteen years. This is a lesson that should not be forgotten.

    New Labour offers lessons, too. In 1997, they gained a huge majority from a supportive public. They could have done anything. But, after eighteen years out of Office, they were determined not to return to Opposition. The public were told what focus groups said they wished to hear. Good news was announced and re-announced. Bad news was buried. And the electorate was bribed with its own money. Emerging problems were ignored and are still with us.

    The general effect was a giant Ponzi Scheme, in which everyone was made to feel better whilst being fleeced. In its own way, it was genius.

    But it was not serious Government – and those emerging problems are now worse.

    Yet Labour’s neglect of these has left David Cameron an opportunity similar to the one Margaret Thatcher seized: once again, there is a mood of public tolerance to change.

    So let me turn to the future. Our national well-being is the work of generations: the Coalition can make progress, but the challenges are so deep they can’t be overcome in five years. Governments often over-estimate what they can do in five years, but under-estimate what can be achieved in twenty years. We need to think – and plan – long-term.

    This brings me directly to the Coalition Government.

    Many Tories and Liberals are hostile – or, at least, agnostic – to the Coalition. I approve of it. In present circumstances, it has many attractions: not least that two Parties are more likely to enjoy a tolerant electorate for policies that are painful.

    Can a Coalition Government succeed? I think so.

    Coalition, per se, is not a problem. The Conservative Party is, itself, a coalition: a broad Church that is more a way of life than an ideology. To win elections it must attract support from the Centre and, where it can, from the Centre-Left.

    If it falls into schism, it repels electors. Such internecine warfare scarred my own Premiership, and the leadership in Opposition of my three immediate successors. When the Conservative Party shrinks into itself, it shrivels into un-electability, as it did for some years after 1997.

    Can the Coalition achieve its purpose in five years? It will be hard pounding but its programme is essential to national well-being and so, if uncompleted, I hope some way can be found to prolong co-operation beyond this Parliament. It may be that a temporary alliance will turn into a mini realignment of politics: after all, in a world that is changing so comprehensively, why should politics not change, too?

    Neither Party will admit that possibility at present, not least because it would upset their core vote but – if events turn out well for the Coalition – I, for one, would not be surprised at that outcome.

    I seem to recall the Liberal Party was saved as a Parliamentary force in 1951, by the Conservatives not opposing five of its MPs: progressive co-operation is nothing new. It can be done. I am Conservative to the bone but, if it is in the interests of the Country, it may need to be done again.

    The Coalition has a daunting agenda. They must repair our national finances. Restore economic efficiency. Reconfigure foreign and European policy. Help an under-class which few wish to admit is there. Recognise that, while much of our education system is excellent, all of it is not. Reform an out-of-date welfare system, and face the myriad problems of an ageing population.

    Nor is that all. Climate change, population growth and the alleviation of poverty will demand attention. So will trouble spots in the arc of uncertainty from Syria to Pakistan. Do not be surprised if politics is in a hyperactive phase for years to come.

    Some priorities won’t wait. National well-being depends on putting the economy right. So does international influence. And the world won’t stand still while we recover.

    Governments can’t create wealth. The private sector can. To help them, the Coalition need, within this Parliament, to offer certainty in the tax and regulatory regime. Revisit employment law to create jobs. Lower taxes, and remove obstacles to growth. Tone of voice matters, too: the Government must promote success, and condemn the sour envy and resentment that so often derides it.

    There is one old truth that should not be forgotten.

    If the State is too big, the Private Sector will be too small. A smaller State – focused on what it must do and what only it can do – together with a larger private sector is the best way to national prosperity.

    Some may reject this. They like big Government. Labour policy is to regard any “cuts” as a plot to shrink the State, thus ignoring the inconvenient truth that, had they won the election, they would have been forced to a similar policy.

    A smaller State is not a devil-take-the-hindmost policy of pandering to the successful and ignoring the fragile. It is, in fact, quite the reverse.

    We are lost if the private sector doesn’t create jobs and yield tax revenue. We need tax revenue to fund good public services and pay for welfare. If the Government spends taxpayers’ money on what it need not do, it cannot spend money on what does need doing. Anyone who argues against that logic opens up a big gap between themselves and commonsense. Conservatives should not shrink from that debate.

    Nor should they shrink from any debate about how to maximise our national self-interest.

    In the recent Defence Review it was decided to extend the present life of Trident, but not yet to replace it. Few subjects so exercise Conservatives as national security but I believe this was the right decision. A bigger decision on replacement lies ahead with some unavoidable questions: what is the opportunity cost of Trident in the loss of conventional capability? In what circumstances, and upon whom, is Trident likely to be used? These are uncomfortable questions, but they must be answered before billions are committed.

    As our military power is reduced, our “soft” power – that is, diplomacy and the ability to achieve our purpose by persuasion – should be increased. David Cameron and William Hague have seized on this point and it is important they pursue it.

    As a middle-ranking nation, we must make the most of our assets. This means promoting diplomacy, and focusing it rigorously on British priorities. David Cameron’s policy of increasing trade with future economic giants is very much in our national interest. When we export more to Ireland than to China and India, something is wrong.

    Sustaining overseas aid, as the Government is doing, is a legitimate part of this policy. So is boosting education links and improving overseas broadcasting. We are lucky. We have the enviable gift of our language and culture to build on. Soft power must become an indivisible part of long-term policy, not an occasional add-on. This isn’t altruism: it is vital to our own long-term interests.

    Our diplomacy is a priceless asset. In the United Kingdom, our most important alliance is, and will remain, with the United States. We are – to echo David Cameron’s phrase – the junior partner. But our diplomatic skills are certainly no less than America’s and – with our historic experience of troubled regions – we should not hesitate to raise our profile.

    We have often led policy before. In Europe, the Single Market and enlargement were British-led initiatives. The “Safe Havens” for the Kurds policy, which saved hundreds of thousands of Kurdish lives after the first Gulf War, was born in London, created in Europe, promoted through the Commonwealth and imposed in partnership with the United States.

    We should lead more often. If we do, others may follow. We should not under-estimate our influence. And where we have reservations, we should be less ready to follow unquestioningly the lead of the United States. The good partner is not always the pliant partner: sometimes, candid criticism is the best form of friendship. Such a stance is not only more appropriate for a Sovereign and Independent nation like Britain, but we delude ourselves if we don’t recognise the inevitability of America looking more and more to the Pacific. They are realists and we must be so too. Robust British diplomacy will help and not harm the Alliance.

    There is an issue David Cameron and his successors cannot avoid: the character and reputation of Government. Parliament has had some serious setbacks in the last thirty years that have damaged its reputation.

    There are many reasons for this. One is political funding. The present system is not sustainable. When wealthy individuals make large donations – as they do to every mainstream Party – the suspicion lingers, even where it is wholly unjustified, that some of them seek undue influence over policy, or recognition in some other form. This is unhealthy for politics, and a constant headache for Party Leaders. A cap on donations will one day need to be introduced.

    Similar reservations apply to funding from special interest groups, notably Trades Unions and business corporations. Limits must be placed on these contributions and – much though I dislike the thought – if that leaves a funding gap, I would rather Parties trimmed their expenditure, or the taxpayer met it, than our political system was perceived, however unfairly, as shady.

    Greater scrutiny leads to a public awareness of shortcomings among Parliamentarians that may have gone unnoticed in earlier years.
    There have been too many instances of personal frailty in all political Parties: the most damaging are those that involve financial mis-behaviour. Cash for Questions – which occurred in the 1980s but only emerged to cripple the Government of the 1990s: and Cash for Peerages – which erupted in the last decade – were both pivotal to public alienation, as were the spicy revelations about the expenses claims of Parliamentarians in the Lords and Commons.

    Of course, the publicity in some cases was unfair, but the reality of criminal prosecutions shows that much was wrong. This dovetails into a bigger problem: alienation of the electorate. The growth of the far right, the fall in voting levels, the declining involvement in politics, and public estrangement from it, all add to the widespread feeling that Parliament is “out of touch” and politicians and public are too far apart.

