The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 2005

  • Sir John Major’s Speech on Terrorism – 7 December 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech on Terrorism, given at Yale University, Connecticut, on Wednesday 7th December 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Great pleasure to be at Yale – and also to see my old friend President Zedillo. When Stanley Flink invited me I was delighted to accept …. after all, since I left full time education at fifteen, an invitation to visit one of the great Universities of the world was irresistible.

    And – in any event – America is a second home to me. My father was brought up in Pennsylvania in the 1880s.

    Long time ago: when I was born my father was 65. My mother ….. was surprised.

    [Indistinct, but about being very pro-American. Took the view we were two countries divided only by a common language.]

    And – possibly – united by the fact that the first Lady Member of the House of Commons was … an American – Nancy Astor.

    300 years of a male dominated Club – this sparky opinionated woman who took no hostages was controversial.

    As a new Member of Parliament, she was speaking on Agriculture, when – across the Chamber of the House of Commons – another Member shouted: “You know nothing about Agriculture …. how many toes has a pig?”.

    Nancy Astor never faltered: “How many toes has a pig? …. Take off your boots and count”.

    Great friend of Winston Churchill. One of those enduring friendships: they would defend each other against all foes – to the end. But when together, socially/privately. they would fight like ferrets in a sack.

    [Indistinct, but quotes from Winston Churchill].

    Of course, Churchill’s world has gone forever.

    Twenty years ago, until the collapse of the Soviet Union, we lived in a world of two super-powers. The end of Soviet Communism changed the world. If it had not collapsed, I doubt we would have seen the horrors and genocide of Bosnia and Kosovo.

    Nor, if it had not collapsed, would the free market be so dominant or such a target for terrorist groups.

    Today, we live in a world that is economically liberal – and yet this free-market liberalism – adopted by East and West alike – is very controversial. But why should that be so when it is geared to promoting wealth and well-being? Why should economic freedom and radical militancy have both grown at the same time?

    For many reasons, but two predominate: the mal-distribution of that growing wealth, and because the free market is bringing about changes that disturb the absolutism of old faiths.

    Here – exposed immediately – are the twin roots of terror: fear and hatred.

    History is instructive here. When Britain had an Empire, we were cordially detested. Hundreds of millions resented our power and envied our wealth. Even as they paid lip service to our face, the rejoiced if we were embarrassed or discomforted.

    Today, terrorists direct these same emotions against secure nations – and most obviously the United States as the most powerful political, economic and military nation in the world.

    Sometimes, there is a tendency to think of terrorism as if it were a global conspiracy. Certainly, some groups have widespread and growing tentacles. It is true that sometimes there is co-operation between terrorist organisations: to take two far-away examples, those in the Mindanao region of Southern Philippines almost certainly have links to Malaysian and Indonesian groups.

    And those in Southern Thailand seem to have sympathisers in Malaysia. Some terrorists are mercenaries for hire, unconcerned by any particular cause, and motivated only by hatreds and greed.

    Certainly, they are fanatics without conscience: “I have no regrets. I acted alone and on orders from God”. Thus, the extremist who murdered Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel.

    Sadly there are many like him.

    But there is no worldwide conspiracy. Mostly, terrorist groups are close-knit, relatively small organisations, with their own causes however perverted, and their own ambitions, however ill-conceived.

    Their causes may overlap – and occasionally merge – but they are not joined together in an over-arching organisation. It is important to understand this if we are to tailor a response to terror that will defeat it.

    But, since the rise of Al Qaeda, there is a layer of peripheral groups who share the same ideology, seek the same ends and use similar tactics.

    The Al Qaeda philosophy is out of kilter with mainstream Islam, especially the moderate Islam that is the basic character of the religion.

    Al Qaeda’s objective is the unification of the Islamic community around the world; its purification and the imposition of the most literal translation of strict Sharia Law.

    They wish to see the world divided between Islam – and everyone else. It is an isolationist philosophy, wholly out of tune with the modern world.

    Their tactics we know: distortion of the Koran, indiscriminate terror; and the call for a Holy War – Jihad – against all who oppose them. It is an unappetising menu and it cannot be ignored.

    For millions of people around the world, terror now looms as a widespread threat: the fear of global war has gone but it has been superseded by the fear of global terror.

    When Kipling wrote these famous lines:

    “East is East and West is West,
    And never the twain will meet”,
    he had not realised we would live in a global market, or face the common threat of terror.

    None of this is new. Terrorism is not new: it has been with us since ancient times; but now, like the economy, terror is globalising. Terrorism is not a Nation. Terrorism is Al Qaeda; Hezbollah, ETA, IRA, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, Kashmiri and Punjabi Separatists; Pattani United Liberation Organisation; GIA … the list goes on.

    Groups that are secretive, diverse, that hide their money, men and weapons hidden as effectively as they close their minds to any message but their own.

    Today, terrorism is a threat to much of the world. It is not targeted only against the Governments of the West. Think of the bombs in Bali. Or Jerusalem. Or the school siege in Moscow. Or Sarin gas in Tokyo. Or atrocities in Kashmir. The signature of mass-casualty terrorism can be seen worldwide.

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

    But terrorism has not been effective in the post-Colonial world.

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

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

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

    Terrorism can claim none of these victories – it exposes frustration but it often entrenches what it wishes to destroy: it is – ultimately – immoral and unsuccessful in achieving its aims. Ghandi was far more successful in effecting change than Bin Laden will ever be. As we look ahead, it is vital terror fails in Iraq, too – for a success for terrorism would boost it throughout the world and every corner of the world would suffer.

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

    In Northern Ireland, the intent was to absorb the North into a united Ireland. In Thailand it was to create a Separatist Buttani State in the Name of Islam. Always, the effect is to create chaos.

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

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

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

    The characteristics of modern terror are becoming more apparent each day. Terrorism has developed a particular flavour: it has become a tool of religious fanatics and a vehicle to destroy the free market system.

    One new phenomenon is the willingness of terrorists to sacrifice their own lives for their cause. We saw this in the 9/11 attacks in New York and have seen it since in Iraq and Palestine and London. A pattern is forming.

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

    As democracy and terrorism confront one another, one question must be asked at the outset: can a war against terror be won at all? Is it possible that such a shadowy concept as terrorism can be identified, isolated and defeated?

    With one caveat, my answer is – Yes, it can.

    The caveat is that history tells us terrorist groups are rarely entirely destroyed: they split and smaller groups, sometimes made up of the hardest of hardliners, replace them. It is not, therefore, a short conflict. But, over time, they can be beaten and the potency of their threat removed.

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

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

    To win, all those nations threatened by terrorism need to co-operate. This coalition of the willing must embrace every country that is – or wishes to be – democratic. These States must work together to deny terrorists their safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. They must deny them their causes.

