The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 2015

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 20 December 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast on BBC1 on 20 December 2015.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now then, it’s 25 years since in the most dramatic circumstances Sir John Major became leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, and you could say the Tories have never really resolved the issue which ultimately led to his predecessor Margaret Thatcher’s fall from power – namely the party’s attitude to the European Union. Sir John wrestled with it during his premiership. He also had to deal with war in the Middle East, a recession, global economic uncertainty. It sounds just a tad familiar, Sir John. Thanks for coming in.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My pleasure.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s start talking a little bit about the economy and so forth. I remember when I was a very young reporter and you were a very young Prime Minister, there was a kind of asset bubble thing going on and then interest rates ticked up and we had all sorts of problems with negative equity and so forth. Now interest rates are clearly on the move up again, led by the Fed. We have a very, very problematic asset bubble in terms of house prices in the UK, which is leading to inequality as we were talking about. I’m just wondering on your reflections. Twenty-five odd years on from that, how do you see that problem?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think we’re going to get rapidly rising interest rates at all. In the 1990s we were on the back of a huge inflationary bubble. I mean people forget on the day I became Prime Minister, we were heading into a recession. We had interest rates at 14 per cent and we had inflation at nearly 10.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Fourteen per cent? A totally different world, yes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Fourteen per cent. So a totally different background. Now the Fed have just ticked up interest rates a little and I think this will be a very slow process. I don’t think we’re suddenly going to see a huge spiral in interest rates. I know many mortgage owners in particular will be concerned about that. I very much doubt that is going to happen. But I think there are some problems that we can foresee ahead. In a curious way the very low price of oil is likely to be a problem because many of the countries that have invested, often overseas, are going to be much shorter of cash than they were. I think three large economies will probably be in difficulty next year – Russia, Brazil and China will slow a little – but overall I think we’ll see the world economy growing a little faster and Europe will be growing a little faster as well.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You came in as the Brixton boy from a cash poor family in your background and so forth. How worried are you about inequality now?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I was worried and I am worried. I mean it was a great frustration to me that I had to deal with other things – the European splits in the party and getting the economy right – and I was never able to do for inequality what I would have wished to do and that is a lasting regret. But it exists and it’s not the fault of this government or the immediate past governments; it has grown up over 40 or 50 years and it is extraordinary that here we are. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world, we’re growing, and yet we have 7 out of the 10 poorest regions in Northern Europe. Now that cannot be right.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s wrong, but what can be done about it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think some of it is starting to be done, but there’s a great deal more to do be done. The Chancellor’s concept of a Northern powerhouse is exactly right. We need to spread the wealth in this country more evenly than previously it has been spread and that means necessarily large-scale capital investment outside London – in the West Country, for example, to open that up to investment, in the Midlands and in the North – and that is a long job but it is necessary.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But you can’t talk about redistribution, you can’t talk about taxing the people at the top more without howls of outrage from all round the place. It has become completely impossible to discuss.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I wasn’t talking about taxing people more because if you tax people more, you’re just going to make us a less competitive economy. What I was saying is that we should spread our investment more wisely and we should have perhaps more incentives to encourage people to invest outside the regions that typically have attracted investment – into the Midlands, into the North – and it is vitally important that we do it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So a more interventionist government strategy really?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think we’ve always had a form of intervention. It depends on how much. I don’t welcome intervention into detail, but I do welcome intervention in encouraging people to invest in our country and particularly in the parts of our country where people are falling behind. It isn’t acceptable if you have the degree of inequality that has built up over so long and I’m delighted that we now have a Chancellor who’s seeking to reverse that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now you must have had a bit of déjà vu over the last few days watching David Cameron with I don’t know how many shirts he was carrying with him for those negotiations. It wasn’t Maastricht, but it wasn’t very far away – it was in Brussels and so on. Do you think this is a negotiation which is in a sense too trivial or, as some people on the Eurosceptic side of the argument are saying, almost meaningless?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well isn’t it curious? I mean Eurosceptics say this is meaningless and it’s trivial, and in fact it embraces many of the things they’ve been asking for for a very long time. Consider what the Prime Minister’s trying to negotiate. He’s trying to negotiate an end to our commitment to ever closer union. I think he will succeed in that. Is that trivial? If it is, why have the Eurosceptics been asking for it for the last twenty years? He’s trying to negotiate more competitiveness, set out very clearly in his letter to Donald Tusk. He’s trying to negotiate a whole range of things that matter to us on migrancy, on … I sense you seeking to intervene. Do so now if you wish!

    ANDREW MARR:

    Thank you so much. The big problem is going to be this very specific promise that he was going to end in-work benefits for four years for EU migrants coming here to work and that seems to be something that people like well certainly the Poles and many other countries are determined that we will not get. And in a sense has he not created a problem for himself by saying I am going to get this; this is going to be my big sticking point? If he doesn’t then get it, it may not be the most important issue but that’s what he’ll be crucified over.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it’s a sub-set of the general migrancy issue of course. Now whether he will get exactly four years, I can’t say, but the whole ethos of the European Union is compromise. The European Union are not going to wish Britain to leave. They’re not going to wish Britain to leave because we tend to look here at what our position is. Consider Europe’s position were we to leave the European Union? What would Europe lose? Forget what we would lose for the moment. What would the European Union lose?

    ANDREW MARR:

    The export market for a start?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well that’s not quite as true an argument as you may think, but let me deal with the points I was going to raise. Firstly they will lose the best performing economy in Europe. They will lose the economy that in twenty years is likely to be the biggest economy in Europe. They will lose the country with the longest and most historic foreign policy reach. They will lose one of only two countries with a military capability and a nuclear capacity. Now if Europe was formed, as it was, to look America and China and the big countries of the world in the eye as equals, if Britain comes out that ambition has gone.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So they have to give them something substantial?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    They will be immensely diminished, and they know that and so they will negotiate. Everybody’s setting out positions. It’s a classic European situation. On both sides they are setting out positions. And they will meet and a compromise will be reached and the compromise won’t just deal with trivial issues. Subsidiarity, for example, isn’t a trivial issue, we had that in the Maastricht Treaty. Germany and Britain put it in meaning that things were only done at the European level if they couldn’t be done at the national level. And that was agreed at Maastricht and then bypassed by the then Commission. Well if it’s reinserted again, it will be reinserted in a way that they will not be able to bypass.

    ANDREW MARR:

    That’s essential?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s very important. And that’s one of the things that has caused so much frustration with the European Union, and there is frustration right the way through the country.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So on the other side people say but in the end they’re not going to change their spots. Charles Moore – I’m not sure that he’s your favourite columnist, but he said something very interesting this week I was just quoting. He said two things are going to happen. One is the Prime Minister will come back with something he’s able to say this is a successful renegotiation, look what I’ve got. But the second thing he said is that this will not fundamentally change either the direction of the EU or our relationship with the EU. On the fundamentals it remains the same.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    But the European Union has already changed with the advent of the Eurozone. What we’re heading towards is a European Union that has a Eurozone and non-Eurozone members and one of the things the Prime Minister’s seeking to negotiate is to protect us from paying for the policies of the Eurozone members. Now that is significantly different. Ally that to an end to ever closer union and you do begin to see a rather different relationship. Add to that subsidiarity and you have a very different relationship. So the argument that the Eurosceptics have been advancing since before the Prime Minister set out his aims that it would be trivial is a good negotiating, a good arguing point for them, but it is essentially bogus when you look at the detail of what is actually being discussed.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sticking with a bit of that detail, this business of transitional benefits, in-work benefits for people coming into this country, the big problem for the Prime Minister is discrimination between one citizen of the EU and another citizen of the EU. Do you think that could be overcome?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it’s an interesting word ‘discrimination’, isn’t it? We’re saying there’s discrimination if people don’t get exactly the same benefits. You could equally argue that it’s a discrimination that people who are watching this programme have been paying into our national insurance system for forty years and someone arriving on day one gets exactly the same benefits. I think that’s an equal form of discrimination and I think we’re going to have to recognise that and I don’t know what the outcome will be, but I think there will be a compromise.

    ANDREW MARR:

    There will be some kind of compromise?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think so.

    ANDREW MARR:

    What about the other great issue I suppose at the moment, which is open borders? I mean this has produced probably an existential crisis, an overused word – Private Eye will start an existential crisis column quite soon – but nonetheless a very, very big crisis for Europe, this Europe of open borders, the Schengen Europe, people able to move from one country to another very quickly. Liam Fox has raised the question of terrorists as well being able to use this and this does worry an awful lot of people watching this programme.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Indeed it does, and of course they’re right to worry about that. The question is whether we would be able to stop that in anything we did. Now if we actually look at the question of freedom of movement, there are several things to say about it. Firstly, freedom of movement is said to be sacrosanct because it is one of the four European freedoms. That is a totally phoney argument. Another of the four European freedoms is freedom of movement of goods and services, yet Germany and France and other countries block our banking, block our insurance, block our technology services. So the belief that that is absolutely fundamental is unchanging.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You’re beginning to sound like Liam Fox at this point, Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No well they do, they do, and that’s the sort of thing we’re going to have to change. The bigger issues are why I’m absolutely convinced we need to stay in for our future, but that means on the question of the sheer flow of people coming here, here is a matter where we should move away from rigid positions and look at the reality. It is not commonsense to sweep into countries more people than we can provide for if they are sick than we can house or we can educate and we need a commonsense position.

    Let us accept the principle of free movement, but it has to be mitigated to deal with the number of people that can be accepted in any given period and that again is a piece of commonsense negotiation that ought to be acceptable to our partners.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If we left, we would get control of our borders back period?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, consider what that means. Half our immigration at the moment doesn’t come from the European area. It comes from the old commonwealth and elsewhere.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But we would have control over that.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Just a moment. We have been been letting more people in than most of the people objecting to us being in Europe would like, but without them we wouldn’t have a transport system, we probably wouldn’t … we certainly wouldn’t have a National Health system. So let’s not assume that immigration per se is a bad thing. It isn’t. And neither is it per se a bad thing from Europe. It’s the sheer total of it.

    Now if we had control of our own borders, I wonder what would happen with all the people who had got into Calais, to France. Would the French keep them there or would they say well this is no longer our problem, Britain’s outside the European Union; we’re no longer going to do, as David Cameron agreed with us that we would, which is hold them at Calais? Do we want that sort of situation to arise? Do we really believe that in an open world that we have at the moment that we can suddenly opt out and become a closed nation? I tell you, Andrew, it’s a fantasy.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Is it? Well I mean a lot of people would say, first of all, that the French are allowing many of those migrants to go to Dunkirk and other places and they are coming into the country; but, second, if we had a hard border of our own, we could stop them coming in.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Do you really think that is so?

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well I’ve no idea, but …

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Do you really think that is so and do you really think all the implications of that would necessarily be right in terms of our international reputation, our international trade and all the things that go with it? I don’t think that is the case and I think we are better able to deal with this problem collectively rather than siphoning ourselves off, cutting ourselves away from the biggest single market in the world and seeking to negotiate a new arrangement with that single market, which would be less convenient and less good for us.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Though of course they are selling us much more in goods than we are selling them.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    You see there’s a fallacy in that argument. Many of the things that they sell to us, they would continue selling them to us because it’s covered by wider treaties than simply the European treaties. The converse would be that the things we want to sell to them – services and other things – can be blocked by the Europeans, so it would be very much to our overall disadvantage. Added to which of course there are 27 of them, there are one of us, so I think the belief that Europe’s going to collapse if it loses the UK market is a bit wide of the mark.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One final question on this. I mean you have intervened in this argument today. How big an argument is it for the country? Alan Johnson, who’s leading the Labour campaign to stay in Europe, was on the programme a couple of weeks ago and he said that he thought it was a once in a lifetime, possibly thirty or forty year kind of decision. Do you take the same view?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it’s a long-term decision. I mean the argument that we can have a referendum, say no and then go back and renegotiate is just a fallacy. If we come out, we are out, that’s it. It’s not politically credible to go back and say we’ve reconsidered, let’s have another referendum. If we vote to stay out, then we are out and we will have to get on with it and face the consequences, which will be many and varied. Of course we will survive – we’re a big and a powerful nation, of course we will. That’s not the point. The point is would we be as safe? No. Would we be as well off? No. Would we be as influential? No. So that is the point that is really at issue.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Very clear. Sir John, for now thank you very much indeed for joining us.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you.