    It is easy to see why. People work hard. Pay too much tax. Earn – sometimes a fraction – too much to qualify for social benefits. They fear that if immigration is too high it will cost them their jobs. Better homes seem beyond their means. They worry their children will rack up debt at University.

    These people are not selfish. Or racist. They are worried, some even frightened, by their own circumstances. Often they are economically immobile. They feel trapped. They believe no-one understands. Or cares. The Coalition can offer hope by speaking up and acting for them.

    It won’t be easy. Dis-enchantment is always greatest in difficult policy areas: immigration levels, sink estates, poor schools, taxation, the division of the welfare cake. The Coalition are addressing some of these problems: in all of them, a frankness and candour about the difficulties – and the time required to cure them – would reassure many who feel alienated from the political elite. It is never a mistake to set out long-term objectives if they give hope.

    Other objectives should be to tackle the fearsome bureaucracies that bear down on them. The Man in Whitehall or Town Hall does not know best. They are, too often, arrogant in their treatment of the citizen. We should be wary of the individual liberties they crush.

    Tackle these issues, and the Coalition may hit the political mother-lode. Far more important, they will restore faith in Parliament.

    In so many areas I welcome the ambitions of the Government. It is fashionable to be pessimistic and to sneer that Britain does not count any more.

    I profoundly disagree with such cynicism. It is not only cheap – it is wrong. In the last decade I have travelled the world and seen my own

    Country from afar. I have heard the world’s view of it. And – to that wider world – we do matter.

    We matter because of our history. Our language. Our law.

    And we matter because of what we can do – in commerce and industry, in science, in the City.

    And we matter because of what we are. Our quality as a Partner. Our reputation as an honest broker. Our generous impulse to crisis. Our culture. Our theatre. Our literature. Our tolerant instincts as a Nation.

    Sometimes, in politics, it is necessary to stand back and take stock. Now is such a moment. Our world has many complexities, but far more opportunities. If we arrange our affairs to take advantage of them, our future can be so much more promising than even the most optimistic can believe.

    For nearly seven years I was Prime Minister of this Country. I am proud of much of what we did. There are things I regret we did not do.

    But I was always proud of my Country. Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Its history. Its institutions. Its great figures like Winston Churchill, the Founder of this College. I still am: for all its shortcomings, I know of no place in which I would rather have served. And no place I would rather be.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Farm Africa Dinner – 16 September 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Farm Africa Dinner, held at Fishmonger’s Hall in London on Thursday 16th September 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    When John De Ramsey invited me to join you this evening, it was easy to accept.

    I first visited Africa in late 1965 during the Biafran War. I went there as a young banker working for the then Standard Bank of West Africa. I was lucky enough to be stationed at Jos, in northern Nigeria and it was there that Africa first attracted me. I had never seen – before or since – such enormous skies and open space. To me, it was idyllic – and still is. And yet, despite its allure and its promise, Africa is so often overlooked and disregarded. But I believe the time is coming when its profile will change.

    Some doubt that, but I think they are wrong. Change is almost the only constant in today’s hectic world.

    At the time I visited Africa, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were aiming missiles at one another. China was still slumbering. Asia had not begun its rise. The Soviet Union had an iron control of much of Eastern Europe. The EU was in its infancy. Latin America was a Continent of revolutions. The Gulf States were still poor. Oil was $3 a barrel. None of that applies now.

    The global market has taken root, and that will continue to change everything – not least agriculture.

    There are few things men and women can’t manage without, but food is at the top of that list. Nor will – or could – this ever change. But its importance will grow, simply because the sheer scale of demand for more food of a higher quality will be un-ending.

    At the time of Christ, the world population – so far as we know – was a mere 300 million. By 1900 – 19 centuries later – it had risen to one and a half billion – an increase of just over one billion in 1900 years. Today, it is six and a half billion, having quadrupled in the last century, and we are growing at nearly one billion every decade, as opposed to one billion every 1900 years.

    Better diet, environment, medicines, will accelerate that trend. The result is a world population estimated at nine billion by 2050: to put that more vividly, it is the equivalent of two more Chinas in the next 40 years – and, of course, agriculture must feed them.

    Contrast tomorrow’s demand with today’s reality. Today, one billion people go hungry each day, of which well over one-quarter are in Africa – many of them subsistence farmers. It needs a revolution to feed them – not so much in the husbandry of farming, but in growing food where it is needed, or transporting it from where it is grown to where it is consumed. In Africa – where a sharp population growth is anticipated – that will, quite literally, be a matter of life and death. That is an equation Africa understands.

    In Africa, agriculture is an ancient trade. Cereals were being grown in North Africa as early as 6,000 BC, and by 1500 BC, root crops, grain crops and nomadic pastoralism was the predominant way of life for sub-Saharan Africans. That is the first point to be made. Africans can farm. It is in their history. And in their blood.

    So it is today. But even a cursory examination shows that much more needs to be done. Although agriculture provides the main livelihood for nearly two-thirds of Africa’s population, much of it is subsistence farming, and the dire reality is that one in four Africans is under-nourished.

    Here, I wish to pay tribute to Farm Africa. It works to help African communities feed themselves and then become small businesses. Charity can feed a man, but wise charity helps him to feed himself, sell his surplus to his neighbours – and then more widely. And that surplus is needed – evidence suggests that, to meet the Millennium Development Goals, 124 million more Africans need to be lifted out of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa alone by the end of this year.

    No-one should doubt that Africans can farm. They are hard working and often have a fine business sense. Micro-finance from banks – tiny sums sometimes no more than £100 – often provide the seed-corn and, as the banks will tell you, women are usually the best guardians of the cash.

    Let me dispel some enduring myths. Not so long ago, most people’s view of Africa was largely defined by disturbing images of people suffering from poor government, corruption, violations of human rights, severe poverty and pandemic health crises. Against this focal image, both aid donors and investors are discouraged, and it’s not surprising that many investors viewed the African Continent as a submerging, rather than an emerging, market. But I believe they were wrong.

    Nowadays, such attitudes are shifting quickly. After lagging behind the rest of the world in the 1990s, African economic growth averaged 5% a year from 2001 until the recent financial crisis, whilst the rest of the world averaged just over 4%. Africa has been enjoying its most sustained period of economic expansion in over 30 years and, despite the financial upheaval which unavoidably slowed growth, the future looks bright as well. Real GDP growth in Africa is expected to continue to rise as the effects of the recent crisis dissipate. Investors are beginning to notice this, and the knock-on effect of that will be enormous.

    One key element, of course, is strong commodity prices. Africa is fortunate to be endowed with 10% of the world’s known oil reserves, 8% of gas reserves, 54% of gold reserves and a wealth of other precious metals, industrial metals and diamonds.

    This commodity boom is inspiring a huge increase in foreign direct investment in Africa – notably by China. China is active in nearly all parts of the Continent, especially in countries such as Sudan or Angola, where they have significant contracts to buy oil. But she is doing more than that. China is developing infrastructure projects, often tied to aid, using China’s partners and contractors and, in so doing, improving African infrastructure.

    China’s interest extends beyond oil to minerals and forests and arable products. And where China leads, others will follow, in a development that is changing both the perception and reality of the changing African market.

    What of agriculture? Firstly, Africa is blessed with a land mass significantly larger than that of China, India, the US and Europe combined. I make that point for two reasons: in the context of its tremendous size, it is overwhelmingly likely that many of Africa’s reserve riches – whether precious metals or hydro-carbons – still wait to be discovered and, secondly, the abundance of such land, and the nature of most of it, offers unrivalled prospects for agriculture.

    This is hugely encouraging for small entrepreneurs but, in many cases, they need help to begin. The work of Farm Africa, the generosity of private donors like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, the work of NGOs, and well-directed aid, are all addressing that problem. And the [Comprehensive African] Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) aims to increase agricultural productivity by at least 6% per annum.

    In jargon terms, the cavalry is arriving, troop by troop, and the possibility of more land under management; better water supply; more rural infrastructure and other practical improvements, is becoming more likely. This is absolutely necessary, and will enable the small rural farmer to operate in a more clement environment.

    500 years ago, John Donne wrote “No man is an island entire unto itself”. Nor is any Continent.