    And, to defeat the ideological threat they pose, we must understand the motives that drive them and re-educate the minds of those who have sympathy with them.

    We must accept we cannot win by military power alone, but concede that we cannot win without it. Terrorism has been growing for many years – too many years – before democracy began to retaliate effectively after the terrorists over-reached themselves with the attacks on New York.

    Now, many Nations are engaged in what will be a complex and protracted battle – not least of minds.

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

    But these measures are simply policing action against existing terror groups. Vital – but insufficient. We must go further. We must ask ourselves – what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists to tacitly support them? What can we do to make terrorism so totally abhorrent that terrorists are utterly isolated?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable.

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

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

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

    To put that into context: we spend seven times as much subsidising cheap food for those already well-fed, as the whole world spends on all the needs of those with no food in their bellies at all.

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

    And it is in our interests to remove grievances, to cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. Moreover, as we act, we foreclose on misery and hardship to come and undercut the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    As we combat terrorism, we must realise that specific events or conflicts will always be used to promote the cause: a moment ago I cited the Middle East Peace Process as one such illustration of this.

    The Arab-Israel dispute is heartrendingly difficult to solve.

    Palestine has become the issue that is, above all, the poison in the well of relations between Islam and the rest of the world.

    The strong support that many countries have given to Israel over many years is based on admiration for a talented nation whose whole history is one of persecution. In my experience, support for Israel does not imply an anti-Palestinian bias.

    And yet, it is not seen that way: in the eyes of many in the Muslim world, pre-occupied with the truly pitiable living conditions of their fellow Muslims in Palestine, that support for Israel rankles.

    A solution would transform relationships. And it is vital for both sides. Israel will never be truly safe without security and recognition and acceptance by the Arab States: and Palestine needs a future. An active peace process is vital – without one there is a vacuum into which terror and mayhem step too readily.

    We have seen too much of that in recent years as a low grade war has simmered always at risk of becoming a full scale war. In Gaza, wicked men have encouraged foolish young men and women to become human bombs in Israel – and another such horror occurred just a few days ago.

    Often, this has provoked retaliation and counter retaliation. It has been a playground for the terrorist. Hope has been dashed for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Let me return to Palestine – for there is more we can learn from it. We can learn that economic revival is vital. For a land without hope breeds only resentment.

    We can learn that no-one should expect trust to spring forth from suspicion. We can learn it is never easy to wring out compromises from entrenched positions. And we can learn that – sometimes – international diplomacy is essential, where trust has collapsed. These lessons are eternal.

    And so is the fact that the leaders of democracies must never despair and – in their frustration – leave the future in the hands of the war mongers.

    What else can Governments do? A great deal. Islamic Governments can speak out about the true nature of Islam, in order to counter the message of the Radicals.

    All Governments can work together to encourage inter-faith dialogue. They can modernise the curricula in their schools.

    They can address marginalisation in their societies.

    All these actions are part of the anti-terrorist campaign: it needs to reach out far wider than military and security action alone.

    I spoke earlier of how our world – as a whole – has changed.

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

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

    There is a pattern here in all aspects of our life. Science and technology is accelerating change which already takes place at break-neck speed.

    Are we to let all this be put at risk by terrorism?

    I think not. We all have too much to lose.

    Consider what has been achieved.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Vacuum cleaners and household detergents still lay in the future. Marie Curie had not discovered radium – nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity.

    There would have been amazement – even disbelief – at the news that Count Zeppelin was designing a machine that would fly. At that time, could anyone have ever imagined that – one day – it would be possible to breakfast in London and lunch in New York?

    The US is now the most powerful nation in the world – although the majority of economic growth has now tilted from West to East.

    The impact of all this is not simply on economics and politics.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars.

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

    Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination.

    It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears.

    Are we to let this be undermined by radical terrorism, whose ideas are rooted in attitudes from many centuries ago?

    Surely not.

    CONCLUSION

    Against the enormous changes that are taking place, we need what I call “grown-up” politics. For one small gesture can create a global impact.

    Three and a half years on, we can see that the events of September 11th, 2001 are giving us a masterclass in consequences. We need politics that confronts the uncomfortable. Politics that rises above the short-term and the soundbite; politics that is long-term; politics that knows it no longer controls all the pieces on the chequerboard; politics that adopts common ideals and rejects common abuse; politics that is directed to issues and not to personalities. We need joined-up commonsense politics.

    [Indistinct, but about when Yeltsin was asked to describe the political situation in the former Soviet Union in one word he said “good”, and when asked to describe it in two words, he said “not good”].

    Our task in this generation is to look critically at our world and see it how it is – so we can try and shape how it could be.

    We certainly have the ability to do so. Only time will tell whether we have the wisdom – and the will – to channel that ability into action.

    Upon that outcome, lies our future – and one of the challenges is to confront and defeat the spectre of terrorism that threatens so much.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Leonard Cheshire Leadership Dinner – 3 November 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Leonard Cheshire Leadership Dinner, held at Goldsmith’s Hall in London on Thursday 3rd November 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Earlier this evening, Nigel Broomfield – and the video he showed us – set out the ambitious plans the Leonard Cheshire charity has for the next ten years. They are very impressive.

    But as with other charities, they depend upon the leadership of what we now call civil society. At the moment, all developed countries – including ourselves – need, as never before, leaders at all levels who can make a difference to the communities in which they live. The belief that a benevolent Government can cure all the ills of society – and provide all the services it needs – is wrong; it never has and it never will.

    And, in a free society, it never could.

    Of course, this is anathema to those who believe in the “Fuhrer” principle of political leadership: yet the belief that one Leader can change the world to – as Voltaire put it – “the best of all possible worlds” – is wrong. And, actually, dangerous too.

    Often, those with such ambitions are monsters: Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, or, in living memory, Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

    My own experience has led me to prefer political leaders who don’t believe in their own infallibility. Gorbachev and Yeltsin were heirs to a long line of monsters – but they themselves were very human.

    [Indistinct, anecdotes about Gorbachev and Yeltsin].

    I think of Jacques Delors too. Delors was not heir to a long line of monsters although I did know some people who – wrongly – thought otherwise.

    I sometimes fear we live in a world in which personality and glamour is over-praised and solid worth is over-looked. The Father of cynicism is Diogenes – who, you will remember, travelled in daylight with a lantern to find an honest man – and failed. He would have understood how our society is often portrayed.

    Let me explain what I mean. In the 19th century, William Gladstone would walk around Soho collecting down-trodden ladies and take them to Downing Street for a Prayer Meeting with Mrs Gladstone. It was a well meaning piece of civil responsibility but rather open to mis-interpretation. Can you imagine The Sun headline today? I’m afraid I can – and it would not be flattering.