    ………………..

    Later in the same programme:

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John, we’ve now got potentially three members of the Cabinet who want to campaign alongside Liam Fox for Brexit. Should they be allowed to stay in the Cabinet and disagree with the Prime Minister while doing so?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I spent the best part of seven years trying to keep a party at civil war over Europe together. I think that it would be extraordinary if anybody decided to campaign against Cabinet policy, at least until the negotiations are completed. When the negotiations are completed I would very much hope that they would not wish to campaign against the Cabinet position.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But if they did?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think that’s a big if, and if is the longest preposition in the English language, and I’m now getting drawn on that this morning. But certainly between now and the end of the negotiations, absolutely not. I would hope afterwards that they would not wish to. The unity of the argument, for the sake of the country – this is bigger that the Conservative Party, is very important and people deserve to hear a clear-cut argument and not an internecine piece of strife.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If he can’t persuade his Cabinet he won’t be able to persuade the country?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I personally believe he will come back with a satisfactory deal and he will be able to convince the country.

    The trouble with the European debate, ever since it began, is that it is often conducted at the extremes. People who will never really be persuaded that we should be in and people who are utterly convinced that we should not leave. In the midst of that is the rest of us, and it is the rest of us – the great mass of the British people, whom David Cameron will have to convince that it is better for our future, their children and their children, and our international influence that we should stay in a world that is drawing together, rather than exclude ourselves, and become an offshore island, a big and a powerful one admittedly, but an offshore island off the biggest continent and market in the world.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme – 16 December 2015

    The text of Sir John’s Interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on 16 December 2015.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    The Prime Minister reaches an important point in his promised EU renegotiation in Brussels tomorrow when a summit of all the leaders reveals whether he’s made headway in the argument for change that he’s been making for months in almost every European Union capital.
    It’s going to be difficult as critics at home, particularly Conservative Euro-sceptics, say that he is already backing away from his pledge to make people coming into Britain from the rest of the EU wait for four years before qualifying for in-work benefits or social housing, and that was something that he put at the heart of his reform plan.

    This is the latest chapter in a story in which every Prime Minister has played a part over the last two generations or so, grappling with the tortuous and emotional question of this country’s relationship with the rest of Europe. Throughout much of the 1990s it was the issue that defined the character of John Major’s Conservative Government and the state of his party, riven by the fundamental disagreements over Europe that had never been healed in the era of Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher.

    Sir John joins us now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Good morning James.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Do you think that David Cameron should decide his attitude to EU membership on the basis of this renegotiation?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it’s clearly important that there are changes made in the European Union and that’s what he’s seeking to do. What does concern me a little is that everybody is regarding Thursday and Friday as though it were high noon and that everything will be decided then. Unless I’ve very much missed the mark, I don’t think it will be.

    It’s a process and there will be discussions that are aimed at an agreement. That discussion will take place and everyone will leave and state their own positions. Underneath that there will be a movement either towards an agreement or against and we won’t really know about that until they actually come to the crunch some time next year.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    That was a very elegant off-drive Sir John but it avoided the question. The reason I asked it is that people around Downing Street are saying, don’t doubt it, if the Prime Minister isn’t happy with what he gets in this renegotiation effort then he is quite prepared to argue for Britain to leave the EU. I simply want to know whether you believe that this renegotiation should decide David Cameron’s view as to whether Britain is in or out?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I can’t put myself inside David Cameron’s mind. I can tell you what my view is – my view is that this renegotiation is important but that it shouldn’t decide whether or not we remain inside the European Union because of the importance of the issue. I have no means of knowing whether that’s the Prime Minister’s mind and that’s a question you really need to address to him.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    You’ve said something very interesting there, from your perspective, whatever comes out of this renegotiation, you still believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest to be in full stop?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Let me put it to you this way. You mentioned the troubles I had in the 1990s with my own party and with others. If there is anyone in the United Kingdom who really ought to be anti-European and thoroughly frustrated with them, then perhaps it ought to be me. I am not a starry-eyed European. I did after all say no to the Euro currency in the early 1990s, I said no to the Single Market and in 1996 I said no to joining Schengen when it began. I am sceptical of a great deal of European Union policy. But flirting with leaving, at a moment when the whole world is coming together, seems to me to be very dangerous and against our long-term interests.

    We see American, Japan and other countries forming a trans-Pacific partnership. Of course that’s trade, but it’s also common standards and it’s bringing people together. The whole world is coming together, and for the United Kingdom, 67 million out of a world population of 7 billion, to break off and head off into splendid isolation doesn’t seem to me to be in our interests now, or perhaps more important in the interests of our children, our grand-children and future generations.

    Whatever the frustrations are, and whatever comes out of these negotiations, we are going to be able to continue to try and influence the European Union while we are in it. One point that some people do not seem to realise is that once this issue has been determined by the modern generation of Britons, if they decide that we should stay in, and there will be those who never accept it of course.

    [connection problem – interview continued slightly later in the programme]

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    We have Sir John Major back on the phone. Looking back 21 years it’s as though the technology when you were Prime Minister, and I started with you on the World at One with Maastricht, was a bit better then.

    You were talking about splendid isolation, and that was your phrase, for what would happen if we left the EU. You know the argument on the other side, very passionately held by many in your party although not just in your party, who say that this would be independence and it would give the country the right to govern itself in a proper way which is something they believe has been ceded over the years to a supranational body. They think that this independence could work in the interests of people in this country. Why do you believe that it wouldn’t?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Let me point out some of the realities of what would happen if we left the European Union. Let me say firstly, like many other people, I find the European Union often as frustrating as hell as sometimes there is an inability to confront problems which is very maddening. But I think we are better off, we are safer, we are going to be more prosperous in rather than out and flirting with leaving is dangerous.

    Let me address the particular points which you make. If we left there must be a higher probability that Scotland would have another referendum and leave the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom would be fractured and that would be very damaging and our international prestige would suffer.

    Many of the things we are told we can achieve with a regaining of sovereignty are illusory. People can say that we can save all our net contributions. Not true – we would have to pay at least half, and possibly more, simply for entry to the Single Market.

    They say we can easily negotiate entry to the Single Market. That’s very disingenuous as if we leave the European Union it won’t be a friendly departure, it’ll be very acrimonious, negotiations with an irate ex-partner could be very difficult. We may get a very sub-standard deal to enter the Single Market.

    They say that we can control our borders and that we’ll have no immigration. I don’t think that’s so, as in or out we can’t keep the world at bay. If we were out one question arises. In present circumstances would France would be holding so many immigrants at Calais or would they not? If not, they would be heading here.

    We’re told our Parliament would be sovereign. That, of course, is total nonsense. In order to trade with the European Union we would have to accept their regulations. We would have no input into those negotiations or be able to change them. The Prime Minister would have to go to Parliament and say ‘here are some regulations which the European Union have passed, we must pass them without change or we cannot trade with Europe’.

    So much for Parliamentary sovereignty. I could stretch those arguments but I think the point is made.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Are you surprised that those around David Cameron are saying, that coming from a political and ideological position that’s not very different from your own, that he could contemplate coming out given what you think are the simple facts of the case? If he is contemplating a decision to say ‘let’s leave’, it must be that he, as one of your successors, does not accept the case that you have just made?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    You must ask David Cameron that, I can’t answer what is in his mind. I have sat in his chair and in the European chair and I know the difficult position which he is in and how he has to negotiate the British national interest and cope with all shades of domestic opinion as well. I have to say James in my experience of being in his chair advice, particularly from someone who has sat in that chair, is not usually very helpful.

    So if you’re trying to tempt me into giving David Cameron advice, or alternatively judge what is in his mind, then I’m afraid that it will be fruitless.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    You’ve had experience of back seat driving.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ve had a great deal of experience of it, yes.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    If we are to believe opinions polls and surveys, and the campaign in a genuine sense hasn’t begun yet, it looks like an even split across the country. Do you believe that this is the position now and do you believe that there is a greater chance of a vote to leave than there has been in your political lifetime?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    There is a lot of frustration with the European Union at the moment and much of that frustration is entirely justified and I share the frustrations that many people have.

    When people truly engage and when they look at the long-term implications of where Britain would be if it were not in the European Union, and examine what it would mean for our future, our children’s future and our grand-children’s future then people will move back to realising that in a world that is as inter-connected, in a world that is moving together as we are, that we are better off and safer inside the European Union rather than outside. That is what I believe people will finally conclude, but it is their decision.

    David Cameron has decided to ask people in a referendum for their view, and I think because of this long-running and tiresome debate that he’s entirely right to do so, and for the public to decide. When the facts are before them of what it means, especially in the long-term, I believe that they would be advised to stay inside the European Union and that is what I believe they will vote to do.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Sir John Major, thank you very much.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    If I may, one thing before you go. This is your last morning and like millions of other people I have found you and John Humphrys my daily diet for a very long time. If I may grab the airways for a moment, I’d like to say that I’ll miss you, and I think a lot of other people will in the morning.

    I will do so as I believe, generally, you’ve asked the right questions, mostly, you’ve listened to the answers and you’ve done it in an extraordinarily professional way. So I hope as you leave you are proud of what you’ve done. Whatever you do now, good luck with it and I hope our paths will cross.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    There is going to be a lot of reporting still going on, some of it on this programme, there will be constitutional matters to be looked at so Sir John, I’m glad to say that our paths will undoubtedly cross before long.

    JOHN HUMPHRYS

    It’s not often allowed on this programme to say that I agree with that politician, but I agree with that, the last bit anyway!

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Hinton Lecture – 10 November 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Hinton Lecture held in London on 10 November 2015. The speech was entitled “A Nation at Ease With Itself”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I met Nick Hinton, but only briefly, so cannot claim to have known him. I wish I had. But this lecture, named in his honour, enables me to talk about what life is like for the poor and the near poor: and how civil society – together with Government – can help improve their quality of life. It is, I hope, a theme that would have appealed to him.

    Twenty five years ago, at the door of Downing Street, I set out my ambition for “a nation at ease with itself”. At the heart of this was my wish to tackle inequality.

    That day I had the power, but the economy was failing and there was no money. By the time the economy was mended and I had the money, I lost the power.

    Even so, the solution is not only money. Education is the high road out of poverty. I began to implement reforms that were at first discontinued by my successors, then reinstated and carried so much further.

    I broke the binary link between universities and polytechnics – a divide that, to me, reeked of class distinction.

    I introduced a Citizen’s Charter to improve the standard of public services and make it more personal. Since people paid for them, in advance, through their taxes, I believed they deserved the same quality of service as if they had paid in cash. Often, it seemed to me, the poorest – perhaps cowed by authority – didn’t receive this.

    But these and other measures could not arrest the powerful forces that were – and are – driving inequality and so, overall, I failed.

    With age comes reflection, and I have begun to reflect more and more on inequality. Sixty years ago, my family’s circumstances were not easy. But in a country now immensely more wealthy, life is still not easy for many others.

    Let me first state what is obvious but often ignored: there is a gap between what our nations need in social provision and what the taxpayer can afford.

    Rich as we are, our nation isn’t rich enough to rescue all those left behind while, at the same time, it has to meet the soaring social costs of a population that is living longer and growing in number.

    For a long time, civil society has bridged much of this gap – helped, in recent years, by tax reliefs to encourage giving, and State funding to carry out statutory social work.

    But, inevitably, there are gaps, and I wish to set out how we might bridge them – and why we must.

    The why is easy: as a country, we are one of the richest in the world – and yet some of our communities are among the poorest in all Northern Europe.

    Even in areas that are recognised as wealthy, there are families or individuals who have fallen behind.