    But the growth of agriculture in Africa should not be seen in isolation. Africa is inextricably linked to worldwide growth patterns. Economic growth elsewhere will bring rising wealth to Africa – indeed is already doing so: this means better machinery for agriculture, better transport infrastructure for distribution, bigger towns in concentrated markets and the attraction of development capital.

    Before the financial crisis, Africa’s five-year economic boom was challenging the conventional view of the Continent as a war-torn, poverty-stricken crisis region undeserving of investor consideration. And so it should have done: after all, many places previously regarded as risky investment options – Vietnam being an obvious example – have since earned handsome returns for investors who identified their growth prospects. There is no reason why similar growth should not be achieved in Africa.

    I spoke earlier of 2050, and a world population of, perhaps, nine billion. Africa’s riches, Africa’s contribution, will be needed – and an ever-more global market will help that contribution to be made.

    Is it fanciful to look forward and see an Africa with a greatly improved road network; with more sea-ports and air-ports; with a private sector mentality; with less bureaucracy; a modern tax system; and growing opportunity for agriculture?

    I think not. And the history of the last fifty years tells us not. Farming for sustenance can become farming for profit. What an industrial revolution achieved for others it can – and I believe will – achieve for Africa.

    And when that happens, Farm Africa – and the other pioneers of help – will see that their help was far-sighted as well as humanitarian.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to the Mexico Chamber of Commerce / COMCE – 13 September 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech to The Mexico Chamber of Commerce / COMCE, held at the Torre Mayor in Mexico City, on Monday 13th September 2010. The speech was entitled “UK and Mexico – Partners in a Changing World”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s always a pleasure to visit Mexico – and never more so than to represent the British Government at your Bicentennial Celebrations.

    For two countries – half a world apart – we have much in common, both in the past and – more important – in the future. We were the first European nation to recognise Mexican independence. British engineers helped Mexico’s early development and – I believe – even introduced football – soccer – to your country.

    Today, we still have much in common. We’re both democracies. We’re free-traders. We work together to solve problems of climate change and sustained development. We both wish to reform out-of-date international institutions – especially financial institutions.

    I could easily extend this list – it would be easy, and comfortable, to do so.

    Instead, I want to refer to one other aspect we have in common: the fact that neither one of us has made as much of the Mexican-British relationship as we could – and should.

    Yes, trade and investment is growing. Yes, we exchange students. Yes, the political relationship is perhaps closer than ever before. I, myself, am here today at the specific request of the Prime Minister – who could not travel here at this time. Proof positive of the UK Government’s wish to increase the personal links that we know are so important in taking our overall relationship further.

    But we could – and should – do so much more. Nor should we be inhibited by the real problems of security and drugs. Both countries are – apart from a few restrictions – open for business, and the opportunities are huge.

    Mexico is, for example, far easier to do business with than China, Brazil or Russia. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world. Mexico is the 14th, and moving up rapidly. The scope for doing so much more is self-evident.

    And it is in both our national interests to do so, as the recent economic downturn has made clear. Mexico becomes less reliant on the US; the UK returns to a traditional Latin American market it has ignored for far too long. As a result, we both widen our markets.

    In a global market, this could happen spontaneously. But we should not leave it to chance. That is why I am delighted that both our Governments are keen to promote greater mutual trade and investment, and I want to commend our Ambassador, Judith McGregor, and the British Embassy, Pro-Mexico, COMCE and the UKTI, for the work they are already doing in this endeavour, not least with our “Think Britain” and “Mexico Matters” initiatives.

    Why is it so important that we act now? Because the world is re-shaping rapidly.

    Today, change is brutally swift. The leaders with whom I once worked are now part of history, although I still see many of them, including your former President, Ernesto Zedillo – a good friend whom I cherish.

    Another was Boris Yeltsin. Alas, no longer with us. Market economics were a mystery to Boris. Once asked him to tell me “State of Russia” in one word. “Good”, when asked in two words, “Not good”. Today we’re passing through a “not good” phase.

    Let me look around the world in which Mexico and the UK must compete: The East, which was not highly indebted, is moving forward swiftly. The West, which was – is not.

    A recovery of sorts has been stimulated – but it has left many Western Governments drenched in debt. What does that mean for the years ahead?

    Some of this is becoming clear.

    America first – since she is crucial to Mexico. The recession ended last autumn, but growth is still weak – and much of it driven by artificial stimuli that will soon be gone. So there is a risk – unlikely, but a risk – that the up-turn will stall – or even fade away.

    The UK and the EU are in a similar position, with one important difference which I will come to later.

    The UK has a new Government – a novel coalition of Conservative and Liberal-Democrats. It is unknown political territory but it does know what needs to be done – and has the Parliamentary majority to do it.

    Economically, the UK – like other nations – is in a difficult situation, and hard decisions will have to be taken in order to stimulate our long-term recovery.

    The new Government is already taking these tough decisions, and has made it clear that we see the emerging markets as playing a key role in that recovery.

    Thanks to the UK opt out from the Euro, we do so against a more positive backdrop than our European partners, who have the additional dimension of Greece – and Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland – all facing debt crises, but who cannot stimulate their economy by devaluing their currency because they are in the Euro. The pain of the recession for them is being felt in slow growth, unemployment and business failures. Some have forecast Greece will leave the Euro or, more dramatically, the Euro will break up. I very much doubt that.

    A bail-out package for Greece has been agreed. Personally, I’m not convinced it will prevent a default or a restructuring – but it buys time for other euro debtors to begin to put their finances in order. Nor will Greece leave the Euro – inside its situation is dire: outside it would be catastrophic.

    As for the Euro, too much political credibility has been invested for it to be abandoned. I don’t say this as a euro-enthusiast.

    In 1991, as Prime Minister, I refused to commit Sterling to the Euro-zone because I did not see how monetary union could work without economic convergence: and I did not believe Greece or Portugal or Italy would match the economic efficiencies of Germany. Nor have they.

    It is due to that 1991 opt-out that the UK is now in a much stronger position for recovery than the Euro-zone.

    Elsewhere, there is a brighter picture. Although the collapse in Western demand hit the Eastern economies, the larger countries – China, India, Indonesia – were not highly leveraged, and have emerged in good order.

    Latin America has changed dramatically for the better over the last two decades. It is now a Continent of increasingly stable democracies. It is not deeply in debt. Its economic fundamentals are stronger much of the developed world: its foreign exchange reserves are at an all-time high.

    Its collective GDP is – to within a whisker – the same as China, and three and a half times that of India. Latin America is in a good position to bounce back from the economic crisis.

    In the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf, some countries were barely affected by the financial turmoil: indeed, most grew around 5% despite the steep drop in the oil price.

    What can we expect as we look forward?

    In the West – more regulation and control. Higher taxes to cut deficits and – in due course – higher interest rates to fund them. Public spending will fall.

    So will private spending, as the impact of high unemployment – and record levels of personal debt – encourage the consumer to save more and spend less. All of this suggests a muted recovery.

    Over recent years, the world has looked enviously at the energy-rich countries – especially in the Gulf – and the spending power of their Sovereign Wealth Funds.

    When oil fell to US$40, OPEC cut output to sustain the price. It has since risen to US$70-80 for two reasons:

    – rising demand as growth returns; and
    – a growth in investment in oil as an asset. In the medium-term, it is more likely to rise further than fall. This is also crucial to Mexico.

    What risks lie ahead?

    Of course, the risk of a double-dip into recession, but that is very unlikely, although growth may slow.

    A greater risk is protection, which is always a danger at times of high unemployment.

    Mini protections – hidden protections – exist almost everywhere. A recent study identified 192 Protectionist measures in OECD countries, with a further 148 in the pipeline: fortunately, many are not obvious or inflammatory. It is gratifying to see that Mexico – under the leadership of President Calderon – continues to promote Free Trade and fight against protectionism in all its forms.

    If protection gets out of hand it is dangerous. It risks retaliation: it was, after all, what caused the problems of 1929/30 to become the prolonged slump of the 1930s as world trade fell by two-thirds. The dangers of protection should always be in our mind.

