The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 2008

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 14 December 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 14th December 2008.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now then, a falling housing market, rising job losses, the pound plummeting, high borrowing. Well life goes on after that, even political life, as the former Prime Minister John Major can witness. But he’s described the current Prime Minister Gordon Brown as having “as much financial blood on his hands as any banker”.

    Well Sir John Major is here now. Welcome, Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Good morning.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s start with the sort of parallel, with the early 90s before your General Election victory, when in many respects things were the same: we had negative equity, we had all sorts of problems in the economy, and as Prime Minister, you were seeing job losses, more announcements of factory closures coming across your desk day after day. What’s it like to be in that position?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s pretty awful. I mean I became Prime Minister at a time when a recession was certain: interest rates were 14%, unemployment was rising very rapidly, and the economy was heading clearly for a recession. And it is very painful, and anyone who believes people don’t suffer from that – by people I don’t just mean the people in the country who lose jobs and lose security – but anyone who believes those who are in government don’t suffer as a result of that are quite wrong. It was extremely painful and even now I remember the difficulties that one felt and the helplessness sometimes one felt. But it was a very different form of recession from this one. The recession in the early 90s was once again an inflationary recession.

    For 40 years we’d had inflation bedevilling the British economy and we needed to get inflation down, so it wasn’t open to us to spend a lot of money, to spend our way out of it because it would have just put inflation back up and so we looked particularly heartless sitting there. But I look back and I can tell you why we did it, exactly why I did it. As a boy, I remembered what it was like when the week lasts longer than the money. And that is what happens when you have a recession: the week lasts longer than the money.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And it’s happening to a lot of people just now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it had happened repeatedly between 1950 and 1990 and I was determined then to stop it. So we looked very heartless, we paid a very heavy political price for it, but we did kill inflation for a very long time and the British economy subsequently benefited. But today we have very different circumstances. We have two things in fact: we have what I suppose, without wishing to downgrade it, is a communal garden recession. And on top of that, we have a credit crunch, and the two things have interleaved to make it very complex.

    The Government concentrate on the credit crunch and blame the international community, whereas in fact the domestic recession is entirely as a result of domestic policy.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Because there’s been too much borrowing?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Because there’s been too much borrowing. If you look, we’ve had 15 years of growth now, 15 years of very strong growth. It didn’t start with the Labour Party; they inherited it.

    As Derek Scott, Tony Blair’s adviser said, “Gordon Brown inherited the best economy of any Chancellor in living memory”, and so he did.

    And they’ve squandered it. They have spent and spent and spent.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well except that I mean it could be said that the Conservatives in your day went through a big, long boom, very strong economy, and then it turned to bust. Now it’s happened again.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Isn’t that just a kind of natural part of the cycle?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it ought not to be. It usually follows policy mistakes. I don’t think anyone denies that there was too much of a boom in the late 80s and we paid the price in the 90s. What has happened here…

    ANDREW MARR:

    And then another kind of boom in the 20s.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    What has happened here is continual expenditure above and beyond that which we can afford. We should have been repaying debt. We’ve been adding to it. The Government say they’ve repaid debt, but the only time they did that was when they were following our spending plans in 1998 and 1999.

    Since then, they’ve built up debt. We now have, well we now pay – here’s a horrifying thought – we now pay every day £262 million in interest alone on the debt, and the debt is set to double over the next few years. It’s a frightening scenario.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And what do you think, as an old-fashioned guy, of a government that is saying to people we must go out there and spend more to get ourselves…

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it’s curious.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I mean I’m talking about personal debt.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I think personal debt’s very high. I mean personal indebtedness has risen by 70%, after you discount inflation, in the last 10 years. We have the highest level of personal debt in Europe. We have the highest level of government debt in our history. It’s set to double and the cost is going to be absolutely horrendous. I think that is wholly wrong.

    You’ve seen over years these very distasteful television advertisements – at least I find them distasteful – where you say people are asked to consider are they in debt? Yes. Would they like to roll it up and reduce their outgoings? Well of course they do, but at a higher rate of interest and for a longer period. And it builds up indebtedness and

    ANDREW MARR:

    So?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    So? This is economically disastrous.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So how bad do you think things are going to get? I mean you know we think about Japan, we think about deflation, we think about possibly quite a long period of depression.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it isn’t depression, it isn’t 1929 to 33. I mean in 29 to 33, you had a national income in America fall by over 50%, you had unemployment go up from 3% to 25%. We’re not in that ballpark.