    And, in communities where traditional jobs have gone, too many are on low incomes – or no income at all. A minority can move elsewhere to find work. But the majority can’t: not through disinclination, but because – even if they have sufficient savings – it is tough to uproot to find a job and a home. For the penniless, or for those with families, or who act as carers, it can – literally – be impossible.

    Policy-makers must understand how hard it is to escape from such circumstances. It is not inertia that keeps the unemployed immobile: it is simply that, without help, they are trapped.

    And let us cast aside a common misconception. Everyone out of work is not an idler. Everyone in receipt of benefits is not a scrounger. Of course idlers and scroungers exist – and Governments are entirely right to root out the cheats who rip off the taxpayer. But the focus must not be only on those who abuse the system; we need equal concentration on those who are failed by the system.

    Although borderline poverty is far less than it was, it is still more than it should be. And it cannot be ended by benefits alone. Where benefits are necessary – and they always will be – we should never begrudge them. But they are a palliative, not a cure. The cure, in areas left behind, is more jobs that pay a living wage.

    We can raise living standards: we have been doing so for decades. At the turn of the 20th Century, millions struggled to eat. In London, one in three lived below the poverty line; in York, one in four ate less well than the wretches in the poor house.

    Over the decades, mass poverty has shrunk back. The quality of life has risen across all income groups – but much less evenly than is healthy. Politicians and charities and churches and the free market can all take a mini-bow for what has been achieved. But there is no cause for complacency: a hard core of relative poverty still remains.

    Among the many attractive qualities of the British is an enduring belief in fairness. As Colonel Rainsborough observed in the Putney Debates over 250 years ago: “… the poorest he that is in England has a life to live, as [has] the greatest he…”. So had he then, and so has he now. The Colonel was a Leveller – I am a Conservative. But, upon this, we agree. We may never achieve a perfect society, but we can surely create a fairer one.

    To do so, we need to level the playing field. We are not all born equal: the raw ingredients of an impoverished life often start in childhood.

    Many are fit. Able. Intelligent. Lucky.

    Others are not.

    Many are vulnerable. Unequipped with skills. Trapped by circumstance. Often old. Perhaps sick or disabled. For them, a comfortable life seems a fantasy. Often the week lasts longer than the money.

    I have never forgotten living in such circumstances. There is no security. No peace of mind. The pain of every day is the fear of what might happen tomorrow. It is terrifying – and it never leaves you.

    In our society, we see poverty as a social evil – which, of course, it is: but it is far more than that. It is an economic evil. It wastes talent. It destroys ambition. It lowers national output. It cuts competitiveness. It creates dependency. It leaves families in despair and communities in decline.

    And inequality – poverty amid plenty – is corrosive. It alienates and breeds resentment. It undermines national cohesion. The human spirit can endure great hardship: but inequality gives it a bitter edge.

    Poverty isn’t only about empty pockets. The poorest among us not only live meaner lives – but shorter lives. In some of our great cities – Glasgow and Westminster among them – the lifespan of the poorest is twenty years shorter than that of the most wealthy. I have no doubt that much of this disparity is caused by poor lifestyle, poor choices, poor diet – but poor environment, poor housing and poor education must surely be contributory factors. Whatever the reasons, this is a shocking situation in 2015.

    Some think the solution is easy. Penalise the rich. Cut defence, overseas aid, industrial support and much else. Then, borrow more and spend more. But this just doesn’t work. It is simplistic and naïve.

    The arguments against such an approach are so comprehensive, so compelling, I won’t waste any time on them, except to note they are a recipe for ruin. Easy promises, with no hard policy in place to support them, are unsustainable – and those who claim otherwise are simply posturing.

    And that is of no help to the poor. Good intentions don’t fill empty bellies, or provide shelter for the homeless, or jobs for the unemployed. What does help is national wealth – created by financial, commercial and industrial success. The richer we are as a nation, the more we can do. If the Good Samaritan is in debt, he can be of no help to others. That is why the repair of our national finances – which is clearly a Government responsibility – is the essential pre-requisite to ending poverty.

    So – as the Rowntree and Fry families taught us so many years ago – are better living conditions. Housing is a huge driver of inequality. If house prices rise, so do rents. We need to stop stimulating demand and squeezing supply. This will require strong political willpower, but is absolutely necessary.

    We have too few homes for a population that is growing. That’s a bad mix. Not only does it leave too many poorly housed, but a shortage of houses puts property prices up – and beyond the capacity of the young. Would-be home owners are frustrated, and – more relevant to my focus this evening – so are those whose aspiration is not necessarily for ownership, but simply for somewhere decent to live.

    So, although they are controversial, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s plans to accelerate low-cost building, ease planning on brown-field sites, and speed up our inefficient (and costly) planning system.

    And surely it is right to bring unfit and neglected properties back into use: and where they are wilfully left empty for years, to use compulsory powers so that local authorities or the private sector can renovate them.

    If we are to make up the shortfall in housing – and make social mobility a reality, and not an aspiration – then plans must include social housing and a vibrant private rented sector. Owner-occupation is an ambition for most, but not all – and we need homes for those for whom ownership is not an option.

    I bow to no-one in my affection for the green belt, for our wonderful woodlands, moorlands and wide open spaces. We protect them for all to enjoy, and I hope we always will. But, as we do so, we cannot regard every piece of open land as sacrosanct, when so many are living in sub-standard housing, and there is a growing shortage of single-person accommodation.

    Here we have a paradox. Although few deny we need more homes, many oppose new building. Sometimes their opposition is justified – but not always. We must decide to whom we listen: opponents of more housing, or those who hope – and deserve – a home of their own.

    Job creation is crucial too: over recent years, we have seen surprisingly high employment growth, but often not enough in areas that have fallen behind. To correct this, we need continuing investment in better information technology, in roads, in airport capacity, in rail investment. And, as North Sea Oil fades, we need to accept fracking, so that on-shore energy can make us more self-sufficient – and competitive.

    Much of this is underway, but many of these schemes are unpopular.

    Some will instinctively oppose all of them. I do understand this. But such critics must understand there is a link between investment and jobs and well-being: if our infrastructure is not upgraded, we will condemn many to remain poor – now, and in the future. It cannot be right to deny the homeless or jobless the hope that better times are ahead.

    *******

    There are many things that make me proud of our country – but none more so than the scale of philanthropic, voluntary and charitable work that is the daily labour of many in every corner of the UK. Volunteers and the faith community can be proud of what they have done. We should all be proud of our open-heartedness: over 180,000 Charities, one million Trustees, and countless voluntary workers is incontrovertible evidence that the British soul and conscience is in good working order.

    But – a reality check: we cannot be complacent about our charitable sector. There are negatives: we have all seen the publicity generated by bad fundraising practices and poor governance. I won’t dwell on these shortcomings, except to note that all charities have a duty to protect their reputation. Unless they are seen as efficient and well run, donations will fall away. Giving is not a given.

    History tells us donations collapsed when the Fabians argued that social care was the – presumably sole – responsibility of the State.

    In 1948, when the NHS was formed, 90% of the public told opinion polls there would no longer be any need for charity. The act of giving also falls when taxes are too onerous: as a former Lord Mayor of London put it: “much as I would like to give … The Government has taken all my money.”

    This may seem perverse – but politicians should be careful not to claim too much success in meeting social need: if they do, they may cut off the voluntary impulse without which we would all be poorer.

    Charitable activity has a long and proud history in our country. The 1601 Statute of Charitable Uses – together with its contemporary Statute for the Relief of the Poor – were intended to encourage the rich to supplement contributions from rate and tax payers. They have done so ever since. Had they not, our social conditions would be incomparably worse.

    The House of Commons Library tells me the UK now has over 100 Sterling billionaires, and many thousands of millionaires. Is this growing wealth a source of additional funding? Almost certainly – whether it be lifetime giving, lifetime loans or legacies. I need not elaborate – fundraisers are well aware of the opportunities of tapping into rising wealth.

    The role of charities has long been one of the glories of our way of life. They promote human nature at its best … care of the very sick; the terminally ill; research into cures; help for those with learning or physical disabilities … the list is both magnificent and almost unending.

    Our society would be very bleak indeed without them.

    And charities can be innovative.

    Take the Prince’s Charity, which has done so much to regenerate deprived areas. It has been the catalyst in bringing together a range of charitable organisations to work with both the public and private sectors. This approach was pioneered in Burnley in 2007, and has since spread to Burslem, Middlesbrough and Tottenham.

    An independent evaluation by Dr Peter Grant of Cass Business School reports that this has been a hugely successful partnership. The pioneer of the programme, Burnley, was named in 2013 as the most enterprising place in the UK by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. During the past year, they have had the largest percentage increase in private sector jobs in the UK. Surely this form of approach could be more widely developed?

    “Give us the tools,” pleaded Churchill, in a moment of national crisis, “and we will finish the job”. In our lesser crisis of helping the poorest among us, one essential tool is money: it is the root of much progress.

    As Chancellor, in 1990, I sought to accelerate charitable income by introducing Gift Aid: since then, this tax change has generated £13.5 billion in additional revenue for charities, and is the gift that keeps on giving – at over £1 billion a year.

    In the late 1980s – as Social Security Minister, with responsibility for the Disabled, and then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, responsible for the allocation of the public purse – I saw raw need, often unmet. I realised it was impossible for even the best causes to compete for public money against the demands of pensions, health, education, social security and defence.

    So, as Prime Minister, my solution was the Lottery – money from the public … for the public, and – to protect the independence of charities – from a source other than the State. It was controversial.

    Some denounced it for promoting gambling. The Church was restless, but underwent a miraculous conversion that enabled many a leaking church roof to be mended. The Treasury was conflicted. Officials realised that the Lottery would ease demands for public money – and approved. But equally, they knew it would be out of their control – and disapproved. Even worse, the Lottery promoted fun – which the community of killjoys absolutely hated.

    The critics are silent now. As of today, the Lottery has distributed over £34 billion to good causes: nearly £8 billion to charities alone, and the balance to other causes – sports, the arts, heritage – that enhance the lives of everyone and, most importantly to me, those who have little else.

    And, as intended, most of this money has gone to small local schemes: to village halls, arts centres, playgrounds for children, parks and open spaces, sports equipment, and instruments for orchestras and bands.

    I admit to paternal affection for the Lottery, but worry for its future. It was designed as a National Lottery – in effect, a monopoly – to maximise returns for the designated good causes. But its success has attracted rivals. In recent years, so-called “Umbrella” society lotteries have emerged, that have circumvented the original legislation, and pay a far smaller proportion of their income back to worthy causes.

    “Betting on lottery” operators have also expanded, blurring the line between lotteries and gambling. If these rivals grow or multiply in number, they will threaten the future of the National Lottery.

    Charities should all be concerned about this.

    In a nation at ease with itself, business, too, has a role. Of course, its main purpose is to make profits – but, as it does so, it can do more for social development than paying taxes and creating jobs.

    In a recent visit to Liverpool, I learned that local building companies – Carillion were one – were actively seeking out former Servicemen and women, the long-term unemployed, the homeless and ex-offenders.

    They are employing them and teaching them skills from which they can benefit for the rest of their lives. It is an idea that should be adopted more widely.

    Business can – and does – help charities. I am the Chairman of The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, set up to provide a legacy for

    Her Majesty’s many years as our Monarch.

    The Trust is seeking to end forms of avoidable blindness across the nations of the Commonwealth and our principal private sector supporter has been Standard Chartered Bank. Other Banks have dedicated departments advising on philanthropy. Many private sector companies sponsor named charities each year, or contribute to them, or collect for them among their employees. Some newly rich private sector benefactors are proving to be enormously generous: this, I believe, is an area that can and should grow dramatically.

    Their contribution is in stark contrast to the activities of pay-day lenders that offer loans at extortionate rates of 1500% or more. They are not helping the poor: they are helping themselves at the expense of the poor. That’s not a free market, it’s an exploitative market. And morally reprehensible.