    And yet, underneath this worldly cynicism, something altogether better exists in our society: a willingness to care for others. Diogenes, were he here, would have danced with delight and thrown away his Lantern.

    Certainly, Leonard Cheshire would have met his ideals: he is an outstanding example of someone who was honest to himself, to his conscience, and bridged different forms of leadership – in his case, military and civil leadership.

    As a young bomber pilot exposed again and again to extreme danger and won a VC for outstanding bravery.

    Towards the end of the War, together with Dr William Penney, he was an observer of the atom bomb dropped on Nagasaki. They saw at first hand the enormous destruction of life. It was a chilling moment that changed the world – and it left an indelible impression on Leonard Cheshire himself.

    Perhaps it shaped him as well. Because, after the War, he sought an outlet for his courage and humanity in caring for others.

    He started by taking one man, Arthur Dykes, who was suffering from incurable cancer, into his own house at Lee Court in order to care for him.

    From that small first step, and through his own example and leadership, has grown the biggest charity in the UK, offering help to disabled people.

    All of us can remember the effect on our lives, our outlooks and attitudes made by the influence of unsung people contributing to their communities. Not inspired by personal gain, but by conviction and humanity.

    One of the things which makes me most proud of being British is the amazing willingness of people in all walks of life to contribute: sometimes to sudden highly emotive appeals such as the Tsunami or the South Asia earthquake. But more often, people give time and effort to local organisations. Some big – most small.

    In charities up and down the land this means people are prepared to take on the duties and obligations of Trustees, to accept responsibility, to offer care, to devote their time and talents – often for years – to causes close to their heart.

    It means people willing and able to run homes for the disabled, the elderly, young people’s clubs and many other organisations. Leading by example, day by day, year after year, often unrecognised, sometimes with little thanks.

    These people are not Saints. They are ordinary people moved by a special compassion or commitment, or, more prosaically, by a simple acceptance of duty, of obligation.

    They are motivated by a belief that, in some small way, they are their brother’s keeper and they do have a responsibility beyond their own interest and those of their family. I never cease to be in awe of the contribution made by these remarkable people. They do it because they can and because they believe they should.

    In a world that has become globalised and more impersonal, we will need more of that commitment. We live at a time in which countries like India and China are becoming major influences in the “New World Order”. Trans-national threats and challenges are increasing. As a result of these changes, decisions affecting our lives often seem to be taken ever further away from our influence or our understanding. As this unfolds, the more we need to nurture our communities, to find and encourage leaders who will make a difference.

    If we fail in this endeavour, our countries may become wealthier in aggregate; our GNP may rise and per capita wealth increase; but our society will fracture. “What shall it profit a man if he wins the whole world but loses his soul?” mused Sir Thomas More.

    It is not only a good question – but, in our modern world with all its pressures, it is an appropriate one.

    So I hope that charities like Leonard Cheshire and others will continue to attract leaders at all levels; that Leonard Cheshire itself will be a leader in its field and will continue to prove again the old dictum that not everything which is un-quantifiable is unimportant.

    In today’s world – in today’s society – what the charitable sector is doing is becoming more, not less, important. We should all take our lead from their example.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on BBC Sunday AM – 23 October 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC Sunday AM show with Andrew Marr, broadcast live on 23rd October 2005.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s been said that the leadership election has made the Conservative Party interesting again. Well, the debate about its future has certainly moved out of Westminster and during the next six weeks it will be taken around the country as the two candidates, the two Daves, address a series of hustings.

    Now someone with very clear views on the challenges facing whichever David eventually wins the crown is of course the former Prime Minister John Major. Welcome to the show this morning.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Good morning Andrew, it’s a pleasure to be here.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now, what you’re not going to do I guess is say I’m for Cameron or I’m for Davis. Am I right about that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    You’re absolutely right about that and for a very good reason. I’ve watched the Conservative Party for 15 years factionalise. We had five good candidates, we’ve now got two. I’m absolutely clear in my mind who I shall vote for but that’s a matter for me and whoever wins I will support.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Tell me then what you think about the direction of the party. Did you have any regrets looking back, from the time that you were leader, because, you know, things were tough then and then they got worse?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think if you look back of course you have regrets. I mean there were very special circumstances in the ’90s. When I became Prime Minister we had already been in government for 11 years. We were heading deep into a recession. People forget the day I became Prime Minister we had interest rates at 14%.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We were heading into a recession, unemployment was rising. So it was a very uncomfortable period. And it was a period where since we had been there so long we were very unfashionable almost from the start, from the moment we won the ’92 election we were pretty unfashionable.

    The right wing press thought we weren’t right wing enough. The left wing press thought we were too right wing. And trying to run a centrist, moderate Conservative government had very little friends on either side of the political divide. Now I think that has changed.

    I think the Conservative Party has learned you cannot win an election from the right, just as the Labour party had to learn you can’t win from the left. And so I think they’re heading now for what I would call centrist the slogan term is one nation politics. But what it actually means is politics that addresses the everyday concerns of the people watching this programme, and those who are not. I think that’s what’s now happening.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s got to be a moderate mainstream party and you think the party itself has got that message?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m absolutely certain of it. I mean I spent a lot of time before the last election quietly going round speaking for individual candidates. And there are some very attractive young candidates who were around. I think it’s the best intake we’ve had for a long time. And I got a good feel from the Tory grass roots as to what they were looking for. And they’re fed-up with losing.

    We’ve been down an ideological road, perhaps for too long, and perhaps too deeply. We do not shed our convictions. Convictions remain, but I think you have to look at convictions in terms of what is happening in society, how is society changing? The purpose of a government is to improve the lot of people and to hand on something better for the next generation. Now I think that message has absolutely got through now.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Could you have taken on that struggle harder, in a more hard-edged way when you were leader?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes, I could. I could. And in many ways I wish I had. I mean I should have taken on those people who were so violently Euro-sceptic and violently right-wing. I should have taken them on more head-on. And I regret that I didn’t. the reason I didn’t was that I was afraid from the moment that I became Prime Minister I was standing on a widening hole in the ground. And I was concerned the Conservative party would split. So I probably gave too much emphasis at the time to making sure the party didn’t split and that it stayed together, and it did. But in retrospect, yes, I think I probably could have done more.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If you had confronted…

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    You look surprised!

    ANDREW MARR:

    I am surprised at that, yes. I mean, because you rarely get people suggesting that it might have been better to split their own party, which is what you are suggesting. But you’re suggesting that…

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No I’m not suggesting…

    ANDREW MARR:

    It would have been a splinter – well you would have lost some people…

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’d have lost some people, yes. But I think if I had pushed some people more to the side I think that would have been better. I also think it would have been better if we’d continued to seek to do that more rapidly after 1997. We had a very bad defeat in 1945, a comparable defeat, but we were back in office within six years.