    It is easy (and fashionable) to be gloomy about the mature Western economies and to look too much to China and the East. We shouldn’t overdo this: the West may not be able to compete on labour costs but while they continue to lead the technological revolution they will remain the key economic players.

    I am here to celebrate the bicentenary of Mexico, but let me touch on some of the areas where there are great shared opportunities for us over the next 200 years:

    Consider science: the first integrated circuit – invented by Jack Kilby in America in 1958 – proved to be the fore-runner of silicon chips containing – literally – billions of microscopic circuit elements. Nothing in the 20th century has so accelerated change; it led to the computer revolution; to the Digital Age. Without that circuit there would be no Silicon Valley; no Internet; no laptop; no Google; no iPods; no Blackberrys, no PlayStations – and none of the hundreds of millions of jobs they have created.

    As science changes how we live, medical science is changing the quality and length of our lives. A hundred years ago, no-one knew of blood groups, hormones or barbiturates. Since then, medicine has given birth to whole new industries. New technologies are delivering better drugs, healthy food, new pesticides, the control of pollution, and advances in forensic medicine.

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

    Such science is leading a revolution in medical care: advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for sufferers of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon be possible to replace heart muscle cells.

    A few years ago, all this would have seemed like Black Magic. Soon, fantasy will become reality, with commercial prospects that are simply staggering.

    One continuing headache will be energy supply and energy security.

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

    Since this is so, we need to develop carbon capture and store the carbon residue where it is safe – probably for centuries. This R&D challenge is daunting – and so is the cost – but energy security is a policy no-one dare ignore.

    So is the risk of climate change. Because hard-to-ignore science tells us the risks of global warming are real. Most scientists expect global warming of between two to five degrees. This sounds small – but isn’t: in the depth of the last ice age, the temperature fall was – five degrees.
    Energy security is not the only long-term challenge. In the last fifty years, world population has grown from less than 3 billion to over 6.5 billion. At the birth of Christ, world population was – probably – 300 million. By 1900 – 19 Centuries later – it had grown by something over one billion. We now grow by nearly one billion every decade.

    World population is projected to reach 8 or even 9 billion by 2050. This is like absorbing two more nations the size of China. It offers social threats and economic opportunities.

    We live in a fast-moving, ever-changing, uncertain world, with many risks and challenges ahead – yet there are so many opportunities.

    Over two decades, China and the US have developed a huge inter-locking economic relationship. Japan and China are beginning to repair old scars. Latin America has become a Continent of Democracies. And – until the recession – Africa was growing faster than at any time in our lifetimes. Europe has moved the free market eastwards and southwards.

    In a preface to some famous essays, an English philosopher flatteringly observed to his patron that “You have planted things that are likely to last”.

    As have the UK and Mexico, by working closely together in:

    – Pursuing a global deal on climate change;
    – Fighting protectionism and promoting free trade;
    – Creating a low-carbon global economy.

    But we could do so much more and – by doing so – we will forge a closer, more meaningful relationship between our two nations – for the next 200 years and beyond.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council Dinner – 13 July 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council Dinner, held at Chelsea Manor Street in London, on Tuesday 13th July 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    “Policy challenges in a changing world” – is a good topic.

    The inevitable challenge is change, which is brutally swift. Leaders of only a few years ago now seem distant history.

    One was Boris Yeltsin. I once asked Boris to tell me – “State of Russia” in one word. “Good” – “Not good”.

    Today, economically, we’re passing through in a “not good” phase.

    And, politically, although the world is safer from serious war than for decades, we face some intractable problems.

    The phrase “War on Terror” conjures up its own image: 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, suicide bombers. And yet – the term is misleading. What we are facing is not really a “War”, still less on “Terrorism”, but the military fall-out from the chaos of failed, or failing, States and the battle between Muslims for the soul of Islam. This is not a short-term conflict, nor one capable of a clear-cut finite ending: the chaos is complex.

    Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will have a clear cut ending – or an early one.

    We need to understand the Muslim world is very different to our society. It embraces nations in which references to the Prophet Mohammed, or the Old and New Testaments, are part of everyday conversation.

    For some – the Salafists – Islam was perfect when founded and can neither be changed nor improved upon. Policy needs to understand the tensions between Christian, Muslim and Jew; Arab, Persian, Kurd and Turk; Shia and Sunni; between Monarchies and Republics; Secular and Islamic societies.

    It is a cauldron. It is not a liberal democracy. And therein lies reality.

    Let me turn to particular conflicts.

    Firstly, Iraq.

    When Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990 the case for war was clear-cut. An innocent country was invaded and needed liberation.

    The second Iraq War was very different.

    Before it began, I made my reservations public but supported the war – because I believed what the then Prime Minister told us about weapons of mass destruction. When I was Prime Minister, everything I said in public was factually rock solid. I assumed that principle still applied. But I was wrong. It now seems there was little justification for the bellicose case for war that was presented. I was not alone in being misled. So was the Conservative Party. So was the United Kingdom.

    Today that war looks like folly. The defence of it has shrunk to the claim that Saddam Hussein was a bad man, who mistreated his nation, and the world is better off without him.

    That is true. But others are bad, too – and mistreat their nations – yet we don’t invade their countries or bomb them from 30,000 feet. It may be that the Labour Government acted in good faith. Judgement on that can be left to history.

    But, I observe now – there are lessons: war should be the last resort, entered into only when circumstances compel it. And secondly: we now have on-going responsibilities to help rebuild Iraq that we cannot ignore.

    Afghanistan

    We have now been at war in Afghanistan for eight years – with no sign of an ending. Inevitably there is war weariness – made worse by the depressing rise in casualties.

    Afghanistan isn’t a war that can easily be “won”, but nor can it be ignored: we are bound to it by necessity.

    And it is easy to see why.

    The war has spread into Pakistan – a Western ally and a nuclear power where Taleban and Jihadist influence has been growing.

    The Afghanistan campaign is now, arguably, not one, but several intertwined conflicts including a power struggle between Jihadists and the Pakistan Government.

    As the conflict becomes more messy and intractable, it is understandable that some feel we should bring the troops home – as Canada and the Netherlands plan to do in 2011.

    But not yet. Too much is at stake. We need patience and commitment for what could yet be a long military and civil campaign: the alternative is to lose the struggle, boost terror, undermine American and British prestige, and place Pakistan at risk. We did not seek this war, but we cannot – either morally or safely – walk away from it.

    The best exit strategy is victory. If that is unobtainable – diplomacy. We may yet have to talk to the Taliban.

    Iran

    Churchill once referred to Russia as “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”.

    Much the same could be said of Iran today. In the year since the flawed re election of Ahmadinejad, there has been widespread internal dissent by hundreds of thousands of individual Iranians. There have been marches, coded speeches, intellectual dissent, as liberty has raised its voice. The regime has responded with repression but, like others before them, they will find that the demand for change, for something better, for a free and open society, is impossible to smother forever. You cannot arrest freedom and keep it in jail.

    The fear of a nuclear Iran is real. If she obtains a weapon, the risk of proliferation is high.

    Why is Iran doing this? The economy is in a mess. The currency is weak. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment are high. It’s a sad comedown for a nation that was a great Empire, when we lived in mud huts.

    Nothing is explicable without understanding that Iran is a nationalist and hard-line regime. The real source of power is the Supreme Leader, backed by the Revolutionary Guards, the Army, the Intelligence Services and the Police. The President, Ahmadinejad – so often the face of Iran – is a secondary figure. He is not the decisive decision-maker. Too many people over-react to his provocative remarks without realising his subordinate position. He is the Apprentice, not the Sorcerer.

    What should we do? First, remember the regime is not the nation – as the internal dissent vividly makes clear. Even so, while the clerical regime survives, we must deal with it. It is possible negotiations may improve relations; and we should continue to try. But, because of the threat she poses, we must supplement dialogue with incentives and sanctions.

    In any event, adding a third military conflict after Iraq and Afghanistan is very unattractive – even if we cannot rule it out. But, for the time being, the sanctions applied last month seem the right way forward. We can only hope they prove sufficient.