    Let me offer some closing thoughts:

    During my preparations for this evening, I have sought the views of many specialists on the work of civil society.

    Some suggested that we have too many charities, and that it would be less wasteful, more efficient, and minimise duplication of effort, if they merged.

    There is a logic to that suggestion – but I have reservations about how desirable it is. The urge to set up a charity is surely driven by the heart, not the head, and I would be disinclined to discourage that. In any case, I fancy small charities dip into a different pool for funding – and it would be folly to lose their enthusiasm. In my experience, they also offer small, anonymous acts of kindness, vital to the recipient, that may be overlooked by their larger brethren.

    Others – with an eye to the reputation of charities – have argued there is a strong case for charities to make a sound business case before they are formally registered. This I do agree with.

    As a general principle, I am not an admirer of regulators. I am therefore surprised to have reached the conclusion that we would be wise to expand the remit, and the funding, of the Charity Commissioners.

    I believe, in so doing, we can improve the chance of eliminating malpractice and scandals in a charity sector that has an annual income of nearly £70 billion. I see advantages in the Commission engaging with more charities and encouraging “friendly” mergers. They could act as a catalyst for change by encouraging charities to become transformative as well as palliative. If this is beyond their remit and resources now, then we need to change their remit and increase their resources.

    Today, I have no power and no public money at my disposal, but I care no less now than I did then. I also have a voice which – by and large – the poor don’t.

    And I wish to say – 25 years on – that we are still not a nation at ease with itself. Much has been done – is being done – to ease inequality, but we can do so much more.

    As the world becomes richer, inequality becomes less tolerable, and the case for reducing it more urgent. A crusade to widen prosperity more equally will not only ease hardship, it will build our national wealth – and health.

    I grew up in a community that had very little. I have been lucky, very lucky. But not everyone is. And it is for us – all of us – upon whose lives good fortune has shone, to do whatever we can, big or small, to ensure it shines on others, too.

    If you think this is a fanciful notion – and that nothing you can do will make a difference – think of Burnley. Think of Carillion in Liverpool.

    Think of those left behind. And you will realise that much can be done if the will is there.

    We have a choice. We can leave it all to Government – or we can all contribute, and ease inequality more comprehensively and more swiftly.
    It is up to us. It is our choice and I, for one, am clear about what that choice should be.

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to Lord Howe (Geoffrey Howe) – 9 October 2015

    The comments made by Sir John Major on 9 October 2015 following the death of The Lord Howe of Aberavon. Lord Howe had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1979 until 1983 and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 1983 until 1989.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    As Chancellor of the Exchequer, his brave but controversial policy was the catalyst of economic recovery. As Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, he was respected in every part of the world.

    Geoffrey Howe was a conciliator, a One Nation Conservative – forever concerned about social advance.

    Geoffrey has left a benevolent mark on our national life, and I hope in death will receive the credit so often denied him in life.

  • Article on HM Queen Elizabeth II in the Sunday Mail – 6 September 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on HM Queen Elizabeth II, published by The Sunday Mail on Sunday 6 September 2015.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Princess Elizabeth was not born to be our Monarch: it was fate that made her so. When her uncle Edward VIII abdicated, her much loved father became King George VI, and she became heir to the throne.

    In 1952, by the age of 25, the young Princess had become Queen. On that day few, if any, could have imagined that she would still be on the throne 63 years later, having surpassed Queen Victoria as the longest-serving Monarch in 1,000 years of our history.

    Throughout her adult life, the Queen has dedicated herself to public service. You have to be aged over 70 to be able to recall any other face on our banknotes and postage stamps; and of the seven billion people in the world today, only one billion have known another British Monarch.

    She is the most widely travelled head of state in history: indeed around the world whenever anyone refers to ‘the Queen’, they mean our Queen. Her 63 years on the throne is, quite simply, an awe-inspiring achievement.

    When she took the Coronation Oath in 1953, the United Kingdom was still emerging from the aftermath of the Second World War. Her people had not forgotten the sacrifices of war. Some were still grieving for those who had perished, yet – with characteristic British spirit – they were determined to pull together to lift the nation out of its economic and social gloom. The Coronation inspired the British to put the grim days behind them.

    Hundreds of thousands lined the streets and many millions more crowded into the homes of neighbours to watch the procession and ceremony on small, flickering black-and-white television screens.

    Street parties celebrated the dawn of a second Elizabethan era and small children clutched treasured Coronation souvenirs. It was a time of hope and cheer – a new start – and no one who took part in the events of that day will ever forget them.

    The privations following war were easing, but far from ended. As a ten-year-old boy, I confess that one of my own personal highlights of 1953 was the end of sweet rationing – followed closely by eggs and sausages. For others, the beginning of Coronation year was less happy, as floods ravaged the east coast and caused huge devastation.

    But mostly it was a year of hope and triumphs. On the very morning of the Coronation, news came through that Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing had reached the peak of Everest.

    Some sporting heroes achieved lifelong ambitions. After 28 years of trying, Sir Gordon Richards finally won the Derby on Pinza. Stanley Matthews led Blackpool to victory over Bolton in the most famous FA Cup win of all time. And Len Hutton’s England team regained the Ashes at The Oval after years of Australian domination.

    Popular culture changed our world: James Bond made his debut in Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale, while Bill Haley and the Comets introduced us to rock and roll music. It would be another ten years before we heard of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, and then only on a mono record player.

    In the home, very few people knew the luxury of vacuum cleaners or washing machines, let alone tumble driers. Fewer than ten per cent of households possessed a refrigerator, and although the Coronation produced a surge in sales, there were only around 1.5 million households with a television, with BBC1 being the only channel, and the black-and-white image barely visible through the fuzzy screen. It would be another 15 years before we would see anything in colour. As for mobile phones and internet, such things would have been beyond anyone’s wildest imagination.

    For those of us who lived through this time, it seems like another age altogether.

    Overall, throughout the Queen’s reign, we in the United Kingdom have been lucky. We have known peace above war; prosperity above austerity; and, whatever hardships some may still face, we enjoy a quality of life in 2015 that is immeasurably better than it was in 1953.
    The Queen is as popular and revered today as when she was crowned, despite living through a world of enormous change.

    Since her Coronation, Man has walked on the Moon and explored far-away planets. The world’s population has more than doubled. Life-spans have dramatically increased as – for most, but not all – living standards have risen beyond any expectation.

    Around the world, politics and economics have shifted the global order. Change in every sphere of life shows no sign of stopping. Even the Royal Family – at the behest of the Monarch – has evolved. But amid all the change, the Queen has remained a constant – both here at home and overseas – for it is not only the people of the United Kingdom she serves: she is Queen to more than two billion people around the Commonwealth.

    At the time of her Coronation there were only seven nations in the Commonwealth. There are now 53. No one should underestimate the Queen’s dedication to, and affection for, her Commonwealth family. When consulted about how best to mark her Diamond Jubilee year of 2012, the Queen did not want memorials to commemorate the past; she wished to create a much more human legacy for the future. Thus, The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, of which I am chairman, was founded.

    With her active approval and support we have established two Commonwealth programmes: to end avoidable blindness; and, each year, to identify a group of young leaders who we hope will play a significant role in the future of their own nations and others. This is but one illustration of the Queen’s support for the Commonwealth, and her central role as its head.

    I attended the first award ceremony for these young leaders, which took place at Buckingham Palace last June.

    As each winner approached the Queen to receive their medal – many in national dress – I saw the future of the Commonwealth before me: beaming faces, bursting with pride as they represented their own home territory, full of hope, positivity, and the will and wish to work together in the name of their Queen. It was a truly moving occasion, the memory of which I will long cherish.

    The core of the Queen’s life – apart from family and long-standing friends – has been duty. Almost every day since her accession, she has received and read State papers. Each week she meets her Prime Minister in a private audience attended by no one else (except, perhaps, a few corgis).

    No notes are taken, no reports made, no subject is off-limits – and its privacy is total.

    The Queen’s first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill: it would be another 16 years before David Cameron was born. As one of the 12 who have occupied that office during her reign, I can say in all truth that – on matters of State – there is no one whose personal judgment I would value above that of the Queen.

    It is that unique, informed, experienced, yet impartial insight which is so valuable to the Government of the United Kingdom, and although it is a crucial aspect of her duties as Monarch, it is one which remains largely unknown.

    The Queen does not involve herself in party politics, but may well offer counsel – perhaps through well-directed questions – that any Prime Minister would be foolish not to consider with care. All of them soon learn that the Queen, far from being cut off from her people, is very much aware of the shifting tides of public opinion – indeed often ahead of it.

    Beyond her duties, the Queen has a private hinterland. No one – apart from her family and close confidants – can truly claim to know her thoughts and wishes. In addition to her expanding family, her affection for dogs and passion for horses is well-known – and widely shared across every part of our country. No one who has seen her walking her dogs in the early morning rain at Balmoral, or watching her horses race at Ascot, can doubt how deep, or how genuine, these interests are. When her horses win, her joy is absolute.

    While we honour this historic landmark, we must not overlook the service of the Duke of Edinburgh, who gave up a promising naval career to marry the young Princess Elizabeth.

    Through 67 years of marriage, he has been an unfaltering and indefatigable support to the Queen: a pivotal part of our ship of state. At the age of 94, he continues to play an important role in public life and, I believe, is held in greater affection today than ever before.

    How does one sum up our remarkable Monarch? Compassionate, shrewd, well-informed, pragmatic and wise, with an unshakeable commitment to duty – and a great sense of humour.

    Throughout her reign she has led by example and served our country well. She has entrenched a popular Monarchy so firmly in the affections of our nation that even the most hostile critics have been silenced.

    In an egalitarian age, this is an extraordinary achievement. As a nation we have been very lucky: in a world of change – the pace of which is often bewildering, even frightening – the Queen has provided a stability that is comforting and true.

    Nearly 70 years ago, the then Princess Elizabeth broadcast a message to the Commonwealth in which she pledged: ‘I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service…’

    In that, and so much else, HM Queen Elizabeth II has never failed us.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Singapore at 50 – 3 July 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Singapore at 50 Conference held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore on 3 July 2015.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is now over 40 years since I first came to Singapore as a young Banker, and frequent visits since then have kept me abreast of the remarkable way in which it has developed.

    It has been an extraordinary evolution since independence, and especially since Singapore broke free of its relationship with Malaysia.

    It is sad that Lee Kuan Yew – such a magisterial figure in your history – is not here for your 50th Anniversary, but I’m delighted to share a platform with his successor – my good friend and colleague of many years, Goh Chok Tong.

    In this session we are looking at some of the new challenges faced by democratic governments. In the brief time available to us, I can only skim over the surface, but I hope to say enough to provoke debate.

    First, some context. We live in a new age, in which electors demand openness, freedom of information, and a swift response to public concerns. They are not remotely passive; they react swiftly and sharply to policies they dislike – sometimes even when they know those very policies are in the long-term interests of the country.

    This points up a structural change – in politics and government. As individuals become more assertive, it is far more difficult for the political parties that form governments to obtain – and then retain – support.

    Partisan allegiance to political philosophies is fading in many countries and, as unquestioning philosophical support falls away, governments must rely on popular and successful policies to retain support.

    In principle, this is excellent – thoroughly democratic – but it has a downside: success may take a long time, and holding on to public affection can drive government to short-term policies. This is the antithesis of what Singapore has always done – and an unwelcome trend.
    An even bigger problem is that market forces are becoming more powerful and national governments less so. This is the effect of a truly global market. Globalisation has implications for domestic governments.

    If a country is to compete in our global economy, external rules and regulations may have to be adopted; every nation’s currency becomes more sensitive to events – sometimes events on the far side of the world; inward investment must be attracted in the face of global competition; the price of essentials to everyday life – food, energy – may rise or fall as a result of external factors. All this is unsettling.

    And international agreements can demand unpopular action in a Nation State – on climate change, for example. Singapore illustrates this: as a low lying island State, Singapore needs sensible policies on global warming from nearby States: notably China, India and Indonesia. But such policies are often unpopular in those countries.