    Now I think we have learned the lessons that went wrong. I think the infection of too much ideology, and I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t have convictions, we must have. But I think the infection of too much ideology has drained away now. And I think the Conservative party is ready now to fight very hard to get back into government.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Michael Portillo says that there’s still what he calls repellent people in the Conservative Party, and David Cameron or David Davis, whoever takes over, is going to have to confront them, deal with them?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well there’s a tiny minority. I think there is a tiny minority of people, whether they’re repellent is – that’s not an expression I would use – but they had views that I don’t personally remotely find acceptable.

    ANDREW MARR:

    We won’t say the word bastards at this point!

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no, no, it’s a term of affection. But, yes, there are a handful of them. But they are a handful and they’re increasingly being isolated in the Conservative Party. And I may say there are some pretty unacceptable people in the Labour Party as well. So it’s not unique to us.

    It’s not a problem that we uniquely face, but they’re becoming a minority. If you look, for example, at this recent Conservative leadership election which I think has provided a very attractive focus on the Conservative Party, we had five credible leaders. We’re now down to two.

    If the Labour Party had a leadership contest there’s talking of a coronation, with one possible leader who’s a bit shop-soiled, and who’s policies may soon mean a lot of shops start to close. So I think you begin to see the change in the terms of the political trade.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You think this is a sort of change in the weather moment politically?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It feels like it. I can’t be certain but it feels like it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    When you were leader, of course Europe was the great thing. It was the cause, the immediate cause of the argument. Do you think that’s now gone away?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it’s lost its salience. Of course it hasn’t gone away it’s still a very important issue. But I think if you look back at Europe, what has actually saved this country is the fact that in 1992 I negotiated an opt-out from the single currency. And in 1995 I offered the country a referendum on the single currency that the Labour Party was forced to match. Now had I not taken those two actions I think the Labour Party would have taken us into the Euro in the late 1990s and we would have had a very difficult scenario.

    So I think that was right and I think the many people who scoffed and said he’s sitting on the fence, I remember the Prime Minister once saying weak, weak, weak, because I wouldn’t commit myself to going into the Euro. Well, I was right not to.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So he’s done well?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    And with a majority.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So he’s done well out of that weakness and you would also say presumably that they’ve done very well out of your economic legacy.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I would certainly say that. The economic legacy that Gordon Brown had in 1997 was the best that any incoming Chancellor’s had, probably at any time this century. And the European problems, many of them were drained away for the present government by the policies that were enacted by the previous government, and for which they faced a huge amount of criticism. So yes, I would say that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Given all of that, were you sad to see Ken Clarke removed from the race so early?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes, I was. Ken’s a very old friend. He’d have made a very fine leader of the Conservative Party, a very fine Prime Minister. But I live in hope that when we have selected one of the two Davids that we’ll have a Shadow Cabinet that includes Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind, William Hague, David Davis, Liam Fox, people like David Willetts, Alan Duncan.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Leader of the Lords, Lord Major?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    [Laughs]. Oh no no, I think not. And I think if you matched the top, the likely top ten in the Shadow Cabinet once we have selected a leader they are a more impressive group intellectually and politically than the present government. And that’s what I mean by this may be a moment when the terms of political trade begin to change. And what takes a while to work through but it’s on its way now.

    ANDREW MARR:

    What’s the great issue that the Conservatives should be picking up domestically do you think?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well there isn’t one single issue. I think there’s a range of things that we should do. And I think it’s partly, it’s primarily of course policy. But partly style. I think there should be some changes in style.

    I think when people look at this Punch and Judy show that takes place between the two main parties, it’s very entertaining once or twice, but then it gets very tedious and very boring. I think we should change that. I think also there should be no more of this spin and sound-bite. I think it has soiled politics. I think you need a Civil Service Act to restore the independence of the Civil Service.

    And I think also in terms of policy we need to start looking, not at tomorrow’s headlines, but at the deeper issues we have to solve over the next 20 years and there are many of them – pensions, in a very great problem now, not least because of the taxes out of pensions the present Chancellor has taken. Education, where I think, I listened to Ruth Kelly earlier with interest. And I think every government for the last 30 years has got education policy wrong. I think there are things that do need to change.

    ANDREW MARR:

    What should be done now then?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’ll come back to that. I think towards longer-term policies on the environment. Those people who are often scoffed at as people with beards and green wellies 20 years ago are turning out to be largely right. Transport policy. All of those things need a very long term examination so that we can see where we’re going, not just between now and the next election. Not just some snippy little sound-bite, but a really long-term policy. And in people like Oliver Letwin and David Willetts, we have people who should be sent into the back room and think about the next 20 years.

    ANDREW MARR:

    These things are all going to be difficult and controversial. I mean you can’t have environment policy.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    That’s fine, politics is difficult and controversial.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Exactly, which doesn’t tackle what Margaret Thatcher used to call the great car economy and the congestion and the pollution.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s wider than that, it’s a good deal wider than that. Of course there are problems with CO2 emissions for example, and the damage that’s undoubtedly doing to the environment generally. But also you do need to look, as you say, at cars.

    You do need to look at the elements of public transport. You do need to look at pricing policy. You do need to look at how you get investment into the private sector of transport which of course was a reason for privatising British Rail some years ago. A whole range of things, none of which I agree with you, are easy.

    Not all of which will be popular. But I think I’ll have a little bet with you about one thing. I think the first politician who raises his voice above the clamour of everyday disputes and says in a clear-cut way “these are the problems we have to face in the next 30 years” and this is how I think we should move towards meeting those problems.

    I think there is a huge audience of people who’ve switched off politics, waiting to hear that message, who will rally to the politician and the party that begins to produce that message.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You live, if I may say so, in the slightly rarified world of former global leaders and business leaders around the world. You don’t sound to me like somebody who has lost his appetite for domestic politics entirely?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’ve lost my appetite for being part of domestic politics. I think that is probably true. Have I lost my interest in it? No. I try and look back honestly at the things we got right and the things we got wrong. Somebody once said experience is the name people give to their mistakes.
    And I think we can learn from what we did right and what we did wrong. And I do actually care about what happens to the country and I do actually care about what happens to the Conservative Party, it did go too right wing for my taste, I didn’t like it, I wasn’t comfortable with it.