    Arab-Israel

    The Arab/Israeli dispute colours the view of the Middle East. It spills beyond its own borders and has scarred politics for decades. And is it not absurd that we know the two-State solution we seek, but cannot turn it into reality? Morality, as well as practicality, says we need a solution.

    After several decades, a bilateral negotiated settlement is still far away: many wonder if it will ever be possible. Attempts at incremental agreements – “confidence building” in the jargon – have failed again and again. Peace negotiations resemble nothing so much as the mating of the Black Widow Spider. Once the dance is over, death and destruction inevitably follow. How often we have seen that, and how damaging it is.

    The present situation is close to stalemate. Palestinians are split. Secular Fatah control the West Bank. Islamic Hamas rule in Gaza. Hamas deny the right of Israel to even exist. They will not renounce violence nor accept previous agreements made by Palestinian negotiators.

    Is there a solution? Yes, of course – the obvious one, a negotiated settlement. But, if that cannot be achieved, if negotiators from Israel and the Palestinians cannot – or will not – make the concessions necessary to compromise, what then?

    Can the international community allow this dispute to run on and on forever – or will the time come when they have no choice other than to press their own ideas for a settlement?

    Understandably, the protagonists would hate this: but, if both sides take positions that impede progress, what alternative exists?

    Will this be difficult? Of course it will. It is a gamble, a high risk toss of the coin, and one that requires great political courage, especially in

    Washington.

    Let me turn to some unconventional challenges.

    Firstly, science.

    The first integrated circuit – invented by Jack Kilby in America in 1958 – proved to be the fore-runner of silicon chips containing – literally – billions of microscopic circuit elements. Nothing in the 20th century has so accelerated change; it led to the computer revolution; to the Digital Age.

    Without that circuit there would be no Silicon Valley; no Internet; no laptop; no Google; no iPods; no Blackberrys, no PlayStations – and none of the hundreds of millions of jobs they have created. Who knows what challenges lie ahead – perhaps as a result of the particle beams circulating in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

    As science changes how we live, medical science is changing the quality and length of our lives. A hundred years ago, no-one knew of blood groups, hormones or barbiturates. Since then, medicine has given birth to whole new industries. New technologies are delivering better drugs, healthy food, new pesticides, the control of pollution, and advances in forensic medicine.

    Technology and medicine are old partners. The first man to assert that blood circulates and is pumped from the heart was William Harvey.

    But not until the invention of the microscope in the 1650s was this verified by the discovery of the tiny connections between arteries and veins.

    In a modern parallel, scientists are examining how to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research so they can target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine – for example – chemotherapy with only minimal side-effects.

    Such science is leading a revolution in medical care: advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for sufferers of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon be possible to replace heart muscle cells.

    A few years ago, all this would have seemed like Black Magic. Soon, fantasy will become reality, with commercial challenges that are simply staggering.

    Many challenges also offer opportunities. At the birth of Christ, world population was – probably – 300 million. By 1900 – 19 centuries later – it had grown by something over one billion. We now grow by nearly one billion every decade.

    World population is projected to reach 8 or even 9 billion by 2050. This is like absorbing two more nations the size of China. It offers social threats and economic opportunities.

    These are just a few of the challenges in our post recession world.

    One certainty: many countries borrowing money – from markets, one another, International Financial Institutions. Not always straightforward.

    Inevitably, there are many challenges I have not touched upon: the danger of nuclear or biological terrorism; the insecurities created by the arc of uncertainty from Syria to Pakistan; the enigma of Russian policy-making.

    All are formidable – but let me add a little balance: pre-financial crisis, fifteen years of high growth improved the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.

    Investment across nations minimises the risk of wars. Life expectancy is rising.

    China and the US have developed a peaceful relationship. Japan and China are repairing old scars. Democracy is expanding. Poor, forgotten Africa is growing. Europe has moved the free market eastwards and southwards.

    In a preface to some famous essays, an English philosopher flatteringly observed to his patron that “You have planted things that are likely to last”.

    So have we – in our own time. The Free Market. The Global Market. Democracy. A Union across Europe. The concept of supra-national co-operation. All gifts from the West to the world – with the UK as a principal donor.

    It is a record of which to be proud.

    But what remains to be achieved is greater yet, and the challenges will go on and on.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments at the Thanksgiving Service for Sir Alec Bedser – 12 July 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments made at the Thanksgiving Service for Sir Alec Bedser CBE, held at Southwark Cathedral on Monday 12th July 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Alec and Eric Bedser were indivisible: even God made them complementary. One bowled medium fast. One was a spinner. One was a batsman. One wasn’t. Both fielded – in a stately fashion.

    And both would have been surprised – and enormously touched – that thousands of years of friendship and admiration are gathered here today to say farewell to Alec.

    Arthur Morris and Micky Stewart are from cricket’s High Table, and have spoken with affection of the Alec they knew. Alec would have liked that: he didn’t approve of everyone but he did approve of Micky. And he loved Arthur Morris like a brother and – in Alec’s world – nothing meant more than that.

    As a boy, I idolised Alec Bedser from the cheap seats: later, I came to know him as a friend. There was nothing false or puffed-up about Alec. His values and opinions didn’t change with fashion. What you saw was what you got: a big man – with an even bigger heart.

    And – as St. Peter will surely have learned by now (at least from Eric) – Alec was a cricketer. An English cricketer. In Alec’s lexicon, only Australia came close to England as a nation. “And they” – as he explained his affection for Australians – “were English once”. Two hundred years of nationhood had not changed Alec’s mind about Australian origins.

    Such men as the Bedser brothers are rare. In times long gone, their forebears fought at Agincourt and Waterloo. Alec – and Eric – served their country too, in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. Alec fought on after the War: at Lord’s, The Oval, Brisbane and Sydney. For years he was the English pace attack: an indefatigable giant in the direct line of Sydney Barnes and Maurice Tate, untiring and often unplayable: but not always, so I am told, uncomplaining.

    Alec’s views on cricket were trenchant – often generous, sometimes not, but always backed by his love – and knowledge – of the game.

    However, he wasn’t a lover of every aspect of modern cricket. I sat with him when an English fast bowler hurled himself full-length to save a run. “Wonderful,” breathed an eminent fellow guest, “… and he’ll have to bowl after tea.”.

    Alec didn’t agree. His view was different: “Bloody fool – if he’d hurt himself he couldn’t bowl, could he?”.

    To watch cricket with Alec was an education. To listen to him was a master-class. He and Eric had prodigious memories. “Brother had him caught at second slip.” Eric would say of some obscure game played fifty years ago. “Yeah”, Alec would add, “Low down. Left hand. Old Laurie Fishlock nearly dropped it.”.

    When Alec was Knighted for “Services to cricket”, the brothers were delighted. Eric said: “He’s the first bowler to be Knighted since Sir Francis Drake”.

    Those of us privileged to know Alec could offer a thousand vignettes.

    He came to No 10 one summer’s evening, clutching a bag of his home-grown runner beans. These were promptly removed and searched for explosive devices. However – as I learned later on – the only explosive device present had been Alec: “Beans!” he said to me. “Beans! If I was going to blow you up I’d have put it in me cauliflower”.

    Alec was a good friend to have. His support – in all circumstances – was total. He lived life like he played cricket – for the team, never for himself. And always – of course – for Eric. In life, they were inseparable. Now, they’re reunited, and will never be apart again.

    I like to think they’ve rejoined old friends, formed a celestial cricket team, and now discuss tactics over their usual midday pint. I can picture Alec on some green field: bowling again to Bradman, perhaps, and testing himself against Grace and Trumper. A little cloud cover would help his swing and, with luck, the heavenly turf will allow the leg-cutter to grip. If so, the batsmen had better be on their mettle: they are facing the greatest medium-fast bowler of his time – perhaps any time.

    Alec played cricket like a poet: his length and line were perfect. The finest poem cricket has known, written of a much earlier great bowler, ended with the plea that “the turf may lay softly upon him”.

    And on you, dear Alec. And on you.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Pitch Perfect Cricket Diversity Dinner – 28 June 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech to the Pitch Perfect Cricket Diversity Dinner, held at the Guildhall in London on Monday 28th June 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My Lord Mayor, Your Excellency, Sheriffs, Ladies/Gentlemen.