    We could all extend this list in our world of inter-dependence. The plain truth is that – more now than in the past – governments are not in control of events – but are driven by them. Sometimes, election promises – made in good faith – have to be abandoned for reasons outside any national government’s control.

    All this can make for an uncomfortable democratic legitimacy. And it will not get any easier in the future.

    These dilemmas arise from a world changing faster than we have known. They leave governments struggling to keep up with new challenges – both domestically and in the wider world. They are expected to understand events, then analyse, and respond to them, but with the 24 hour professional media – they are rarely given much time to do so.

    This dilemma is more difficult for democracy than autocracy. Autocracy can make decisions and implement them speedily. Democracy is slow, often painstaking, because it has to obtain consensus and agreement.

    This may be less efficient management, but it is what the majority of public opinion demands. In the longer-term, democracy – the imposition of public will – is bound to prevail in any country that has fair elections.

    It is 25 years since Sir Tim Berners-Lee set out an idea at Cern that developed into the World Wide Web: it has changed our world.

    Moreover, it is largely uncontrolled by government – and, probably, uncontrollable in a free society.

    The Web continues to develop in a manner that is bound to influence and change government. It is casting a light on how people think and what they do in their professional and personal lives. We know more about one another – our fears, our hopes, our quirks – than ever before.

    The Web influences behaviour – for good or ill. It can offer truth or lies. It affects what people do. It might encourage some to take up charity work – or seduce others to become suicide bombers for an extremist sect, as it recently has a boy from Dewsbury in England.

    It can post, as one foolish man has done, security information that puts governments at risk and lives in peril. Almost nothing is off limits.

    People react to peer pressure, and the Web enhances that pressure.

    We can’t dis-invent the Web – nor should we wish to do so: it is a magnificent invention. The question for government is: can its misuse be controlled, and can it be used to improve the quality of life?

    I believe it can – but controlling misuse begs the question: what is misuse? It can’t be misuse simply by embarrassing governments – but it must be misuse where it aids illegality and crime: governments cannot ignore that.

    The plain truth is that social media has added a new dimension to the opportunities and pitfalls of government. It can either help or hinder. It can help because a direct form of communication can aid government in understanding public needs and attitudes and responding to them.

    This is a valuable tool that governments have barely begun to explore – let alone implement. They should do so.

    But it has a negative side, too. Social media can whip up opposition to decisions that are demonstrably necessary – but may be unpopular in the short-term: it is a medium that can force democratic politicians into an ill-thought-out response, or one that is, frankly, wrong.
    It can put enormous pressure on governments for an early decision, and pre-frame public attitudes before facts are fully explored – or explained. This is a truly negative development for good governance.

    We saw the power of social media in the Arab Spring. It supported and encouraged uprisings that brought down autocratic governments and dismissed long-term despots but – in the absence of order – left behind chaos that continues to destabilise countries across the Middle East.
    Good government requires tolerance and understanding by Governors and Governed alike and, at the moment, that is not available in many countries. As it settles down – it is, at present, in its infancy – social media can enhance tolerance or inspire chaos: hopefully, it will be the former.

    And, of course, it has highlighted the growing problem of terrorism which poses some acute dilemmas for democratic governments.

    Last year, there were over 13,000 terrorist attacks around the world – mostly in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. No other region had more than 1,000 incidents – but many countries were affected, and yet more will be.

    As this happens, it will create a friction between measures to protect the citizen – and measures to uphold civil rights. There is a delicate balance here.

    Secondary problems arise also for countries with no domestic terrorist threat – most obviously the problems of displaced persons and massive migration. No country dare be complacent.

    To many people in Singapore, the problems of the Middle East, of Syria and Iraq, may seem far away, but the ugly truth is that they are influencing jihadist groups worldwide.

    Nationals from the Philippines and Indonesia appear to be fighting in the Middle East. There are Maoist insurgents in Sri Lanka and jihadis in Pakistan and India. There are Muslim militants in Southern Thailand. The point is simple: no country is immune.

    Even Singapore – although serious counter-terrorism plans are in place – has had impressionable youths radicalised by Islamic State.

    A big question lies in front of government: how can they harness each aspect of modern technology – to improve governance and make life easier for the citizen.

    Some answers are obvious: technology and digital tools can target and deliver services better. They can improve access to services, ensure better traffic control and parking, be better informed on shortcomings to be corrected.

    All this is already being implemented in many parts of the world. “Smart” cities surely lie ahead – with digital advances enhancing urban living, using energy efficiently and engaging more actively with citizens. The scope here is obviously long-term – but almost infinite.

    One aspect of modern technology – cheap and easy communications – is already affecting human behaviour. I come from the age of the quill pen – but even I have come across Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, which can bring people together from every part of the world: on one level, this is a benevolent development that increases familiarity and can reduce or remove tensions.

    This is excellent – but again has risks attached to it: it can also be used to oppose, to frustrate, to magnify difficulties – all of which can complicate the exercise of government. And it can – indeed, is – being used to radicalise young minds.

    But I am optimistic that long-term advantages can outweigh short-term problems. Governments can use technology – and especially the Internet – to improve governance. The technological uses are frankly too wide and pervasive to mention here – except to note that they exist and are increasingly being implemented across the world.

    In nearly every aspect of our lives, technology can improve both business efficiency and services, although we have not yet remotely explored all the options.

    But we do know that the internet and social media is a valuable tool to obtain clarity about what electorates need and want.

    It can improve education enormously, and thus national economic well-being. The scope here – for young and old alike – is huge. The best lecturers – and minds – in the world can be available to everyone.

    This raises a mischievous question: in fifty years’ time, will we need universities? I hope so – believe so – but know others who take a different view!

    The internet can disseminate and receive information. “We didn’t know” – as an excuse for inaction by government or individuals – is on its way to becoming obsolete.

    It can cherry pick best practice from across the world.

    And, as it extracts information, it can spot trends – to plan policy for the future.

    One worry for government is whether social media can undermine or diminish them. The answer to that is that it can – and will – unless and until government becomes sufficiently familiar with it to regard it as an ally and not as a threat. Then it can – and, I believe, will – be a worthwhile ally.

    Let me summarise: in brief, social media will change the nature of government in ways we have not yet begun to realise. On the credit side, the information tools at its command will give government the ability and knowledge to target its policies more accurately, more inexpensively and more productively. It can help deliver better and more efficient government.

    Conversely, government will be under greater pressure to succeed, to be in touch, to reflect the public will. I suspect the impact of all these changes will be to make government more complex, and the public more demanding.

    One last question arises: why has Singapore – a small island State – been so successful in a world of many nations of greater size and with more resources?

    There are many reasons. But, at their heart, it is because Singapore has always judged what is in Singapore’s interest and acted with determination to implement it.

    Singapore looks to the future more rigorously than any nation I know. She has leveraged every opportunity to remain ahead of the curve: this conference illustrates that perfectly: each session celebrating fifty years of independence is geared to look to the future.

    That is why Singapore has succeeded in the past; and – I believe – why you will continue to succeed in the future.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Inaugural Edward Heath Lecture – 17 June 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Inaugural Edward Heath Lecture held at the Guildhall in Salisbury on 17 June 2015.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is a great pleasure to be here this evening in this magnificent Guildhall, to deliver the first Edward Heath Lecture.

    Nearby, in the Cathedral Close in Salisbury, is Arundells; the first home that Ted Heath could truly call his own. Ted spent his last two decades living there and it was evident to everyone who knew him how profoundly he loved the house, with its subtle architectural balance, tranquil gardens and stunning view of our greatest Gothic cathedral. It appealed to the inner artist in Ted – and it never lost that appeal.

    Next year, Ted would have been a hundred years old. I think he would have been delighted that funds are to be raised – not just for the historic delights of Arundells – but for discussion of international affairs, education and the arts. Ted knew that a rounded life extended far beyond domestic politics, and his own life reflected that understanding: it is a privilege to deliver this inaugural Lecture and Ted would, I think, have approved of the subject.

    But – first – if one delivers a Memorial Lecture to Edward Heath, one cannot ignore his great achievement of taking Britain into Europe.

    This is not the occasion for detailed arguments about the merits and de merits of the present-day European Union: that must await a later occasion when I, for one, will argue that we are far better off working with our partners than in splendid isolation.

    But Ted was born during a war that began in Europe, and served through a later one, both of which engulfed the world. It was imprinted on his mind – and that of his contemporaries – that working with our European neighbours would prevent conflict with them: in this, Ted was surely right. It was a view he held to – sometimes in the face of vituperative criticism – for the rest of his life.

    And he saw, too, that only a Europe that worked together could ever look the giants of America and China in the eye – as equals. In this, too, he was right. Our history might cry out that we can survive alone – and I have no doubt we can: but logic suggests we are more likely to thrive in partnership. This, too, Ted understood.

    My interest in Magna Carta – the Great Charter – goes back a long way. As a boy, of course, I was taught about it in that long-ago time when learning about our history was thought to be essential to an education.

    Many years later, I came across Magna Carta in a much more personal way. I was in my early thirties, and a young Banker with Standard Chartered. It was 1975 and – because the Bank had interests in California – they wished to contribute in some way to the American bicentenary celebrations the following year.

    The then Chairman, Tony Barber – Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ted Heath’s Government – invited me into his inner sanctum one evening, poured a generous drink, and began tossing around ideas of what we might do. Out of that discussion came the notion of borrowing a copy of Magna Carta to display in our branches across California. Whether that was my idea, or the Chairman’s, is lost in the mists of time – or in the afterglow of his generous hospitality – but I was duly tasked with exploring possibilities.

    I soon learned there were four remaining copies of Magna Carta: two at the British Library, and one at both Salisbury and Lincoln Cathedrals. The Chairman decided to approach the Dean of Lincoln, the Very Reverend Oliver Twistleton-Wykeham-Fiennes and, upon doing so, we learned that God and Mammon had a far closer relationship than we had imagined: when he heard of the Bank’s interest, the Dean welcomed the money changers into the Temple – or, at any rate, the Cathedral.

    Although the Dean was fiercely protective of the Charter, after much to-ing and fro-ing he finally agreed that Lincoln’s Magna Carta could be flown to California – but with conditions. The precious document was to be housed in a fire-proof, water-proof, bomb-proof, bullet-proof, humidity-controlled exhibition box costing £12,000 – over £100,000 in today’s money – and transported in a Vulcan aircraft from RAF Waddington. A second Vulcan was to follow close behind so that – if the first one crashed – we would know where the Magna Carta lay. Thus – even if it rested beneath the waves for decades – the Charter would still be intact when it was rediscovered.

    There were some memorable vignettes. I was told – and I do wish I had seen it – that the box was attacked with flame throwers, flood water and rifle fire to test its protective qualities. As for insurance – no-one was sure of its value – for how can you put a price on such a document? The Dean knew how. He looked around the Cathedral, at its historic majesty, and speculated aloud about how much it cost to protect and repair its ancient fabric. We insured Magna Carta for that sum – in the millions – which led Tony Barber to ponder whether the Dean and Chapter might actually be praying secretly for us to lose it.

    Inevitably, there were hiccups. The Dean was set to fly to California, and the Bank’s travel section duly booked first-class tickets for Messrs Twistleton, Wykeham, and Fiennes. Fortunately, this was noticed ….

    Although I was originally due to accompany the Magna Carta to California, the Chairman decided he needed me to travel with him instead – to an IMF Conference in Manila. So I parted company with the project. It was, however, a huge success, and the Great Charter was returned safely to Lincoln – together with Twistleton, Wykeham and Fiennes ….

    Magna Carta, although undeniably English at birth, has become an essential component in the laws of English-speaking nations around the world. In the UK, it underpins our system of law, and was an inspiration to the Chartists and the Suffragettes as they sought the right to vote. In America, its influence is evident in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. So it is instructive to examine its origins.