    The depression oratory has been used to justify some areas of expenditure – unjustifiably so in my case – so it’s not, it’s not a depression.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you think ministers are scaring people too much?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think they are. I think they’re overcooking it because they’re concerned and they wish to justify the amount of debt they’re getting us into. I think that is a mistake for a raft of reasons. I don’t downplay the seriousness of this.

    I think this is the worst situation we have had since the Second World War, and after 12 years of Labour government we now have a level of national debt that is the same as we had after 6 years of world war. That is the scale of the indebtedness and the problem we’re in.

    ANDREW MARR:

    We’re going to see unemployment rising, sadly, very sharply?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I’m very sniffy about the unemployment figures. The claimant count is said to be 1.84 million, rising to 2 million, and most people think it will hit 3 and above, which is dreadful. It’s happened before. We got very close to that in the early 90s and it is awful for everyone concerned. But in fact the situation may be worse than that.

    We have a total of 5 million people on out of work benefits of one sort or another. Nearly 2 million show as unemployed. But there’s another million at least on invalidity benefit whom the Government themselves say could and should be working. So the unemployment figures are actually far worse than they immediately appear, and I fear we’re going to have an avalanche of job losses in the first three or four months of next year.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And yet in all of this, the Labour Party’s opinion poll rating has improved; Gordon Brown’s personal rating has improved; and your party has perhaps been easy to caricature as a party which simply says, “We don’t have a response to this”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well there are.

    ANDREW MARR:

    At least Gordon Brown is saying something.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well there are some ironies here, aren’t there? If the burglar has ransacked your house, you don’t normally invite him back to fix the security locks. The concept that Gordon Brown, who’s been Chancellor for 10 years and Prime Minister for one and presided over this train wreck, is the person to put right what he’s got wrong strikes me as being ironic, to say the least.

    As far as what ought to be done, it’s very easy to give an impression of action. The question is is the action wise? Now I don’t think most of the Government’s actions are wise. Recapitalising the banks – I agree with that. I think it was inevitable, I think it was right to do it. I congratulate the Government on doing that. That was fine.

    But I think since then, they’ve got their policy badly wrong. The reduction in VAT, you might as well have burnt the money and thrown it away, frankly. I don’t think it’ll do anything that is credible at all. There are two things that we need to address: firstly the credit crunch; and, secondly, the recession, if I might draw that distinction. On the credit crunch, we need to get credit moving. David Cameron’s proposed a National Guaranteed Loan Scheme. Now it is a very big scheme and I think it is exactly the right way to go.

    If we can guarantee the credit, then the banks will lend. I think one thing David might wish to look at in future is incorporating housing within that scheme, so that the banks and the building societies might safely advance say 75% of a £150,000 loan and have that guaranteed as well. I think that would help the housing market.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you’d help the housing market.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    And I think the other thing we might look at beyond that which has already been proposed – and I think David Cameron’s plans to freeze council tax, that sort of thing, I absolutely support them – the other thing I think we may have to look at in the future is the position of savers.
    They are being appallingly treated at the moment. There are millions of people who have saved for their security to supplement their pension in retirement. And what has now happened – those who have been prudent and saved for their retirement are now finding the amount they’re earning in interest on their savings has dropped dramatically because we’re in economic difficulties.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But sorting that out would be hugely expensive, wouldn’t it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No it wouldn’t, no it wouldn’t. What I would suggest we do is exempt from tax the first £5,000 worth of savings income each year. That would help those people who’ve seen interest rates drop in their lifetimes preparedness for retirement. I think that would be a help and I think it’s also socially just. At the moment policy helps the imprudent, but it penalises the prudent. I don’t think that’s either socially just or economically wise.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If you’re against the fiscal stimulus, as it’s been called, aren’t you and your party also saying that President-elect Obama is 100% wrong, that the European Community is wrong, that everybody else is wrong?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    That’s the Labour argument. You’re quite right, that’s the argument that’s being put to us, so let me actually address it. Everybody else, America is a case in point. The dollar is a different proposition from sterling. America is a case in point. Beyond that, there are many very good authorities pointing out that you can only put in a fiscal stimulus if you have the right strength of reserves in order to do so. We don’t. We have spent it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So we’re in a different position?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We’re in a wholly different position. But let me run forward 3 years. If we continue borrowing like this, the world will be coming out of recession. We will have a huge amount of borrowing which will force up interest rates.