    I’m getting much more comfortable by the day. And from what I hear going round the constituencies that is true of many, many, many other people. And I think it’s a very attractive direction in which we’re now heading.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So the old right wing Tories that you had so many terrible, terrible fights with, are going off the stage, aren’t they?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think they are diminishing in importance. They’re always there. The Conservative Party is like a bird, it has a right wing, it has a left wing. But it keeps its brain in the centre.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But the right wing, in your view, it was so big that it was falling over.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think the right wing had too much power, too much authority. And it had enormous support from the media at the time. People misread the 90s as though they were in the 80s. In the 1980s you had an unelectable Labour government and a country that had been on its knees in 1979. You could safely move to the right and carry the public with you. In the 1990s you couldn’t do that.

    The Labour Party were more electable and the problems that had brought the country to its knees had largely been solved and yet there were still people who wished to move to the right.

    ANDREW MARR:

    In the late 2000s we will see. John Major thank you very much indeed for joining us.

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to Baroness Blatch – 20 October 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s tribute to the Rt Hon The Baroness Blatch CBE, given at St Margaret’s, Westminster in London, on Thursday 20th October 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Sometimes when friends leave us they fade in the memory. Emily won’t: she will be with us – always – in technicolour.

    As a child, Emily Triggs lived with her grandmother in Birkenhead. At 18, she left home to join the Royal Air Force. Ahead of her lay a lifetime of concern for the Armed Services; Education; the vulnerable; charities and so much more. It was a path that led her to be the Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council; a senior Minister in Government; and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords. The Rt Hon The Baroness Blatch of Hinchingbrooke was never a mere observer of life, always a contributor, and for her work she became a Commander of the British Empire, a Privy Councillor and a Peer of the Realm.

    Emily met John Blatch when she was an Air Traffic Controller and he was a pilot: “Wasn’t I lucky?”, she said to me of a marriage that lasted happily for 42 years, “He’s such a good listener”. And with a smile of self-realisation that was pure Emily, she added, “fortunately”.

    John was a rock for Emily – in public life and in thousands of private moments. Yes – she was lucky to have him – just as we were lucky to know her.

    She was so proud of their children, Andrew, Elizabeth, James – and David, who died when he was only 14. She was besotted with her grandchildren, little Emily and baby Max – even before they were born.

    I was with Emily one day in Hinchingbrooke Hospital when James and baby Emily visited. The little girl bustled around like a tiny image of her grandmother, then clambered onto the bed to be cuddled. Her face was full of determination – the bloodline was clear – the world may well hear more of another Emily Blatch.

    It is 30 years since Emily became woven into the warp and weft of my life. For me, as for others, she was a friend in good days and bad. When I was selected as a Parliamentary candidate, Emily was there. When I was elected to Parliament, Emily was there. When I became Prime Minister, Emily was there. When I left Office, Emily was there. When Norma and I holidayed on the Nile, or on the Mediterranean, Emily was there. When we saw the sun rise on the new Millennium deep in the Kalahari Desert, Emily was there.

    Throughout her life, she was there to help a great many people. Some she barely knew but – if they needed help – Emily was there. And one only has to look around this Church to see that her friendships were enduring.

    Emily had an infectious warmth. We have all seen her, a thousand times, enter a room and light it up; smiling, chattering, cajoling, persuading – arguing; bringing people into a conversation, asking – caring – about their families, always widening the circle of those who already knew her to be a truly exceptional woman.

    Emily never trimmed or counted the cost – she said what she thought and she lived by what she said. Her friends and her convictions were sacrosanct. Neither would ever be sacrificed. She was always courageous. And never more so than in facing her last great battle. She knew the odds she faced with that malignant disease. Without a shred of self-pity she looked death in the eye – and gave him an almighty fight.
    Emily was too human not to have faults. Lovely, she was. Saintly, she wasn’t. If she disapproved of something (or someone), she would burst with outrage – but it was skin-deep and never soured by malice.

    And did you ever know her not to have an opinion? Nor did I.

    Or, when she did, to keep it to herself? Neither did I.

    Did you ever know her to be on time? Absolutely not. Emily would come scurrying to every meeting: breathless, arms full of papers, slightly windswept and late – as usual.

    She took on too much. Quite simply, a good cause was like a magnet and Emily was a girl who couldn’t say “No”.

    Driving a car was sometimes a challenge too far. Twice, she took out the barrier at her local Waitrose; her mind pre-occupied with some cause. She drove her son’s new car from Cambridge and complained it was sluggish and didn’t smell right. Not surprising really – one of the tyres was on fire.

    Sometimes, she listened with only half an ear. I took her son, James, to the Canterbury cricket week, where we lunched with the great Kent and England wicket keeper, Leslie Ames.

    James told his Mum all about it – and, later, she shared his enthusiasm with friends. He had met some famous cricketer – she couldn’t remember who – and had lunched at a French Restaurant – called Les Aimes.

    Emily left us all too soon. With too much still to do. Too much to live for. But, while she was here, not a moment of her precious time was ever wasted.

    Emily may now have gone from our sight, but she will remain in our conversation, in our memories, in our lives today and tomorrow – just as she was yesterday. How can she not? There is too much to forget – and too much we wish to remember – of one of the most vivacious personalities we may ever know.

    While she was here, Emily enriched our lives. Now, she has gone ahead of us – to join David, the son she loved and lost – and to learn the truth of life’s last mystery. For Emily believed in her God: may He too have been there to greet her and guide her and guard her.

  • Sir John Major’s Article for Reformer Magazine – 15 October 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s article for Reformer Magazine, published in October 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    For a while in the 1990s it seemed as if the Conservative Party might split. Such an outcome was always my nightmare as Prime Minister when the factions fighting over Europe created such bitter divisions: the dissenters utterly ignored the wider issues that have always united Conservatives and, as a result, we presented an unattractive spectacle to the electorate. That time – thankfully – has gone and UKIP has been spawned now as the natural home for irreconcilable euro-phobes.

    Brighter times lie ahead. The new intake has talent. The leadership contenders are contributing thoughtful policy ideas for the future. The Party seems finally to understand how far it drifted from mainstream opinion. These are the pre-conditions for electoral success.

    Of course, the Party must continue to change. It always has done – there is nothing new about that. But, as it adapts, it should not – and must not – throw away the core of its instincts: to do so would make it as conviction-free as New Labour. Nor should the differing priorities of “modernisers” and “traditionalists” disturb us. Both subscribe to the core tenets of Conservatism and have ideas to make it more relevant to the future. We should examine them all and adopt the best.

    As I read the policy ambitions of the putative Leaders I am broadly confident that whoever wins will be able to devise an attractive policy agenda – but there are a number of further changes that will add immeasurably to our attraction as a Government-in-waiting.