    In 1215, the Plantagenet King John was on the throne. His father, Henry II – arguably our greatest King – inherited a Kingdom exhausted by war and anarchy, and initiated a judicial system that evolved into our common law. John’s elder brother, Richard the Lionheart, was a leader of the crusades, and is immortalised outside the House of Lords on horseback, with sword raised aloft. Richard is the quintessential English hero, which is odd, since he was French and spoke little or no English. He spent less than one year of his reign in the country he ruled for ten – but a ransom to save him from prison did nearly bankrupt it.

    I digress for a moment to note that St George – he who slayed the dragons and freed maidens – was a Syrian. He, too, spoke no English – and never visited our country. Nor did he slay dragons or free maidens. Of such virtues are English heroes made!

    Let me revert to Magna Carta.

    On his brother Richard’s death, John became King. Contemporary chronicles pre-date history’s verdict that he was a very bad King indeed.

    One wrote that “hell itself is defiled by the foulness of John.” Others were less kind. Many expressed sentiments that made today’s tabloid press seem positively tame.

    By 1215, John had been on the throne for 16 years. Vicious, lecherous, arbitrary in dispensing justice, untruthful and greedy, he had done little to endear himself to his subjects.

    In particular, John’s relationship with his unruly Barons had deteriorated to the point of civil war. This was no accident. He had over-taxed them to fund a war with France that he lost ignominiously. He had a propensity for – I put this delicately – the wives and daughters of the Barons. Angry and rebellious, the Barons demanded the restoration of “ancient liberties” – as enshrined in a Charter of Henry I, one hundred years earlier. But John had no intention of appeasing the Barons, and when he met them in early 1215, he rejected their appeals, and demanded even greater allegiance.

    It was a foolhardy gesture and the Barons reacted with force. In May 1215, they captured London and compelled John to meet them again – this time at Runnymede, midway between the King’s army at Windsor and the Barons’ men at Staines. After several meetings – and what today we would call “a free and frank exchange of views”– an embryo Charter was drawn up: “The Articles of the Barons”.

    On 15 June a binding agreement was reached: the King would issue what became known as Magna Carta and, in return, the Barons would swear fealty to him. Magna Carta was not signed – there is no evidence John could write – but the 4,000 word document, written on sheepskin parchment in Medieval Latin, was duly stamped with the King’s Seal. Copies were made by monks in the Royal Chancellery, and despatched for public proclamation to towns and cities across England. Magna Carta was born.

    What did the Great Charter say? The first thing to understand is that it was a contemporary document drafted for the well-being of the Barons. It was time, common practice, subsequent events and re-interpretation of the text by great lawyers that elevated the Charter to its unique status.

    The original Charter had 63 clauses, or chapters – many of them trivial. But the two great Chapters were Numbers 39 and 40. They are central to the enduring fame and eternal relevance of Magna Carta today.

    Chapter 39: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

    In other words – the Barons told the King – don’t think you can act arbitrarily against us.

    And Chapter 40: “To no-one will we sell, to no-one deny or delay right or justice.”

    This is a fundamental principle of our law. No-one can be sure who drafted it, but it seems likely that the guiding hand may have been

    Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury. If so, this would have infuriated the King since – in modern parlance, the Archbishop and the King had “previous”.

    A decade earlier, when Archbishop Hubert Walter had died, King John had nominated his own candidate, only to find him opposed by a faction in the Church. The Pope, Innocent III, intervened and Langton was consecrated Archbishop without John’s approval. It did not make for a good relationship.

    John accepted the Charter under duress and, no doubt, with ill grace. But within weeks, he saw his opportunity to destroy it.

    Chapter 61 proposed a Committee of twenty five Barons to enforce Magna Carta, and hold the King to his word. This was anathema to an hereditary Monarch who believed he was above the law. More important, it was anathema to an autocratic Pope who saw here a principle that could threaten his own authority.

    When John appealed to him, Pope Innocent quashed Magna Carta in a Papal Bull. It was, he announced, “unjust, shameful – and illegal”. In the Catholic England of 1215, the Pope’s writ was all powerful. But while John rejoiced, the Barons prepared for civil war.

    This time, they were serious. They no longer sought concessions. Their plan was to depose John and offer the Crown to Prince Louis of France who – while John was fighting the Barons in the North – had invaded with 7,000 troops. A bloody conflict seemed inevitable when John, at last, did something that would save Magna Carta for posterity: he died at Newark Castle.

    John was succeeded by his infant son, nine-year-old Henry, and William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, became Regent. William Marshall was a genuine hero of the age – and pre-eminent in reputation among the Barons. He re-issued Magna Carta in Henry’s name – but without the contentious Chapter 61 that had so upset the Pope.

    Most Barons accepted this – and those that did not were swiftly defeated at the Battle of Lincoln Fair. Louis fled to France, and Magna Carta became more deeply embedded in both the law and folklore of the English.

    In 1225, when Henry III was old enough to assume power without a Regent, Magna Carta was re-issued again – in the form we recognise today and in an abbreviated 37 Chapters – but with one key difference.

    This definitive text had Henry III’s “full and free consent”. Its acceptance placed the King himself under the law. It was a good principle, but could only become reality if there were a body in place to enforce it and, three decades later, an embryo Parliament lifted the veil on what that body would ultimately be. However, true Parliamentary control of the Monarchy was still far off.

    “Words mean”, said Humpty Dumpty to Alice, “just what I choose them to mean”. That is relevant to Magna Carta because it was the interpretation of the Charter that made it so powerful. The “free men” in King John’s Charter were freeholders of land, not the free and independent men and women of later ages.

    As the late Law Lord, Tom Bingham put it: “the significance of Magna Carta lay, not only in what it actually said, but in what later generations claimed and believed it had said.”

    Throughout the 14th and 16th Centuries, Magna Carta slumbered. Henry VIII ignored it completely when he made himself Head of the English Church. But it was re-awoken in the early 17th Century, when Stuart Kings clashed with Parliament. When James VI of Scotland succeeded Queen Elizabeth I as James I of England, he held the view that “Monarchy is the supremest thing on earth … Kings exercise a manner of divine power on Earth”.

    This was neither the first – nor the last – time that a Scottish leader expressed views that were alien to the English, and the great lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, was soon in conflict with James – who dismissed him as a Law Officer. Undeterred, Coke entered Parliament and, in 1628, infuriated James’s successor, Charles I, by invoking Magna Carta to bridle the power of the King. “Magna Carta owns no Sovereign” Coke argued, in provocatively chosen language, as he urged the supremacy of Common Law over the Royal Prerogative.

    The stage was set for political confrontation. For some years, Charles attempted to rule without Parliament, but ran out of money. When he recalled Parliament – to raise funds to fight the Scots – Parliament refused to comply until the King reaffirmed Magna Carta and the Petition of Right. The stand-off deteriorated into a Civil War, begun by Charles but won by the Parliamentary Forces under Cromwell. It was followed by the trial and execution of the King.

    Nearly forty years later, another Stuart King, James II, was deposed in the bloodless coup of the Glorious Revolution, and William and Mary of Orange were offered the throne – but with conditions. They were required to affirm a Bill of Rights that granted far greater power to Parliament.

    This was the effective beginning of a constitutional Monarchy, and the end of absolute rule. From that moment, Parliament was supreme. And the justification cited was Magna Carta. It would be nice to believe that Stephen Langton foresaw this triumph 470 years earlier – but, sadly, I doubt it.

    *****

    Although Magna Carta was undeniably English by birth, its principles travelled the length and breadth of the English-speaking world – to India, Canada, New Zealand, Australia – and, of course, that great democracy – the United States.

    When the first Colony was established in Virginia in 1606, James I granted the new settlers the same rights as were available in England, and the colonists embraced these liberties in their own domestic laws. In 1638, Maryland passed a Bill to recognise Magna Carta as part of the law of the Province.

    Three years later, Massachusetts framed their “Bill of Liberties” in “resemblance to Magna Carta”. In 1668, the Carolinas legislated to regulate the grants of land in a Bill they characterised as “a species of Magna Carta”.

    Thus, over a hundred years before the Declaration of Independence (1776), the colonial Legislatures had firmly embedded the principles of Magna Carta into American law.

    These principles were enhanced after Independence. The Federal Constitution of 1789 embodied declarations on the rights of men that were variants of English law. As Lord Bryce observed a hundred years later: “there is little in the Constitution that is absolutely new. There is much that is as old as Magna Carta.” That holds true today.

    As you enter the bronze doors of the US Supreme Court, you will see a depiction of King John signing Magna Carta; and, in the courtroom itself, a marble frieze commemorating the great lawmakers, where John is shown hugging Magna Carta, in the company of Napoleon and Justinian.

    The men who drafted the US Bill of Rights deliberately echoed the language of Magna Carta. In 2003, Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman ever to serve as a US Supreme Court Justice, paid tribute to its lasting influence – noting that:

    “In the last forty years the Court has cited Magna Carta in more than fifty written opinions. It has looked to concepts embodied in Magna Carta in important decisions that concern, for example, the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, the requirement that trial by jury be afforded in state criminal prosecutions, and the access of indigents to review of criminal convictions.”

    * * * * *

    How relevant is the Magna Carta today? It is rarely cited in legal action, although its derived law remains potent. And there are areas where its absence is striking and its writ has not run: extraordinary rendition, for example, and detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay.

    American courts ruled that normal circumstances could not apply in wartime – a contentious decision that many would question – myself included. Whatever crimes these prisoners may have committed, they deserve to be brought to trial and, if found guilty, punished: but to be imprisoned without trial cannot be acceptable.

    Many, too, might be concerned at the modern level of surveillance which has grown dramatically to counter terrorist threats unforeseen by earlier generations. Much is justified by legitimate security concerns, but it is a trend that Parliaments should watch with care.

    But I would argue that the Charter’s impact today goes far beyond the law. It can be seen in the attitudes and expectations of the English-speaking nations. This evening, my focus is the UK and the US. As children of Magna Carta, we instinctively dislike over-mighty power – not least in our Governments. I lost an election in 1997 for many reasons, but one – repeatedly cited – is that we had been in Government for too long and the UK wasn’t a one-Party State. I agree with the sentiment – although I would have preferred for its implementation to have been deferred. Our two nations are suspicious of monopoly power. We have an affinity for the under-dog, for the plucky loser. Magna Carta is in our DNA – it is who we are.

    And our expectations show a symbiotic relationship with the Charter. We require and expect our Laws to be fair. Our Courts to be impartial.

    We take for granted that we can mock and criticise the mightiest in the land without fear of reprisal.

    We believe we have ancient rights – freedom of speech, the right to own and pass on our assets, protection against the State. We assume all this as an ancient right, whilst acknowledging that such liberties are still not available in many other parts of the world.

    Alexander the Great believed that Asians became slaves because they could not pronounce the word “No”. But we can and do: to Monarchs; to Presidents; to Governments; to Jacks-in-Office; to hostile armies – and so have we throughout our history.

    Of course, the UK and US are not identical. Let me speak for a moment of my own country. As a nation we British are understated – until roused by threats or injustice – and we rarely speak of freedom, perhaps because we take it for granted.

    Maybe we should speak of it more. Freedom – liberty – is essential to the individual if he is not to be crushed. It is enshrined in our every attitude. We know that – without the rule of law and free speech –despotism can reign. But, even in our own country which is, I believe, as free as any in the world, freedom is not universal. There is no freedom – no liberty of action – in poverty. There is little freedom in unemployment. They are both a blot on a free society and, if we do not seek to eliminate them, they become a blot on our conscience too.

    And, on a lower level, we should beware lest independence and freedom is eaten away by pettifogging rules and too much control: we should look critically at regulation if we wish to ensure a free nation does not live in a Nanny State.

    Are these sentiments due to Magna Carta? Or did Magna Carta come about because this is the unshakeable conviction of our people? We will never know the answer. But what I do know is that we should be proud we gave our laws and our concept of freedom to a large part of the world – and prouder still that they have adopted it.