    It is a great privilege, Lord Mayor, to be in this wonderful building. Guildhall is as old as cricket and a superb venue to celebrate the game and to raise funds so that more young people can play it.

    The “Pitch Perfect” initiative raises money for music and cricket. Both warm the soul and train the mind. Tonight, we concentrate on cricket and bringing it back to schools, where the game has withered for over 30 years.

    Lord Mayor, we are enormously grateful for your generous hospitality here this evening, and – on behalf of all those children who are not here tonight – but will benefit from your splendid Appeal – I thank you warmly.

    We’re here in the heart of the City. In this hub of the world of finance, it is easy to forget that cricket is a game. It’s played for fun. When 16th century rustics – in their few precious hours of leisure – batted with a block of wood against a tree stump, it was pure fun. In the days of the I.P.L., where cricket is a business, it is wise to remember that most cricket is still played for fun.

    Nearly 60 years ago – as a boy – I played cricket on the streets of Brixton – not very far from here. Those hours still provide many happy memories and so it is for all cricketers from street level to Test level. Surely those of us who have enjoyed such moments wish to pass them on to others. And, in that, I include the many distinguished cricketers here with us this evening – whose support is very welcome and much appreciated.

    The love of cricket is gloriously classless.

    When Prime Minister I went to Canterbury Week and was strolling around the tents with Jim Swanton and Bob Runcie, then Archbishop of Canterbury. Amid much merriment, a voice called from the crowd:- “Who are those two men with Jim Swanton?”. Cricket lovers have always had a proper sense of priorities.

    Cricket at its best draws in spectators and players alike so that the whole world can shrink to what is unfolding on a cricket pitch.

    In 1950, the England selectors held a Test Trial before picking the team. In the game, Jim Laker took 8-2 and so the selectors learned very little – except that Laker was unplayable on a helpful wicket.

    Hubert Doggart was Captain of the losing team. As wickets fell he spoke abstractedly to the – now much missed – Bedser Twins.

    Where born Alec? Reading. Where born Eric? Reading: my mother didn’t have a bike in those days.

    Many great authors have loved cricket, and brought it to life in print:

    P.G. Wodehouse, J.M. Barrie. Trollope created a character – Sir Kennington Oval. Dickens had a cricket ground next to his Gad’s Hill house. Dorothy L. Sayers’ fictional detective Peter Wimsey scored 100 for Oxford.

    Byron and Keats played cricket. Byron lied about the runs he scored. And Keats – soon after writing the immortal line “A thing of beauty is a joy forever” – wrote in his diary:

    “Yesterday, I got a black eye – playing cricket.”

    It was with a white ball, too …… nothing is new.

    Cricket tells you a lot about people:

    Conan Doyle loved cricket. Professor Moriarty did not.

    Montgomery loved cricket. Rommel did not.

    Montgomery’s father lived close enough to The Oval to hear crowds cheering Jack Hobbs. Monty himself, who once told his troops to “Hit Rommel for Six” was at The Oval for Don Bradman’s last Test innings, when he was bowled by Eric Hollies for 0.

    As Bradman returned to the Pavilion, Montgomery said to him: “Bradman, let me tell you where you went wrong”. Absurdity of his offering advice to greatest run-getter of all time escaped Monty.

    No sense of irony, Montgomery. He once remarked: “As God said …and he may have been right”.

    During a Commonwealth Conference, I once opened the batting with Bob Hawke, then Prime Minister of Australia, in a charity match.

    Hawke stole the bowling unmercifully and when – suddenly – we were ushered off the pitch to – as the Umpire unkindly put it – “make way for the real cricketers”, I asked Bob if he’d known we only had ten overs. He looked pretty shifty: “Jeez, yes John. Didn’t I tell you?”. Believe me, on and off the pitch the Aussies are tough competitors – but always very welcome visitors, And – tonight – I’m delighted to see among the company my friend, John Dauth, the Australian High Commissioner. Also – that bowler – Mitchell Johnson and Mr Cricket ‘Mila’ Sunny.

    This winter, England defend the Ashes in Australia. In 1932, England won using intimidating “bodyline” bowling, that wouldn’t be permitted – or I hope even contemplated – today. The England captain, Douglas Jardine, was Public Enemy Number One.

    As he left the field, a voice under a baggy green cap muttered: “You bastard, Jardine”. Jardine was furious. He burst into the Australian dressing room and complained bitterly to the Australian captain, Woodfull.

    Woodfull looked around the room and said: “Right – which of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?”.

    Not everyone is a fan. I tried to explain cricket to an American President who found it hard to comprehend that any game could last for five days, with no positive result. His eyes glazed over. I also tried to explain it to Boris Yeltsin over a vodka – or two. His eyes glazed over too – although – I suppose – that could have been the vodka.

    Cricket and politics have many similarities. Apart from nostalgics, they attract pessimists. As long ago as 1932, C.P. Snow was complaining:

    “These days, a man of taste can only go to an empty ground and regret the past!”. The same dreary view can often be heard today.

    For some, the past is always the Golden Age. In the 1930s, Neville Cardus once wrote of falling asleep at Lord’s to the complaints of an elderly spectator that cricket “wasn’t what it used to be”. Cardus awoke to see Larwood bowling to Hammond. Anyone who dozed off over recent years might have woken to see Warne bowling to Tendulkar. The game remains endlessly fascinating.

    And cricket attracts all manner of people. Nelson Mandela told me that his first question on leaving Robben Island was: “Is Don Bradman still alive?”.

    At the moment, cricket is passing through a revolution. But the game itself – as Ben Jonson said of Shakespeare – is “not of an age, but for all time”.

    But, of course, it changes. For the purist, watching a great batsman play 20/20 is like watching Red Rum pull a milkcart. But 20/20 has carried the game to millions upon millions who would not otherwise have watched it.

    And widening the game is imperative. 17th century soldiers and sailors carried cricket around the world and – although you may not have known it – cricket played a part in winning the last War.

    Many of you will have seen that great film “The Dam Busters”, in which Barnes Wallis designed a bomb that skipped across the water to destroy the walls of the three great German Dams, and flood the Ruhr.

    In trials, the bombs simply sank gently beneath the water. One technician, George Edwards, a spin bowler, knew why: he knew the difference between top spin and back spin. The bomb was re-designed and the three dams – the Mohne, Sorpe and Eder – were taken out with ……. a leg-break.

    But the Germans are not without a love for the game. In the First World War, a wounded soldier lay on the battlefield of the Somme when a German Officer approached. He searched the British soldier and read the papers in his pocket. “I see you are a member of the MCC. You are a lucky man. You can return to your line”. So MCC members present should note that their subscription can also serve as a life insurance……

    Once, cricket was solely an English game. Now, it belongs to the world. And, whenever it is played, it draws people together. From all corners of the world – most recently China and Afghanistan – and from all corners of society: cricket is so much more than just a game.

    Here in the UK, especially in London and the inner cities, we have too many young people with nowhere to go and nothing to do.

    Yet all of them have a healthy competitive spirit. If we hope to get our children out of doors, away from television and computer screens – if we want them fit not fat, in teams not gangs – then we should support ‘Pitch Perfect’. We need to channel their energies into something positive, rather than negative.

    Not only will our children and grandchildren benefit from it, but society will too.

    “Pitch Perfect” has the initiative and drive to push this ambition forward. With your help, we can make that ambition become a reality.

    Thank you, Lord Mayor, for giving us this opportunity – and thank you all for being here tonight in support of it.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Conservative Middle East Council Dinner – 16 June 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Conservative Middle East Council Dinner, held at Claridge’s Ballroom on Wednesday 16th June 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Your Excellencies, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Delighted to be here this evening. As I look around this gathering, I see new Ministers who face a herculean task, and old colleagues like Dennis Walters, Founder of this Council. I also see my old friend, Ken Clarke, who I am delighted to see back in Government. And, above all, distinguished Ambassadors representing our friends and allies in the Middle East. It is good to see you all.