    Our representation in the Commons is still too narrowly based: it does not yet reflect the infinite variety of our national composition. We should try and make it do so. Similarly, the new Shadow Cabinet will need to include talent from all shades of opinion in the Party – and I hope none of the senior figures will decline to serve.

    It is vital, too, that our tone of voice should be more generous, more inclusive, more willing to recognise disparate points of view even if we disagree with them. The arrogant assumption there is only one way, one view and it is ours, is deeply unattractive and a real vote loser.

    Finally, I hope our new Leader will set out a menu of the really difficult long-term issues that face us: pensions; the inadequacy of education; the relationship with Scotland; our role in the world – and address them. He or she should do so after consultation with specialists inside and outside the Party – listening to all points of view is a strength, not a weakness – and then, in a series of reflective speeches, explain the kind of country we wish to create.

    An exciting time lies ahead for our Party: I wish our new Leader every success.

  • Sir John Major’s Article on the Memories of the Oval – 7 September 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on “The Memories of the Oval”, published by The Times on 7th September 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is over fifty years since I first entered The Oval: now, welcome shadows from the past are my companions on every visit. For me, The Oval has so many happy memories that my heart lifts the moment I arrive – even for the most mundane of games. It even provided sanctuary on the day of my departure from Downing Street: the spectators gathered there that afternoon expressed words of sympathy upon my defeat before turning to the more important matter of cricket.

    As a young boy at The Oval, clutching sandwiches and a bottle of Tizer, I sat on the wooden benches opposite the famous Gasometers watching the greatest County side of all (sorry, Yorkshire) win the Championship seven years in a row. The Oval was always my first destination during the long summer holiday.

    Games from those early years are still bright and clear in my mind. Stuart Surridge – the only man I ever saw who seemed able to scratch his ankles while standing up – snaffling impossible catches with his elastic arms. Alec Bedser, stately as a galleon, as he bowled over after over, and Laker and Lock making the spinning ball spit and turn off a length. When Bert Lock, the groundsman (no relation) swept the wicket and the dust rose high, the Surrey supporters roared in anticipation much as the Romans must have done as the lions entered the Colosseum.

    We, too, expected carnage – and we got it.

    Memories crowd in. Aged 10, I couldn’t get a ticket for the Final Ashes Test in 1953. I heard a tout had some for sale, and rushed up to him eagerly, money clutched tightly in hand, but he looked at me with scorn and named a premium far beyond my means. With wet eyes, I withdrew and had to settle with disappointment for the radio instead. But I did see Denis Compton’s final Test Innings in 1956: 94 caught, right in front of me, backward of square, and sweeping of course.

    Once, I attempted to time how many seconds it took a Peter May drive to hit the Pavilion fence. In doing so, I dropped my father’s precious gold stop-watch which fell to the stone terracing – and died. In pieces, I took it home, apprehensive and guilt-ridden. My father held the broken screws and springs in his left hand and delicately lifted them with thumb and forefinger from his palm to the kitchen table. I waited in trepidation: “Tell me”, he said, “about this Peter May”.

    Other shadows are ever-present: Clyde Walcott, massive and powerful, enchanting a West Indian crowd in calypso mood. Vic Wilson of Yorkshire, cutting and glancing his way to a charming 40-odd late on a summer’s afternoon. Ian Botham, smashing a double hundred against India that threatened the very fabric of the Pavilion – memory is an unlimited treasure trove to dip into at will.

    Sometimes, it rains (please, not today) and Oval habitués fill the wet gaps with their reminiscences. As a boy, on the old raked wooden seats, I heard gnarled old-timers speak of Jack Hobbs. Years later, as one Test Match day drew soggily to an early close, I was talking to some former Test players, one of whom remembered it was Don Bradman’s birthday. We phoned the Don from the Committee Room and he chatted amiably as we reported the rain-curtailed play. “So what’s the weather like in sunny Australia?” I asked. “Dunno” said the Don, “it’s 4 o’clock in the morning down here!”

    Bradman was much on our minds that day as, during an earlier break, there’d been a discussion as to which end he was batting in his final Test Match, when Eric Hollies famously bowled him for nought.

    “Surely you must know,” one of the group said, turning to Arthur Morris, who was quietly sipping a glass of wine: “Yes”, said Arthur placidly,

    “I was at the other end. I scored 196”.

    Those who visit The Oval today will see the new Stand that Surrey has built at the Vauxhall End which is, I think, as fine as any in cricket. I was privileged to be President of Surrey for two seasons when this project began and played a small part in bringing it about. We began fundraising with an England v Rest of the World team led by Sachin Tendulkar. Alas, Sachin fell ill the night before the game, and was confined to his hotel room. But the crowd forgave us. The sun shone. The game was played, and the memory bank was fed again. So were the coffers, and Surrey went on to build the Stand.

    As the crowd pours into The Oval on this first day of the Final Test, there will be high hopes and expectations. From the very young, to the very old, England’s second greatest invention – after its language – has once more gripped the nation.

    Many years ago, when I was a young Whip in the Commons, I had to sit for hours on the Treasury Bench listening to (often rather boring) speeches.

    I passed the time writing brief poetic sketches of the Parliamentary characters of the day (best not published in their – or my – lifetime).

    Trapped on the bench during a Test Match, I scribbled a “Cricket Prayer”, a fragment of which I still recall:

    “Oh, Lord, if I must die today,

    Please make it after Close of Play.

    For this, I know, if nothing more,

    I will not go, without the score …”

    Hardly Wordsworth, I know, but it is a sentiment that many will share over the next five days. On the field will be some of the greatest talents in world cricket of whom, one day, old men – now small boys – will babble in awe.

    This Ashes Series has been the stuff of legend. Drama has been commonplace and, in at least two cricket-loving nations, many millions will focus on this final game. As for me – oh, lucky me – I’m off to The Oval …

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to Sir Edward Heath – 18 July 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s tribute to Sir Edward Heath, published in the Guardian on 18th July 2005, following his death the previous day.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    A big man has gone and we shall miss him.

    Ted Heath will be remembered most as the Prime Minister who took our country into the Common Market. It was a controversial decision but the correct one, even if it was never accepted by many in his own Party.

    I often talked to Ted about what activated him. He saw, in the early 1950s, the rising power of the United States, of the Soviet Union and he foresaw the increasing influence of China and non-Japanese Asia. He drew the conclusion that, unless they worked together, individual nation states were at risk of becoming pygmies in a world of giants. His judgement was correct then and remains so today.

    Ted was activated also by the finest of all human emotions – the wish to preserve peace and security and avoid war. He had served in the Army with distinction between 1939 and 1945 and there is no doubt the War left a lasting influence upon his politics. He saw the Nazis. He saw hate and extremism and it disgusted him. He wished to play a part in drawing together Nations that had long been locked in enmity – so that war could never again occur. This emotion was a guiding star for many of his political instincts.