    These days I travel widely to every corner of the world. Many might be surprised at the respect and affection there is for our country based on our language, our democracy, our system of law and the perception that we are a fair and tolerant nation.

    There is one current controversy which has faint echoes of the principal dispute over Magna Carta. That dispute – as I have set out – was between absolute Monarchy and Parliamentary supremacy. Today’s more minor dispute is between British Law and the rulings of the ECHR.

    It is a much misunderstood issue.

    There is a strand of opinion in the UK that disowns logic and abandons consensus once the words “European Union” are mentioned: it is as though a red mist has descended, robbing intelligent minds of the ancient British genius for compromise.

    So let me make clear that the ECHR has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union. This Court was established by a Convention on Human Rights, agreed in 1950, the drafting of which was guided by a Conservative lawyer and politician. Yet, I think it fair to say that, over recent years, the rulings of this Court have widened to an extent that has often upset Parliament, politicians, press and public in equal measure.

    The Convention was designed to protect civil and political liberties, at a time when wartime violations were fresh in the memory and Communism – with its disregard for individual freedom – was a growing threat across much of Europe.

    It was signed by 47 European nations and reflected the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – itself described by Eleanor Roosevelt as a “Magna Carta for all mankind”.

    The Convention was drafted in broad terms to cover such issues as the right to life and liberty; to fair trial; to freedom of expression; to the end of torture – and many rights long familiar to our own way of life. It was incorporated into British Law in the Human Rights Act agreed by Parliament in 1998.

    The Government wishes to replace the Human Rights Act with a “British Bill of Rights” that would replicate all the safeguards of the Convention, but leave its interpretation in the hands of British Courts. As a result, a clamour has arisen that the intention is to infringe existing human rights. If I thought that were so, I would be a strong opponent of the change. But it is not.

    Human rights and liberties were protected in this country long before the Human Rights Act, and I have no doubt that will remain the position when the legislation is updated. The land that gave us Magna Carta will not turn its back on fundamental liberties. And the land that gave us a democratic Parliament is surely right to ensure that the will of Parliament is not misinterpreted.

    The ECHR is a symbol; a potent symbol of the post-war settlement in Europe. In the world of politics, such symbols matter and we respect their power and significance. I expect consultation and compromise to settle this issue.

    Let me give the final word to an Englishman, among the greatest we have known, born of an American mother. Sir Winston Churchill wrote of Magna Carta:

    “The underlying idea of the sovereignty of law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject, it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success.”

    Ted Heath began his career as a Whip in Churchill’s last Government. He would have agreed with Churchill’s analysis. He understood that Magna Carta framed our law, our Parliament, our history and our nature.

    For that, Britain, America and much of the world can all be grateful.

  • Sir John Major’s Article in the Daily Telegraph – 6 May 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s article published in The Daily Telegraph on 6 May 2015.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    On Thursday, the British people will choose our next government. At a moment when our country is in need of calm stability, the outcome is very uncertain.

    Whatever the short-term attraction of voting for a minority party, it is the long-term wellbeing of our United Kingdom that is at risk. And the stakes could not be higher.

    Five years ago, our country faced the spectre of national bankruptcy. The Conservative-led Coalition has brought us back from the brink to a genuine prospect of prosperity. Growth is steady. Inflation is non-existent. Job creation has been outstanding, and unemployment is falling month after month.

    Moreover, wages and salaries are beginning to rise, with every expectation this will continue. It is no longer foolish to hope for better times ahead – we can see they are within our reach – but only if we build financial, commercial and industrial success. We will never do that by returning to Labour’s agenda of more borrowing and higher taxes.

    The Coalition Government can be proud of how much it has achieved. Every month, independent figures confirm our economy has been turned around. Even as our opponents deny this, the IMF, Europe, and the rest of the world, acknowledge it.

    This is a far cry from five years ago, when people were not even sure their money was safe in their High Street banks. The last Labour government inherited a healthy, growing economy. They presided over a financial crash, recession, rising unemployment – and debt.
    Labour is now seeking to persuade the British people they should, once again, be trusted. Mr Miliband repeatedly refuses to accept they overspent in government, and they resolutely deny their role in our economic woes. But history states otherwise. For every single Labour government we have ever had – from Ramsay MacDonald to Gordon Brown – has left an economic mess behind them. Every single time.

    And I cannot see how a government led by Mr Miliband would be any different.

    There is a pattern. Labour wrecks the economy. The Tories repair it but become unpopular in doing so. Labour is re-elected and wrecks it all over again. It is time to break this pattern.

    Labour has adopted some recurring mantras during this election campaign: primarily, that the Tories care little about the less fortunate in society and aim to destroy the NHS.

    Mr Miliband states that the Tories are only for the rich, while only Labour is for the working people. What divisive drivel. Does he seriously believe millions of Tory voters are all rich? Of course not. Labour seems to regard wealth creation as anti-social. They have returned to a world in which businesses must be controlled, regulated, directed, taxed: they are more likely to penalise them than help them grow.
    Yet without wealth creators, growth is stunted. There are fewer jobs and a smaller tax revenue. And whenever that happens, it is public services that suffer most. There is less money for education, for social care – and, yes, less for health, too. Less all round for the working man and woman.

    High taxes are a certainty if the SNP props up a weak Labour Government – held to ransom on a vote-by-vote basis. But they deaden enterprise, quell ambition and discourage talent. Labour’s policy to target “the rich” would drag many more people into higher rates of tax.

    By this, I don’t mean the mega-rich, but professional men and women with skills that are vital to our society. Is that really what this country needs as we try to build a better future?

    After the election, either the Conservatives or Labour will form – or at least lead – the new government. We need a government that can reach out to every single part of our country. And Labour cannot do that.

    I know Labour. I grew up with them. Labour divides to rule. To win votes they will turn rich against poor; north against south; worker against boss. They have done this before and are doing it now. But it is emphatically not what this country needs. Now, more than ever, we need to bring people together, not create chasms to drive them apart.

    Our future must be built on social cohesion and economic success. And we need to help all people to meet their ambitions that – more often than not – relate to long-term security for themselves and their families: the most basic human instinct of all.

    We will never all be born equal. Life isn’t like that. But the Conservatives aspire to make opportunities in life as equal as we can make them. That is what first drew me to the party nearly six decades ago. While Labour was offering me a “hand out”, the Conservatives offered me a “hand up”.

    That is why Mr Miliband’s daily charge against us is so grotesque. For, as the economy improves, David Cameron and George Osborne have been working hard to spread prosperity to the poorer regions of our country – look at our plans for the Northern Powerhouse.

    In every election, the NHS is centre stage. Mr Miliband promises that Labour will “rescue the NHS”. But from what, and from whom?

    Conservative supporters are as committed to the NHS as our political opponents. Quite apart from the moral obligation any government has to protect the NHS, does he really imagine we would seek to alienate our core support? And how on earth does Mr Miliband himself propose to do that if our recovery is put at risk all over again, and there is insufficient money to fund it?

    The NHS has existed for 70 years – 40 of which the Conservatives have been in government. At no time have we ever sought to break it up. Why? Because we have never wished to do so – and we never will. I have been a member of the Conservative Party all my adult life. I would not tolerate the destruction of the NHS – nor would any Tory government. Nor would our nation.

    As we prepare to choose our government – let me say something about our nation. We British are, instinctively, an open-minded, generous-spirited, compassionate people. Yes, there are some whose social attitude and behaviour falls short of that. But the majority of us are decent, hard-working people, who want to do the right thing for our family, friends and communities – near and far.

    In the last few months alone, during a period of severe economic hardship, the British people have dug deep to help those in need – both here at home and overseas: most recently following the tragedy in Nepal. And who can forget last year’s Poppy Appeal, when over £40 million was raised – with many driving through the night from all corners of our nation to join queues at the Tower of London in order to honour those who had paid the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our freedom. In all this, we have shown ourselves to be a civilised, mature and united Kingdom: we should oppose all those that appeal to prejudice or bigotry, or seek to tear our nation apart.

    Ours is a great and tolerant country – as free and honest in its dealings as any nation in the world. Even among our harshest critics, we have a moral authority few can match. We just need to have confidence in ourselves, who we are and what we can achieve together.

    At the moment, there is a deep malaise in our political system. We have just come through nine long years of national crisis and many people feel disengaged, disaffected – and downright fed up. Five years ago, Labour left our country on its knees. By its own admission there was “no money left”. We were on the brink of ruin.

    The Coalition Government – under David Cameron’s leadership – has led us to the cusp of prosperity. Our economy is now, finally, on course to bring us all a much better, brighter future.

    This country must decide in whose hands they will entrust that future, and the choice is straightforward: either Mr Cameron or Mr Miliband will be the prime minister.

    So, before marking your ballot paper with a cross, I implore you to pause and reflect: with a second term and stronger economy, David Cameron will be able to demonstrate – even more – that the Conservative Party still stands for everything that first attracted me to it all those years ago: offering a “hand up” to those who are willing and wanting a better life for themselves and their families.

    And we, as one United Kingdom, would all be the better for that.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech in Solihull – 21 April 2015

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major in Solihull on 21 April 2015.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    In 16 days’ time, the people of the United Kingdom will elect our next Government.

    Five years ago, we were on the verge of bankruptcy. Today, we’re creating jobs, increasing investment and reducing taxes.

    So – there is a very simple choice to make: do you vote for the Party that presided over economic chaos: or the Party that has led us out of that chaos?

    If current predictions are correct, Labour’s only route into Number 10 is by some form of multi-Party arrangement.

    The Welsh Nationalists, the Greens and the SNP are willing to support Labour –at a price – and there is no doubt what that price would be: more borrowing, more spending, an end to welfare reform, and far more people dragged into higher tax brackets.

    In Wales, the Nationalists will ask Labour for more money to rescue their health service – and that is ironic, since Plaid Cymru are keen to point out that it’s the Labour Party in Wales who wrecked the Welsh NHS in the first place.

    The Greens will seek a pledge to spend more money on everything. But, however worthy Green policy may be, it is – quite simply – a recipe for economic self-harm.

    That leaves the SNP.

    If Labour were to accept an offer of support from them, it could put us on course to a Government held to ransom on a vote by vote basis.

    And we would pay the price.

    Last Autumn, Scotland voted narrowly to remain within the Union. It was, the SNP promised, the end of the matter for a generation. I didn’t believe that for a moment, and now, we can see that they are merely waiting for a good excuse to put separation back on the agenda.

    Current polls suggest the SNP will sweep Labour out of their Scottish strongholds. If they win even 35-40 seats – and that is well below the latest predictions – they will become a significant presence at Westminster.

    If this happens – and no Party wins an overall majority – the SNP has offered to support Labour in an anti-Conservative alliance: they are, as you know, deeply Socialist. And by “support”, I don’t necessarily mean a formal partnership, but an informal understanding – perhaps even unacknowledged – to keep Labour in power.

    So, Labour would be in hock to a Party that – slowly but surely – will push them ever further to the Left. And who would pay the price for that?

    You would. We all would. We would all pay for the SNP’s ransom in our daily lives – through higher taxes, fewer jobs, and more and more debt.

    But that isn’t all. The SNP’s driving ambition is an independent Scotland and – as the price for their support – they will demand policies that favour Scotland at the expense, quite literally, of the rest of the UK. That is no way to run a country. And nor is it remotely fair to England, to Wales and to Northern Ireland.

    The Labour leader in Scotland has already started down that route. He’s proposed that Labour’s new tax on the family home in England would raise funds for Scotland. The point of that is this: if a Labour leader asks for that, how much more will the SNP demand themselves And if this is the way Labour intends to behave towards England – how can they then say “No” to the SNP when they behave in the same way? And if Labour did say “No”, the SNP could withdraw support and bring down the Government at any time.

    This is a recipe for mayhem. At the very moment that our country needs a strong and stable Government, we risk a weak and unstable one – pushed to the Left by its allies, and open to a daily dose of political blackmail.

