The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 2006

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

    A bloke wot had no boots at all,

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

    She did like people who was good and kind”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Michael Marshall was such a man.

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Now, China is re-asserting the old order.

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

    Their hands are full.

    INDIA

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

    LATIN AMERICA

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

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

    Today – between 6-7%.

    Budget deficits and country debts are falling.

    AFRICA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Secondly, international bodies.

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

    EUROPE

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

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

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

    Some issues are very pressing now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    AFGHANISTAN

    Much of this is relevant to Afghanistan.

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

    The Afghan mission is uncertain.

    Is it a peacekeeping mission?

    Or a nation-building one?

    Is it to catch Bin Laden?

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

    Or is it all of the above – and more?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    TERROR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Dinner for the Guild of International Bankers – 20 September 2006

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Dinner for the Guild of International Bankers, held at Vintners Hall in London on Wednesday 20th September 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:
    Master, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen.
    When I was asked to join you this evening it was an easy invitation to accept. This is partly because I began my career with one international bank and – as I am currently with Credit-Suisse – may end it with another. But it is far more that Peter Middleton was Permanent Secretary at the Treasury when I first went there as a young Minister. It was those years that prepared him for his later career in gambling – as Permanent Secretary. I can, therefore, say from the personal knowledge of many years that you are immensely fortunate to have him as the incoming Master of the Guild.
    I learned a lot from Peter – and about him. I’m sorry to tell you he’s a life-long Sheffield Wednesday supporter but – apart from that – I know nothing to his disadvantage. Peter doesn’t change with the years. He looks almost exactly as he did when I first met him. Either Peter Pan has a rival or there is a portrait in his attic that is withering away.
    In his early days at the Treasury, Peter ran the Press Office. This was a long time ago: during that dear dead age in which the term “spin” applied only to cricket. I don’t much like spin. In 40 years of politics I only ever heard one worthwhile example of it.
    [Indistinct, but anecdote about when Boris Yeltsin was asked about the state of Russia in one word, and he said “Good”, and when asked to describe the state of Russia in two words, he said “Not good”.]
    During all the time I worked with him, Peter was a source of wise counsel and – usually – an epicentre of calm. He had a gift for laconic disengagement during Ministerial decision making until he noticed the decision going in a direction of which he did not approve. At this point he ceased to be either laconic or disengaged until a common position was agreed.
    I greatly admired this gift for consensus-building. Pragmatism is a virtue. It is a neglected art in our ideological world and one we would do well to revive.
    The spread of global commerce and trade has given us common systems of banking and business in every great city of the world. But, as international bankers, your interests encompass a world divided on subtler – and in some ways, more entrenched – lines than the stark divisions once epitomised by the boundaries of communism and the free market.
    Culture, religion and ideology are today’s battle-ground and they arouse violent passions. If anyone doubts that, I invite them to consider Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan or the long running low-grade war between Israel and the Palestinians. It is as important for the business climate to ease away these conflicts as it was to end the threat of East-West conflict.
    None of them, in my judgement, can be solved solely by military means.
    Modern life offers us a curious dilemma. Nothing can hold back the revolution in life-style that is the fruit of globalisation. Most – but not all – of the changes are beneficial, and the finance you provide is the oil that greases the engine. But many millions – especially those who see no benefit from globalisation – are bewildered by the changes it has brought about and look at the world with eyes that hunger for familiarity.
    Kipling once wrote:
    “East is East and West is West
    And never the twain shall meet.”
    The great poet did not foresee the global market, but culturally Kipling is still more right than wrong.
    In a world changing too rapidly for comfort, people cling to their familiar cultures. We British should understand that. For over 30 years, we have done so ourselves in our attitudes to Europe. Time and again, there has been a fierce response to modest changes because of fears – often mistaken and usually inflamed – of what they may lead to. I can, I think, speak with some authority about that. In my own Party over Europe, reasonable men became unreasonable. Clever men became foolish. Colleagues and friends become bitter enemies and no-one seemed to care as they disembowelled their own prospects. Colleagues and friends on some issues became bitter opponents over Europe.
    Such fears can be far worse if whole nations, or religions, fear – albeit wrongly – that their culture is threatened. It is here that the art of political pragmatism is needed. Our Western values are familiar and comfortable to us, but it has taken many hundreds of years for them to evolve. We make a mistake if we believe we can impose our values on others whose history and instincts and modes of thought are very different to ours.
    I admire pragmatism because it can often achieve results, where the rigidity of ideology achieves only stand-offs. And yet, too many people see pragmatism and consensus-building as weakness. They seem to prefer what the foolish call “strong leadership”, even if it marches off in the wrong direction. My belief that we need pragmatism is not an appeal for policy without conviction. We must have convictions – life is empty without them – but we should not let our own convictions trample on those that may be different but are dear to other people.
    My concern with ideology is that it often goes beyond conviction. As I look at the world today, it seems to me that, too often, ideology erects barriers instead of removing them. It highlights differences and achieves popular support by condemnation of them. It thrives on conflict. Ideology is too high on passion and certainty and too low on moderation and understanding. I believe we need to change the balance here – and that is why Peter Middleton’s skills at consensus are needed on the very widest canvass.
    Ideologues, of course, will hate what I have just said – but I believe they are wrong. I look at the future with optimism. Politics and fashion come in waves and I think we are learning lessons today that will encourage us to beware if ideology supersedes common-sense and common understanding. If I am right, and this change is coming, then there is every reason for optimism in the future.
    As for myself, I am no longer in public life and have no plans to return to it. In many ways, I am glad that I have left for I am, perhaps, a little too old-fashioned for the game. I still believe that traditions should die out naturally and not be stamped out. That Cabinet should collectively take decisions. That Parliament should not be bypassed. That the independence of the Civil Service should be protected.
    So, as you can see, I am unreconstructed. So out of date am I, that I even believe the media should report the news and not embellish it. There is therefore, no hope for me.
    But there is for international banking which will grow and grow and I wish this Guild and its incoming Master every success in the years ahead.