    In 3 years time, as the world comes out of recession, in the United Kingdom we’ll have higher interest rates, we’ll have higher national insurance contributions because the Government have already implemented that, and we’ll have higher taxes. Are we going to come out of the recession with everybody else, with higher interest rates, higher taxes and higher national insurance contributions? I think not. What the Government are doing now with this appearance of action, often misplaced action, is ensuring that our recession is longer and deeper than anybody else’s.

    ANDREW MARR:

    All that being the case, isn’t it astonishing that they’ve become more popular, not less? And isn’t it also clear, I think a senior Conservative said David Cameron and George Osborne haven’t had a good war.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there are two reasons why that’s happened.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you’d accept it as an analysis?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Not entirely, no, because I think you have a good war if you win in the end; not if you win the first skirmish. And I think there’s always a tendency to grab hold of nurse for fear of something worse. Uncertainty always drives people back to the Government. But I think as they analyse what has happened, I think they will see that the Government are leading them into a deeper problem, not leading them out of the problem. And the analogy I gave of the problems we’ll have in 3 years time is a case in point. The biggest idea actually that has yet emerged after the recapitalisation of the banks is the National Loan Guarantee Scheme and I think people need to understand what that means.

    ANDREW MARR:

    OK.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It will get the lifeblood of industry flowing to industry.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Would you like to see… Sorry, we’re running out of time. Would you like to see Ken Clarke coming back? There have been a lot of rumblings about that. Michael Portillo in the papers today is talking about that.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not going to pick David Cameron’s Shadow Cabinet. I had long enough picking my own. I know the difficulties with that. I’m certainly not going to touch that. He’s a very able man, he’s certainly there to help and be very supportive, but I’m not joining this general clamour for change.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You’ve been in the world of international finance and so on really for the past 10 years one way or another. When did you start to see that something badly was going wrong on the banking side? Was there a sort of moment of revelation?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, there wasn’t a single moment of revelation. It’s simply the general aggregation of debt. There has been a belief that the economic cycle had been abolished, we have finished with boom and bust. Well fooey! We’ve certainly finished with boom and we’ve got a huge, great bust.
    And when you see debt piling up year after year, just as with an individual – if you, if you and your family piled up debt year after year after year, there would come a reckoning, you would have to pay it back. And that is what Gordon Brown and the Government have done.

    They have piled up debt and now is the reckoning. Let us not pretend that it is all external factors. External factors are creating the credit crunch. External factors emphatically did not create the domestic train wreck and recession that we now have. That was domestic policy and it has been building up for some years.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John Major, for now thank you very much indeed.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Cambridge University Leadership Forum – 22 September 2008