    The SNP at Westminster will have one key objective: to entrench SNP popularity in Scotland ahead of next year’s Scottish Parliament elections. That is their principal aim – and it creates a wretched dilemma for Labour. For whilst SNP support might put Mr Miliband into No 10 – the payback for Labour will be very costly indeed. For with every bribe Labour concedes, the more popular the SNP will become, and the more popular they become, the more likely it is the SNP will win the Scottish Parliament elections one year later.

    And if the SNP do win next May, what will they do with their victory? I can tell you – they’ll demand a further Referendum on independence. They will either put that in their Manifesto, or claim it as an entitlement of their win. The once-in-a-generation vote will become a once-in-a-Parliament vote. That is their plan.

    The SNP has a second tactic. It is to drive a wedge between Scotland and – especially – England. They will manufacture grievance, probably on an industrial scale, to make it more likely that any future Referendum would deliver a majority for independence. They will ask for the impossible, and create merry hell if it is denied. The nightmare of a broken United Kingdom has not gone away. The separation debate is not over. The SNP is determined to prise apart the United Kingdom.

    I am a Unionist and I always have been. More than that, I admire Scotland and would hate to see our two countries part company.

    Separation would not only be a leap in the dark for Scotland – it would diminish the UK. If chunks of your country fall off, you lose prestige and power.

    And how much more narrow – and diminished – would we be as a nation? How would we feel if our neighbours – who happen to be Scots – suddenly became “foreigners”?

    And what would it mean for Scotland?

    Let me deal in fact, not hyperbole. The oil price is now barely half what the SNP has boasted about to make independence at all viable.

    As the IFS – and Mr Miliband and Alistair Darling – have all pointed out, a Scotland with full fiscal autonomy would have a fiscal deficit of £7.6 billion.

    For a nation of five million people – that’s huge. And – when pressed on that point – the SNP is wonderfully imprecise. But – beneath the evasion and the gobbledegook – one thing is clear: in any negotiations on the fiscal framework, the SNP expects the rest of the UK to pay a large portion of the bill.

    And what of other promises they make? What of the SNP’s wish to join the European Union? The European Union will not easily – or swiftly – admit an independent Scotland. There is a queue to join, and Scotland will be at the back of that queue. And countries that face separatist threats – like Spain and Belgium – will hardly rush to admit a breakaway nation.

    The unhappy truth for the Scots is that the SNP are promising what they cannot deliver. They are fooling themselves and misleading their own people. The SNP are more focused on gaining political power than on the long-term wellbeing of their country.

    I warned again and again – in 1992 and in 1997 – that devolution would lead towards the break-up of the UK. For their own partisan electoral advantage, Labour ignored all the risks. No, they said, devolution would kill independence stone dead. It didn’t. All it did was to fan the flame. We have now moved on a long way from that. In the Referendum, belatedly – but to their credit – Labour fought for the Union. The Union was battered, but it survived. Now, it is put at risk again.

    Let me not mince my words as I don’t wish to be misunderstood: the SNP is a real and present danger to our future. They will pit Scotland against England. That could be fatal to the people of Scotland – and to the unity of the UK as a whole.

    And this election may bring that danger to the fore.

    *******

    Let me turn to wider matters, and particularly to the economy.

    Five years ago, people could not even be sure their money was safe in their high street bank. It was a very real fear.

    Although Labour is in denial about their own role in that, they cannot avoid their share of responsibility. The Conservative-led Coalition has brought us back from the brink to the genuine prospect of prosperity. Much remains to be done. But growth is healthy: easily the best of any large economy in Europe. Inflation is non-existent. Job creation has been outstanding, and unemployment is falling more rapidly than anyone dared to hope. The future is most definitely looking brighter.

    More so as the economy begins to feed through: wages and salaries are beginning to rise, with every expectation that this will continue.

    Bookings for one particular package holiday company are up by 30% on last year. That is not the mega-rich. These are families on average incomes up and down the country. It is no longer a fantasy to believe that there are better times ahead – they are within our reach – but only if we continue with sensible economic policies.

    Now, quite properly at this election, the Conservative Party seeks a majority on their own account. Polls suggest voting will be very tight, but I believe that we can achieve this. A few thousand votes in crucial seats will dramatically change the outcome.

    Only a few thousand votes … would secure a Conservative majority Government. And we need one, because – beyond the election – some momentous issues lie ahead.

    Can we keep the UK together?

    Can we reform the European Union?

    Can we spread prosperity across all regions of our United Kingdom?

    Can we continue to build world-class health, education and public services?

    Can we build sufficient infrastructure to encourage investment in areas of low income and high unemployment?

    Can we protect people and communities who feel that they are left behind by the global economy?

    I believe we can do all these things.

    But only if we build growth through financial, commercial and industrial success. We will never do that by raising taxes and spooking the business community.

    Good intentions are no substitute for properly-thought-through policy. In 1997, Labour inherited a healthy, growing economy. While they remained within Conservative spending plans it stayed healthy. But when they struck out on their own – with Mr Miliband and Mr Balls advising Gordon Brown at the Treasury – they left behind a recession, rising unemployment – and debt.

    They blame the financial crash – but all one needs to do is pick up a history book. Every single Labour Government we have ever had – from Ramsay MacDonald to Gordon Brown – has ruined the economy. Every single time. There’s a pattern. Labour wrecks the economy. The Tories repair it but become unpopular in doing so. Labour are re-elected and wreck it again. It’s time to break that pattern.

    Do you remember the note left by the last Labour Cabinet Minister responsible for spending? “Dear Chief Secretary”, he wrote, “I’m afraid there is no money left. Kind regards and good luck!”. Exclamation mark. Exclamation mark …….

    Well, I credit him with honesty but I don’t share his humour. Nor, do I imagine, will the millions of men and women in every part of our country whose lives would have been so much less painful if Labour hadn’t squandered the legacy we left them.

    In this election, Labour’s approach seems to be this – if you rob Peter to pay Paul – you can rely on the support of Paul. The truth is that if you rob Peter – by imposing punitive taxes – then you will hurt Paul, because Peter will invest less, create fewer jobs, and there will be a smaller tax yield to pay for essential public services.

    High taxes are populist – they’re even popular with some. But they deaden enterprise. Quell ambition. Discourage the talented. Is that really what this country needs as we try and build a better future? I don’t think so.

    After the Election, either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party will form – or at least lead – the new Government. We need a Government that can reach out to every single part of our country. And Labour can’t do that.

    I know Labour. I grew up with them. I admire their virtues. But Labour is a class-based Party. It was born so and remains so. Class is in its DNA. Labour divides to rule. To win votes, they will turn rich against poor. North against South. Worker against boss. They have done this before. And they are doing it now. But it is emphatically not what this country needs. We need to bring people together, not create chasms to drive them apart.

    The enduring characteristic of the British is fairness and generosity of spirit. I believe people will just turn away from Labour’s politics of social division. It has no place in a mature State.

    Our future must be built on social cohesion and economic success. And we need to help people – all people – to meet their ambitions that – more often than not – relate to long-term security for themselves and their families: the most basic human emotion of them all.

    That is why it is right to help people start – and grow – their own business. Or own their own home and, in due time, be able to pass on the value of that home to their children – not the Treasury. Or to have control over their lifetime savings for retirement.

    We will never all be born equal. Life isn’t like that. But it is the Conservative mission to make opportunities in life as equal as we can make them. That is what first drew me to the Party nearly six decades ago. While Labour was offering me a hand “out”, the Conservatives offered me a hand “up”.

    There are many young people now who are in the circumstances I was then. And they need a hand up too. Why would I give my lifetime’s work for a Party that didn’t help or didn’t care about people in need? We do care and we do help. We may not wear our heart on our sleeve but it beats just as strongly as any other Party in this country or in the world.

    That is why – as the economy improves – David Cameron and George Osborne are working so hard to spread prosperity to the poorer regions of our country. That is what a Conservative Government is about. That is what being a Conservative means.

    Is the election winnable for the Conservatives? I profoundly believe it is.

    The Coalition Government can be proud of its legacy. Under the leadership of David Cameron, and the stewardship of George Osborne, our economy has been turned around. Every month, independent figures show this to be true. On growth; on job creation; on business formation. Our opponents deny this, while the IMF, the Germans and the rest of the world acknowledges it.

    This turn-around has been achieved through the teeth of Labour’s opposition. They have taken every opportunity, month after month in Parliament, to talk down and oppose the Government’s economic policies – and undermine them in every way they can. They have been proved wrong time and time again.

    Of course – as the Prime Minister and Chancellor have made clear – there is more to do but – at this moment – to turn away and turn aside would be perverse in the extreme.

    * * * * *

    Many years ago, I spoke of a nation at ease with itself. Events – and no doubt my own failings – meant I was unable to achieve this. It is a life-long regret. But that same wish is as alive in me today as it ever was, and I truly believe it is deliverable.

    But only if the economy continues on its current course, so that wealth can spread into every part of the UK in fair measure: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    We have just come through seven long years of national crisis. Let us make sure that something good comes out of that hardship.

    I’m not running for Office any more. I don’t have to strike attitudes. I can say exactly what I wish. So let me say something to you that I feel from the very depths of my being.

    Over recent years I have travelled to almost every corner of the world. And yet, my heart always lifts when I come home. With all its faults, all its problems, all its challenges, there is nowhere else I would rather be than here – in the United Kingdom.

    Ours is a great and tolerant country, as free and honest in its dealings as any nation in the world. Even among our harshest critics, we have a moral authority few can match. We just need to have confidence in ourselves, who we are and what we can do

    We can lift ourselves up to a better quality of life.

    Sixteen days from now, this country will decide in whose hands they will entrust our future. And the choice is straightforward. It will be David Cameron or Ed Miliband who will become Prime Minister.

    And however disaffected, disengaged – downright fed up – many may be with politics and politicians – let me repeat the very simple choice in front of you all on Polling Day: do you vote for the Party that presided over economic chaos; or the Party that has now led us out of it?

    When you enter that private booth and pick up that stubby little pencil on 7 May – when all the noise and hubbub of this election campaign is over – that choice will, quite literally, be in your own hands.

  • Sir John Major’s Letter to the Spectator – 21 March 2015

    The text of Sir John Major’s letter to the Spectator published on 21 March 2015.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Sir: Much as I admire filial loyalty, I cannot allow Zac Goldsmith’s article about his father to go uncorrected (‘My dad saved the pound’, 28 February). Sir James Goldsmith was a formidable campaigner against the European Union and the euro currency, but at no point did he alter government policy. Zac Goldsmith suggests that I did not offer a referendum on membership of the euro currency out of conviction. This is wrong. I believed that any decision to abandon sterling — which I myself did not favour — was so fundamental that it would need national endorsement. On constitutional grounds some Cabinet members dissented, but many will confirm that I was seeking agreement for such a policy long before the Referendum party was founded. If anything, Sir James made the decision process more difficult, since no one in Cabinet wished to appear to be influenced.

    It has been claimed that I was willing to offer a referendum on membership of the EU. This is untrue, although Sir James often cited it as a reason for establishing the Referendum party. Zac Goldsmith suggests that I offered Sir James a peerage, presumably in order to secure his support. At no time did I make such an offer; nor did I authorise anyone else to make such an offer on my behalf. Quite apart from any other consideration, it would have been wholly improper.

    Sir James was not, however, without influence. The Referendum party did serious damage to the electoral prospects of the Conservative party, and helped usher in 13 years of Labour government. Sir James is entitled to take his share of credit for what followed as a result of his actions: the European treaties of Nice and Lisbon; the advent of spin on an industrial scale; financial collapse; rising unemployment and soaring national debt. What he cannot take credit for is keeping us out of the euro. The Conservative government I led obtained the opt-out at Maastricht, and ensured a referendum would be required for any currency change, thus spiking Mr Blair’s ambitions to join the euro.

    I do not wish to reopen old sores, nor do I wish to cause any offence to the Goldsmith family. But, for the sake of historical record, I cannot allow such myths to take root.

    Sir John Major
    London SW1