    These days, I travel for almost six months a year. I marvel at the growth in the Middle East. I see the huge opportunities that are still to come. But, too often, I am told on my travels: “We see the French, the Germans, the Chinese – where are the British?”. I am delighted David Cameron and William Hague have re-stated our commitment to the wider region. We must never allow old friends to become distant friends.

    First, a warning: all over the world Governments have their own cautious language when engaged in diplomacy. Often what is not said is as important – if not more so – than what is said.

    Tonight you will need no interpretive skills: I speak solely for myself, and having the freedom to say exactly what I think, in the way that I wish, is one of the delights of not being in Government.

    Iraq

    When Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990 – without cause or justification – the case for war was clear-cut. An innocent country was invaded and needed liberation. And when it was over we had a further responsibility: to protect the Kurds from genocide.

    The second Iraq War was very different.

    Before it began, I made my reservations public but supported the war – because I believed what the then Prime Minister told us about weapons of mass destruction. When I was Prime Minister, everything I said in public was factually rock solid. I assumed that principle still applied. But I was wrong. It now seems there was little justification for the bellicose case for war that was presented. I was not alone in being misled. So was the Conservative Party. So was the United Kingdom.

    Today that war looks like folly. The defence of it has shrunk to the claim that Saddam Hussein was a bad man, who mistreated his nation, and the world is better off without him.

    That is true. But others are bad, too – and mistreat their nations – yet we don’t invade their countries or bomb them from 30,000 feet. It may be that the Labour Government acted in good faith. Judgement on that can be left to history.

    But, I observe now – there are lessons: war should be the last resort, entered into only when circumstances compel it. And secondly: we now have on-going responsibilities to help rebuild Iraq that we cannot ignore.

    Afghanistan

    We have now been at war in Afghanistan for eight years – with no sign of an ending. Inevitably there is war weariness – made worse by the depressing rise in casualties. Poor political direction has dogged this mission from the outset. The Labour Government hoped “not a shot would be fired” but 298 British dead mock that naivety. For too long, troops in the field were ill-equipped: that, thankfully, is at last corrected and I hope they now will have all the support they need – in action and on their return home.

    Afghanistan is not a war that can easily be “won”, but nor can it be ignored: we are bound to it by necessity.

    And it is easy to see why.

    The war has spread into Pakistan – a Western ally and a nuclear power where Taleban and Jihadist influence has been growing.

    The Afghanistan campaign is now, arguably, not one, but several intertwined conflicts including a power struggle between Jihadists and the Pakistan Government.

    As the conflict becomes more messy and intractable, it is understandable that some feel we should bring the troops home – as Canada and the Netherlands plan to do in 2011.

    But not yet. Too much is at stake. We need patience and commitment for what could yet be a long military and civil campaign: the alternative is to lose the struggle, boost terror, undermine American and British prestige, and place Pakistan at risk. We did not seek this war, but we cannot – either morally or safely – walk away from it.

    The best exit strategy is victory. If that is unobtainable – diplomacy. We may yet have to talk to the Taliban.

    Arab-Israel

    The Arab/Israeli dispute colours the view of the Middle East. It spills beyond its own borders and has scarred politics for decades. And is it not absurd that we know the two-State solution we seek, but cannot turn it into reality? Morality, as well as practicality, says we need a solution.

    After several decades, a bilateral negotiated settlement is still far away: many wonder if it will ever be possible. Attempts at incremental agreements – “confidence building” in the jargon – have failed again and again. Peace negotiations resemble nothing so much as the mating of the Black Widow Spider. Once the dance is over, death and destruction inevitably follow. How often we have seen that, and how damaging it is.

    The present situation is close to stalemate. Palestinians are split. Secular Fatah control the West Bank. Islamic Hamas rule in Gaza. Hamas deny the right of Israel to even exist. They will not renounce violence nor accept previous agreements made by Palestinian negotiators.
    In Jerusalem, the situation on the ground is constantly worsening. Three old religions and one historic City stand at the heart of the dilemma. Both Israelis and Palestinians see different parts of Jerusalem as their legitimate capital, yet illegal settlement growth in East Jerusalem is absorbing it into West Jerusalem and making it difficult to see how a peaceful division of the City could ever be possible. Other policies are forcing Palestinians to move. Plainly, this inhibits successful negotiations.

    In recent months, Israel has upset even her strongest allies. The murder of a Hamas commander in Dubai and the raid on aid ships heading for Gaza were diplomatic disasters. So, frankly, is the Gaza blockade because it is creating growing support for Hamas at the expense of Fatah – which is not remotely in Israel’s self-interest. Israeli opinion is puzzled. It resents criticism because it cannot understand why much of the world seems more tolerant of Hamas misbehaviour than Israeli action. I can explain this conundrum: it is that the world expects far more of Israel, a democratic State, than Hamas, a terrorist organisation. If Israel reaches out to her friends, she will receive support: if she does not, she will limit their tolerance of her actions.

    Is there a solution? Yes, of course – the obvious one, a negotiated settlement. But, if that cannot be achieved, if negotiators from Israel and the Palestinians cannot – or will not – make the concessions necessary to compromise, what then?

    Can the international community allow this dispute to run on and on forever – or will the time come when they have no choice other than to press their own ideas for a settlement?

    Understandably, the protagonists would hate this: but, if both sides take positions that impede progress, what alternative exists?

    Over recent years, the concept of an international peace-keeping force in Gaza and the West Bank has gained support. In Gaza, by monitoring the Egypt/Gaza border, it could inhibit the ability of Hamas to attack Israeli towns with rockets and, by enabling the blockade to be lifted, prevent the complete collapse of the economy. In the West Bank, it could focus on civil improvement, economic advance and more effective law and order.

    If progress is not made soon in bilateral negotiations, this idea may become an early step towards an imposed agreement.

    Will this be difficult? Of course it will. It is a gamble, a high risk toss of the coin, and one that requires great political courage, especially in Washington.

    Will it work? No-one can know – but nothing else has. Will America do it? Most people accept that the strength of the Israeli lobby limits America’s freedom of action. But time – and patience – is running out. The political risk of pressuring Israel – for any American Administration – is very great, but a contrary truth is that an agreement is in Israel’s long-term interest every bit as much as the Palestinians.

    Impossible, some say. Really? That’s what I was told before we started the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Distrust there was as toxic as between Israel and her adversaries, and yet Ireland is now a changed country, with neighbours once at war with one another, living together in harmony.

    And what is the alternative? A perpetual ongoing dispute that leaves generations of Israelis and Palestinians facing the same conundrum, the same hatreds, the same insecurities – until another war breaks out with enhanced weapons and an incalculable outcome.

    Iran

    Churchill once referred to Russia as “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. He went on to say: “But perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”

    Much the same could be said of Iran today. In the year since the flawed re election of Ahmadinejad, there has been widespread internal dissent by hundreds of thousands of individual Iranians. There have been marches, coded speeches, intellectual dissent, as liberty has raised its voice. The regime has responded with repression but, like others before them, they will find that the demand for change, for something better, for a free and open society, is impossible to smother forever. You cannot arrest freedom and keep it in jail.

    Because of the regime, we view Iran through a very narrow prism. Is she developing nuclear weapons? When will she have them? Will she use them? On whom? Some ask whether America – or Israel as a proxy – should attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?

    The fear of a nuclear Iran is real. If she obtains a weapon, the risk of proliferation is high.

    Why is Iran doing this? The economy is in a mess. The currency is weak. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment are high. In the MENA, she is rated 137th out of 163 in terms of ease of doing business – only just ahead of the West Bank and Gaza. A sad comedown for a nation that, as Persia, was a great Empire, when the British and Americans lived in mud huts.

    Nothing is explicable without understanding that Iran is a nationalist and hard-line regime. The real source of power is the Supreme Leader, backed by the Revolutionary Guards, the Army, the Intelligence Services and the Police. The President, Ahmadinejad – so often the face of Iran – is a secondary figure. He is not the decisive decision-maker. He is the Apprentice, not the Sorcerer.