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Cambridge University Leadership Forum, held at Addenbrooke’s Hospital on Monday 22nd September 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:
    In life, change is relentless – and usually irreversible.
    That is certainly true of most economic changes over recent decades: not all of them comfortable to our Western prejudices. Here is an irony: first, the West won the philosophical argument for capitalism and free markets: then, many of those whose ideology was lost have ended up benefiting more from free trade than the West.
    In the Industrial Revolution, it took Britain and America fifty years to double the income per head of their population: China has done so in ten, and others are set to do the same.
    Today – for the first time since 1820 – most of the world’s growth comes from the East. As growth in the Western democracies nears technical recession, much of the rest of the world will continue to grow at between 4-6%, both this year and next. There are no obvious signs that this gap in relative performance will narrow – at least for a long time.
    Nor can we comfort ourselves this is simply a phenomenon based on low-cost manufacturing, the demand for raw materials and the capture of a few niche markets. It is far more substantial, not least because technology now enables the export of professional services – tax, accounting, legal services financial analysis, knowledge-based advice – that once seemed the prerogative of the high-cost economies. As an educated middle-class grows in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, such exports will grow. Something fundamental has changed with globalisation and – more rapidly than we imagined – we are now in a more competitive world than was ever anticipated.
    This hasn’t happened because the West became careless – or degenerate – quite the reverse. Not only did the West win the argument for the free market, but Western science put rocket boosters on it.
    The moment in 1958 that Jack Kilby invented the integrated circuit – the semi conductor chip – we were in a new world: nothing in the 20th Century has so accelerated change. That circuit was the forerunner of silicon chips. It led to the computer revolution. To the Digital Age. Without them, there would be no Internet; no Google; no – well, the list is endless.
    Similarly, spin-offs from the space race have given us global communications, satellites and – less happily – missiles to carry nuclear weapons. The revolution continues – still powered by the West: it is more likely than not that there will be further unexpected advances as a fall-out from CERN’s remarkable experiments with the Large Hadron Collider. Media fears of a “Black Hole” that would devour us all have evaporated – unless, of course, that is where some of our banks have disappeared to in recent days!
    But science has not only changed how we live: medical science is changing the quality and length of our lives. A hundred years ago, no-one knew of blood groups, hormones or barbiturates. Since then, the impact of medical advance has been bewildering.
    Synthetic Biology has brought science and engineering together to design and build biological functions. New technologies are delivering new and better drugs to combat disease, promoting genetic engineering, healthy food, better pesticides, the control and destruction of pollution, and advances in forensic medicine.
    Scientists are examining how to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research to target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine – for example – chemotherapy with only minimal side-effects.
    A handful of commercial applications are apparent already: nano technology has revolutionised aspects of dentistry, dressings for burns, better sun screen protection. As a layman, it seems to be unbelievably complex: once I learned that one human hair is 80,000 nanometres wide, I realised this was a subject with a potential that is almost impossible to circumscribe.
    Nano – and bio technology are changing our lives: advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for those suffering from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon be possible to replace heart muscle cells. These are developments undreamed of until recently.
    As science powers ahead there are two consequences we Westerners would be wise to acknowledge.
    First, the large financial resources of the developing world enable others – notably the oil wealthy – to exploit blue-skies research: the Gulf, for example, is about to pour billions into the research and development of bio and nano-technology. And – more fundamentally – scientists expect their colleagues in the East to gain parity of science with the West within three decades.
    So – economics has changed – science is changing – and so too, is politics.
    Fifty years ago, no-one could have predicted the present social or geo-political landscape.
    The Soviet Union and the United States were the two super-powers. China was isolationist and something of an enigma. Japan had barely begun her post-war rise. Central and Eastern Europe fell under Soviet control. Germany was still divided. Latin America was a continent of revolutions. The EU was in its infancy. Much of Africa was still colonised. Oil was $3 a barrel and no-one imagined an Islamic Revolution.
    Nor did we focus on two socio-political problems that are affecting our world, now and in the future, but which – because of their slow impact – can too easily be relegated to second-order importance: population growth and climate change.
    I know that many regard these issues as marginal: a playground for the liberal thinker; easy to put aside. I don’t agree: if we continue to ignore their impact, we will leave a legacy to future generations for which they would be right to condemn us.
    NATIONAL RESOURCES AND POPULATIONS
    In the last fifty years, the population of our world has grown from less than 3 billion to over 6.5 billion. Most of this population increase is very poor.
    It is hard to imagine the disparity between their life and that of someone in our own society – even if that someone were on the lowest levels of social support. Their lifestyle is lamentable: 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day.