    Ted Heath was a politician for whom policy mattered more than personality. He could dislike his opponents but where he did, it was likely to be on policy rather than on personal grounds. He strongly disliked the “us” and “them” mentality that pervaded and split the Conservative Party so seriously in the 80’s and 90’s. The former Chief Whip in him looked on in disbelief as the Party factionalised. These divisions are passing now but did great harm over a long period.

    Ted had inelastic principles and this often left him a sitting target. Harold Wilson’s jibe of “Selsdon Man” struck and hurt him politically and was a brilliant piece of invective. It was also in essence wrong: Ted Heath was a One Nation Conservative to his core and it was his misfortune that events and a sour economy led him into confrontation with the miners and the imposition of a three-day week. In later years, he spoke dispassionately of these events but I never heard him malign the miners.

    No doubt mistakes were made but this was not a confrontation that the Conservative Government sought. I still believe that if Ted had been an opportunist, or more nimble politically, he would have called the 1974 General Election earlier for 7 February – and would probably have won it. We shall never know but we do know he polled more votes than the Labour Party and was defeated not by the electorate and the wish for a Labour Government but by out-of-date constituency boundaries. He lost, too, because he delayed too long seeking a negotiated agreement with the miners and did not wish to take political advantage of confrontation.

    Ted could be grumpy, even curmudgeonly, in his personal relationships. He could also be charming, was well informed far beyond politics, talented in music and yachting and excellent company. Many say he was uncomfortable with women: that was not always so. Norma and Ted would happily talk of music and opera without any difficulties and be oblivious to the presence of everyone else. It is true, though, that Ted was impatient of pointless cocktail-party chatter. It was too frivolous for him. He had a gift for the long view and could be riveting in one-to-one discussion. Anecdote and wisdom were there aplenty and also a wicked wit – sometimes, even a sly one, that exposed critics to ridicule. He rarely used this gift fully in public for which many of his opponents may feel truly grateful: it is, frankly, more than they deserved. Ted was among the last of the War generation in politics – warriors by experience who saw and understood the futility of conflict. He knew, too, political debate was often futile if the views of opponents were dismissed without consideration, and consensus for him was a noble objective.

    A remarkable man has gone. His detractors remain but they loose their arrows at a far bigger figure than they will ever be. Ted’s record, warts and all, was as a statesman rather than as a politician: upon that let him be judged and remembered.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on the National Lottery – 1 May 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments on the National Lottery which were published in The Observer on 1st May 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I established the Lottery because I believed that sport, the arts, and our national heritage would never be able to compete with health and education to attract taxpayers’ funds, and therefore lost out.

    From the outset, I believed the money raised by the Lottery had to be additional to existing funding and not a substitute for it. At the time, the Labour Opposition shared that view, yet in Government, they have ransacked the Lottery time and again.

    My hope was to upgrade our national infrastructure and encourage active involvement in sport and the arts, as well as promote a greater appreciation of our national heritage. I have always believed that the social and health aspects of sport in particular are vitally important. I wanted our children to be fit not fat, team players not home-aloners.

    Over the last decade, the Lottery has transformed the arts and sport at national and grassroots level but it is a tragedy that this Labour Government use it simply as a bran tub into which they can dip their sticky fingers whenever they need additional money for what – historically – has been funded by the Treasury. Their behaviour is a complete betrayal of their own promises when the Bill passed through Parliament. And a complete betrayal of the very principle by which the Lottery was formed.

    29 April 2005

  • Sir John Major’s Comments at Chancellor Kohl’s 75th Birthday Celebration – 11 April 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments made at Chancellor Kohl’s 75th birthday celebration, held at the German History Museum in Berlin on Monday 11th April 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Helmut Kohl is one of the towering figures in German history. He served as Chancellor for 16 years; entrenched Germany at the core of Europe; ushered in reunification and fathered a new currency.

    During the time I knew Helmut, I came to know the intense human man behind the public image. It is that Helmut, the private man, sometimes the rather emotional man, the man with a gift for friendship, who brings so many people here this evening.

    My meetings with Helmut were never dull. Nor did they focus only on business. Before we turned to any agenda, we exchanged jokes, discussed friends, dissected opponents and considered events: our conversation was wholly relaxed and occasionally scurrilous. Certainly it doesn’t bear repeating this evening.

    But I can take you behind the curtain a little. There are some cameos of politics with Helmut that I shall never forget.

    EU Summit in Birmingham

    The British Government had recently closed down a large number of unprofitable coal mines. The miners, understandably, were furious.

    Thousands of them marched to the EU summit, surrounded the Hall and began chanting “Coal for ever.”

    Helmut, in the Conference Hall, heard the chant and was delighted … he was confident that Anglo-German relations had reached a new high. “There you are, John” he said, “they love the Euro.”

    Three way conversation

    Helmut and I were meeting in Bonn when we heard reports of atrocities in The Balkans War. We phoned Boris Yeltsin and got him at the end of what had obviously been a very good lunch.

    Neither in Germany, nor in Russia, did we have appropriate interpreters with us. Each contribution to the conversation passed through a second language long before it reached the recipient in German, Russian or English. It was chaos.

    Helmut and Boris were shouting – one in Germany, the other in the Black Sea – and, frankly, they could have heard one another without phones. Our Ambassadors looked on horrified. When we put the phone down – confident we had saved the day – we learned the original report was false and no conversation had been necessary. We consoled ourselves with a glass of wine. The Ambassadors needed something stronger.

    Kurds

    Much more productive was the exchange at the end of the first Gulf War. The Iraqis were murdering the Kurds. I went to the European Union Summit with plans to establish a “Save Haven” for the Kurds.

    I put the plan to the meeting. Helmut agreed “Yes, John, very good. We’ll do it.” Francois Mitterrand said “France will do her duty.” The policy was borne. As a result, tens of thousands of lives were saved.

    That is the measure of the man we honour tonight. On behalf of us all Helmut, I wish you a very happy Birthday.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Bow Group – 23 February 2005

    The text of John Major’s speech at the annual Bow Group lecture, made on 23rd February 2005. The speech was entitled – The Conservative Economic Inheritance – An Examination of Reality.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    The economy is central to politics: now is a good time to look beyond the soundbites and separate fact from fiction.

    First, some background.

    By the late 1970s, our economy was a basket case. Inflation and industrial unrest had dragged us down. We were “The sick man of Europe”.
    In the 1980s, market reforms turned us once again into a competitive nation.

    In the 1990s, inflation was – finally – tamed.

    The 1970s were Labour years.