    What should we do? First, remember the regime is not the nation – as the internal dissent vividly makes clear. Even so, while the clerical regime survives, we must deal with it. It is possible negotiations may improve relations; and we should continue to try. But, because of the threat she poses, we must supplement dialogue with incentives and sanctions. In any event, adding a third military conflict after Iraq and Afghanistan is very unattractive – even if we cannot rule it out. But, for the time being, the sanctions applied last week seem the right way forward. We can only hope they prove sufficient.

    So often time is a tyrant. There is much I would like to have said of Lebanon – so often an innocent victim of wider issues. Of Syria – and how to engage her. Of Jordan – and our close friends in the Gulf. Of the rosy prospects of North Africa. Of Egypt and Turkey – and the importance of their role, and my support for Turkey’s application to join the EU.

    These – and other – issues must wait for another day. But not, I hope, for too long. The Middle East is stirring and we need to embrace it, consult it and benefit from its wisdom.

    If we do not, it will be our loss.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on 2010 General Election – 7 May 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments on the 2010 General Election, made on Friday 7th May 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The Conservative Party have had a huge advance in this General Election but we don’t have an overall majority, we haven’t won the election. We have something between 300 and 310 seats. So we cannot have a programme entirely of our own choosing, that’s what the electors have decided and we have to honour that.

    That does mean in the interests of making sure that we have stable government, that we have to look with whom we can do a deal and how we can do a deal. Not for party electoral interest but for national interest.

    So I think it is right to seek some sort of accommodation with the Liberals I’m entirely happy with that, I think it’s the right thing to do in the national interest.

    The important thing is to tackle the problems we have in the economy, they are very serious. I don’t think people realise how serious this structural different is. Its grown up over ten years, it needs to be dealt with comprehensively. That can be best dealt with a government that is secure in the House of Commons.

    If the price for that is one or two Liberals in the Cabinet, it’s a price in the national interest that I personally be prepared to bear.

    Of course we would prefer to have an overall majority. But we don’t have an overall majority. And what is the first matter of importance at the moment. It is to take the measures to put the economy right. If we leave it, if we drift along with a Government that can’t take those decisions then the risk of some form of market reaction and chaos is too high for any serious politician to take a risk with.

    Now upon that basis we have to seek an accommodation in my judgement, we are right to seek an accommodation, and of course not having an overall majority we must make sacrifices.

    There are many areas where we disagree with the Liberals, that is certainly true, there are other areas where there’s a substantial amount of common agreement. At a time of crisis you build on the common agreement, you don’t magnify the differences.

  • Article on the Economy under a Labour Government – 4 April 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on the economy under Labour, published by The Sunday Mail on 4th April 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    On 7th May 1999, Gordon Brown announced that he was planning to sell off 400 tonnes of our natural stock of gold. The British economy was still in good health and required no cash injection, yet he threw away over a half a century’s worth of the country’s inheritance – at the very bottom of the market.

    This catastrophic decision – unilaterally made by Gordon Brown – has lost Britain £6.6 billion – double the cost of Black Wednesday. In fact, to put Black Wednesday in context – the Exchequer now borrows almost £3.3 billion every week, simply to cover Labour’s debts.

    Gordon Brown was warned about the gold sales. Senior Treasury officials cautioned him against it. Investment banks told him the price was too low and would rise. Yet he chose to ignore them all, and claimed he was acting “on the technical advice of the Bank of England”. We now see from documents released under FOI that the Bank of England was, in fact, reluctant to back his proposal, but a key passage still remains blacked out. What is it that the Prime Minister wishes to hide?

    The sale of gold is just one of many decisions that illustrates how the Blair/Brown years have wrecked the golden economic inheritance that the last Conservative Government bequeathed them. Alas, there are plenty more.

    In 1997, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown abolished the Dividend Tax Credit paid to pension funds and companies. It has been estimated that this reckless action may have cost pension funds up to £150 billion.

    Indeed, Tony Blair’s own former pensions advisor stated that Gordon Brown “knowingly destroyed what was once one of the great pension systems in the world and he did it deliberately”. It was economic and social vandalism on a seismic scale.

    The Prime Minister consistently argues that Britain’s deficit has been the result of a global financial storm that started in America, and that spending grew because he did not want to “do nothing” during the recession. This is sophistry beyond the point of deception.

    A huge structural deficit – or government overspending that is with us year on year – has been built up by Gordon Brown since he stopped following the Conservative Government’s spending plans in 2001. As soon as he began to take his own decisions, the decline towards today’s economic train wreck began. Gordon Brown alone built this deficit. He alone is responsible for it. The British people will pay for it.

    And what of “boom and bust”? For years we had to endure the Blair/Brown mantra that they would abolish what they called “Tory boom and bust”. The British people have now discovered the reality. Labour has certainly abolished the boom, and has created an almighty bust. The Blair/Brown “boom” was a fake, built on a mountain of consumer and corporate debt, and the bust has been the longest and deepest – as Alistair Darling himself has admitted – for 60 years.

    Labour’s wild exaggeration about the cost of Black Wednesday was the beginning of a long history of bending statistics to distort truth and rational argument.

    Much of what the Prime Minister himself says is worthy of satire. Last summer, he tried to carry on the pretence that public spending would be increased over the next few years. He claimed repeatedly that expenditure would grow. This was patently absurd. Thankfully, David Cameron managed to change the terms of debate and won the argument that cuts are needed to get our record borrowing under control.
    But some of what the Prime Minister tries to claim is downright deception.

    When his sleight of hand was discovered over the abolition of the 10p tax band in 2007, he dismissed claims that this would hurt the poorest in society, saying “no one would lose out”. But the Institute for Fiscal Studies disagreed. Their own estimate was that 5.3 million families would suffer as a result of this policy.

    Most shamefully, the Prime Minister has deployed the same statistical chicanery on our Armed Forces. In October 2007 – in a cynically-timed visit – he flew to Iraq and told our troops that 1,000 of them would “home by Christmas”. In fact, the troops were just moved around the Gulf region, with an increase of over 500 personnel at sea, and an overall increase of 380 supporting operations in Iraq. Between September and December 2007, there was a reduction of only 430 troops in Iraq.

    Errors of fact in party political dispute can be excused, and even forgiven. But errors of fact affecting our Armed Forces in the field – and their families here at home who live in daily fear for the safety of their loved ones – can neither be excused nor forgiven. If any Prime Minister gives his word to service men and women – especially when they are engaged in active combat – this must be honoured to the letter. They deserve, and should expect, nothing less.

    And yet the deceptions continue: in the past few weeks alone, the Prime Minister has misled the public not once, not twice, but three times. First, he misled the Chilcot Inquiry, then the House of Commons, over defence spending, stating that spending had risen every year, when in fact it fell. Even his apology was disingenuous. He asserted that spending fell in “one or two” years, yet in fact it fell in four years since 1997.
    The Prime Minister then claimed 300,000 businesses had received “cash flow help” from the Government in the recession. Yet he must have known that the actual Government figure is only 160,000.

    Finally, by mingling two entirely separate sets of statistics, the Prime Minister claimed immigration is falling when, in fact, it is rising.
    Such a catalogue of errors is either incompetence or deception. Neither is acceptable nor worthy of the Office of Prime Minister.
    Gordon Brown’s personal decision to sell our gold at rock bottom prices – and for no good reason – cost Britain the equivalent of two Black Wednesdays. He has destroyed pensions. He has wrecked the economy. He has doubled the national debt and will do so again. Most regrettably of all, after thirteen years of this Labour Government, the word of the Prime Minister can no longer be trusted.

    When New Labour came to power it was hailed as a new dawn. But the sun is now setting. In May 1997, they inherited what Tony Blair’s own economic adviser termed a “better [economy] than that of any [incoming Government] in living memory”. They had the trust and goodwill of the British people. They have squandered it all.

    “A future fair for all” is Labour’s slogan in this election year. But having been let down so badly by this Labour Government in the past, how on earth can the British people believe they will be any better off with them in the future?

    Labour has had long enough to prove it is a Party fit to govern and has comprehensively failed that test. Time has finally run out for them and I hope that, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister will call the Election for which the country has been crying out for so long, and which he can no longer avoid.