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Malcolm.

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

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

    Turn-out at Elections has fallen sharply.

    Politicians are not trusted.

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

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

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

    The world has moved on.

    Our country has moved on.

    Our Party must move on, too.

    We do not want to ape Labour.

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

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

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

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

    Public – routinely – do not believe them.

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

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

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

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

    Not an improvement.

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

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

    If Brown succeeds Blair, we are in deep trouble.

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

    We are reinforcing our commitment in Southern Afghanistan.

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

    No-one can object to that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How many? We don’t know.

    Do we wish to redesign rockets? Not clear.

    What is the opportunity cost? Unknown.

    Who would be the target? Not known.

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

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

    I. Election to the Lords:

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

    II. Party Funding

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

    III Scotland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It is a monumental failure.

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

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

    Our role is – to restore faith in politics.

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

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

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

    Tomorrow’s world will be very different.

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

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

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

    Can we win?

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

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    Politicians are not trusted.

    Turn-out at elections has fallen sharply.

    Many people turn away from politics.

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

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

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

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

    The world has moved on.

    Our country has moved on.

    Our Party must move on, too.

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

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

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

    Herein lies our chance.

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

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

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

    This is a monumental failure of domestic policy.

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

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

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

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

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

    Public – routinely – do not believe them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I. Election to the Lords:

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

    II. Party Funding

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

    III Scotland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The rise of Asia emphasises this danger. No-one should be surprised. There is no immutable law of economics to say that growth must always be led by the industrial West. Historically, it was not: for 1800 years China had the largest economy in the world: then in the early 19th century, the West had an industrial revolution – and the East did not.

    Now, once again, the growth of China holds centre stage. China is an ancient nation. She was making silk and pottery before the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and before ancient Britons built Stonehenge. Now she is re-asserting herself.

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

    Today, around the world, change is accelerating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Can we win?

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

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

    They built a dedicated Peace Centre.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My answer is – Yes, it can.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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