    The 1980s and 1990s were Conservative years during which the Labour contribution was to oppose the Government’s policy.

    There is a tendency to take the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at his word. A small vignette suggests this can be a mistake.

    On his first weekend as Chancellor, Gordon Brown was given a presentation on the economy. “The figures are fantastic”, he was told by officials at the Treasury, “much better than predicted”.

    “What am I supposed to do”, asked the Chancellor, “write a thank you letter?”. I use the neutral word “asked”: yet, in his biography of the Chancellor, Tom Bower’s use of “snarled” gives a more vivid picture of the exchange.

    That same weekend, the Chancellor’s spin doctor was despatched to brief the media that “errors” and “black holes” had been discovered, all of which “threatened a nightmare”.

    The spinner of this little fib was Charlie Whelan, the Chancellor’s “Man in the Red Lion Pub”, whom you may recall as Alastair Campbell without the charm.

    It was – of course – untrue. He knew it to be untrue. We all now know that it was untrue: none of these “nightmares” emerged. It was pure scene setting. Brown’s intention was to create a climate in which he – and he alone – could claim credit for the economic conditions he had inherited. It also had the secondary purpose of laying the groundwork for future tax rises to be blamed on his predecessors.

    So – what do the figures tell us?

    They are very clear.

    The economy began growing in the First Quarter of 1992.

    By 1997, there had been five years of progressive growth every Quarter.

    During that five year period:

    – interest rates were more than halved – to 6%;
    – inflation fell to 2.6%;
    – unemployment had been falling monthly since 1993;
    – fiscal deficit was narrowing and moving towards surplus.

    Moreover, despite the outcry over alleged punitive Tory tax rises between 1990/97, the facts are striking.

    In 1990/91, tax as a percentage of GDP – the accepted measure – was 35.9%.

    In 1997/8, it was 36%. The net increase over 7 years was 0.1%.

    As Treasury officials had told the incoming Chancellor – the figures were “fantastic” and better than those left by any previous Government.

    Indeed – as corroborative evidence – even as the new Chancellor denounced the Conservatives, he offered tacit admission of our legacy by sticking rigidly to our own expenditure plans – an unprecedented act of homage.

    Economic conditions unwind over a long period. Neither good nor bad policy reveals itself immediately – only in slower time can it be judged.

    When Gordon Brown boasts of the record length of continual growth he is right – he just fails to mention it began in 1992 and that the first half was during the years of Conservative Government. He offers no glimpse that it was created by those Conservatives who tamed the late 1980s boom, bore the pain of squeezing inflation out of the system, and who instigated inflation targeting. Norman Lamont and Ken Clarke should take a bow but the Chancellor writes them out of his script.

    What Gordon Brown writes into his script is the charge that the Conservatives were responsible for “boom and bust”. This is one of those fibs, repeated ad nauseum, until it is so fixed in the public mind it becomes the accepted truth. It is a rewriting of history. In fact, before 1990, all Parties could have had that charge levelled at them: “stop-go” had bedevilled our economy for decades. But, in the early 1990s, it was a Conservative Government that put an end to boom and bust: and it has not returned since.

    But not everything has rolled on unchanged.

    Since 1997, the economy has continued to grow, but taxes have grown far faster. Using the same measure for calculating tax rises as in the Conservative years – the ratio of taxes to GDP – we see taxes have risen from 36% of GDP to 37.1%. This is eleven times as fast. Moreover, Treasury estimates suggest a yet faster rate of increase of taxes in the next Parliament. The IFS, IMF, NIESR, CBI, BCC, and the OECD all concur that taxes must rise because this time, Charlie Whelan’s fictional “black hole” in the current account is real.

    Income tax rates have not risen – they are too visible, too politically sensitive.

    But the facts are as follows:
    – 7½ million taxpayers have been dragged into a higher marginal rate of
    tax by under-indexing thresholds;
    – National Insurance has gone up for Employers, Employees and the Self-employed; the earnings limit has also been abolished, despite the Prime Minister’s categorical assurance it would not do so;
    – Tax allowances – such as those for married couples, have been abolished.
    – Stamp duty tax on house purchases rise – again and again and again;
    – Mortgage Interest tax relief has been abolished;
    – The Council Tax payer has seen bills soar – far beyond inflation.
    – Fuel tax and Vehicle Excise Duty rise repeatedly.

    New and imaginative taxes have been invented, including a tax of £5 billion every year on Pensions creating a crisis that is continuing. The sum total lost to Pensions now exceeds £40 billion. As a result, many pensioners may have to retire later or live on less than they had anticipated.

    The Chancellor was given specific warnings about this – from many quarters: even the Prime Minister knew it was foolish but allowed himself to be overruled by the Chancellor. This folly – which will affect pensioners way beyond this Government’s term in Office – was wholly avoidable.

    Thus far, the cumulative total of tax rises is 66 – despite a growing economy yielding more revenue for the Exchequer without any additional rises whatsoever. Gordon Brown has out-taxed all his predecessors – and every commentator predicts more to come if Labour win the next election.

    Perhaps a more vivid indication of the scale of those rises is this: if they had all gone on to the standard rate of tax, rather than to every nook and cranny of our lives, the basic rate of tax would have risen to 39p in the Pound.

    The market reforms of the 1980s and the death of inflation in the 1990s created the robust and growing economy Gordon Brown inherited.

    But, although there may be a time-lag, tax rises on this scale are bound to have an effect:

    (i) The growth in our productivity has collapsed by one-third since 1997. There is still growth, but far less than in 1997.
    (ii) Private (non-residential) Investment has fallen to 1.1% per annum over recent years – one-tenth of the 11.2% in the mid-90s.
    (iii) We now have the largest Trade Deficit for over 300 years. The Chancellor hopes export growth will correct this but all the signs are that it is set to widen further as our share of world exports is falling.
    (iv) As a competitive Nation, we have dropped from 4th in 1998 to 12th in 2001, and 15th in 2003.
    (v) Household debt is soaring and savings are falling. Under Gordon Brown, the savings ratio has never been above 6.7%; between 1991/7 it was never below 9.3%. This is not a semantic statistic: it means people are becoming very vulnerable to unexpected economic shocks. Live today – and pay tomorrow – is a risky notion if taken too far.

    I could go on – but the central point is simple: slowly, the strong economic position that Labour inherited in 1997 is deteriorating.

    It has not gone – yet. But it is getting worse.

    We will hear none of this from the Chancellor.

    He will talk of success – not tax rises.

    He will talk of growth – not loss of productivity and competitiveness.

    He will talk of enterprise – not the regulatory mountain that now engulfs business and costs them £30 billion.

    So – when we hear exaggerated claims from the Chancellor – a little caution in accepting them would be well justified.