    Here is a cruel irony. As some nations grow and improve their own living standards, they drive up food prices to the further detriment of even poorer nations. The arithmetic is not complicated: if one billion Indians – one-sixth of the entire world population – together with millions of Chinese, Brazilians and Malaysians – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand for food soars.
    That puts up prices – provoking panic and moving the politics of food to the front burner of controversy. The days of cheap food are gone.
    The rich nations do much to help – and have pledged to do more, although many nations have not lived up to their promises. It cannot be right that both Europe and America spend broadly seven times as much on agricultural subsidies alone as the whole world donates to help the poor. Consider that: seven times as much on providing subsidised food for those already well-fed as the whole world spends on all the needs of those who often are not fed at all.
    This statistic 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.
    Now, factor in future growth. Between now and 2050 it is estimated world population will grow to 8 or even 9 billion. This is the equivalent of absorbing two more nations the size of China.
    The implications for every human are staggering. At its most basic, let us recognise that the world will need all the food we can grow – even if Australian harvests recover from a ten-year drought, and Ukraine and Zimbabwe once again become the agricultural producers nature designed them to be. If Europe were brave enough to reform its agricultural policies, it would be a truly wonderful signal to the world.
    CLIMATE CHANGE
    Many opinion formers see climate change as an optional policy, too – but I can’t agree: hard-to-ignore science warns us that the long-term risks are real. Anyone who visits China regularly would be likely to agree: last year, China built 100 coal-fired power stations and her sky is hidden behind a fog of pollution. In some cities – simply breathing is a struggle.
    Coal, oil and gas are going to dominate energy supply for decades to come – irrespective of any advances in solar energy, advanced bio-fuels, fusion and other renewables.
    Since this is so, the first priority must be to develop carbon capture and storage before it leaks into the atmosphere. And then we need to store it where it is safe – probably for centuries.
    As dioxides rise, scientists warn of global warming of up to five degrees: this sounds small – but isn’t: in the depth of the last ice-age the temperature fall was – five degrees. However, a single figure is utterly misleading: the land warms more than the sea and high latitudes more than low. So the impact of global warming is not uniform. Nor is it localised: innocent non-polluters may suffer – and the guilty may not.
    There is much we don’t know. Climate scientists are not able to predict where the flood, or hurricane, or drought risks will be, which does not make it easy to persuade the polluters to stop.
    Nor do the time-lags: the main downsides of global warming lie a century ahead. It takes decades for the oceans to adjust, and centuries for ice-sheets to melt. For all its uncertainty, climate change is a challenge we should not, dare not, ignore.
    POLITICS
    Politics offers too many challenges – and changes – to examine this evening. But let me say a broad word about future foreign policy.
    We worry about Iraq, Iran, Arab-Israel and the stability of the Middle East – but often, it seems we let these concerns get in the way of credible policy.
    We talk sometimes of the Middle East as though it were one problem – which it is not – and without looking at history in order to understand the roots of conflict.
    In its diversity, there are tensions between Christian, Muslim and Jew; Arab, Persian, Kurd and Turk; Shia and Sunni; between Monarchies and Republics; Secular and Islamic societies. Some countries have oil, some not. Some are large, others small.
    The Middle East embraces nations in which references to the Prophet Mohammed, or the Old and New Testaments, are part of everyday language. For some – the Salafists – Islam was perfect when Mohammed founded it and cannot be changed or improved.
    It is a cauldron. It is not a liberal democracy.
    We – in Europe – choose democracy. Others – China, Russia, much of the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa – seem to accept, even welcome, a form of autocratic quasi-democracy, accompanied by an authoritarianism that relegates social expenditures below the need to enhance competition.
    As we go forward, the West will need to take account of this. We cannot – other than by example – presume to impose our own democratic system of government – which has evolved over centuries – on others with their own histories and cultures.
    Often we conflate Islam and fundamentalism: and yet fundamentalism is a perversion of Islam, that threatens it as much as us. Bin Laden hates the Saudis even more than he hates the Americans!
    It might be a good time to recalibrate foreign as well as economic policy. We have a political genius for compromise – for bringing together competing ambitions. It is a gift of value, and one we should use to maximum effect.
    RUSSIA
    Not least with Russia. For generations, the Soviet Union was the enemy: the Warsaw Pact and NATO pointed nuclear missiles at one another and a Cold War froze relationships.
    Then she imploded. The rump of Russia imploded, too. Then, oil wealth became Putin’s Aladdin’s Cave: a basket case economy became the sixth largest in the world.
    Now – post Georgia – there is fear of a new Cold War as the Russian Phoenix flexes her muscles.
    It is arguable who started the Georgia conflict: unarguable that Russia over-reacted. Now the world must deal with the political dilemma. Over-reaction may provoke Russia. Under-reaction may encourage her into more adventures. It is a fine balance.
    How should we react? We can’t be blind to Russian misbehaviour, but – for the time being – I believe we should leave the response to the diplomats – not least since the financial markets have already delivered an unmistakeable message.
    When Russia interfered over Yukos, Shell and TNK/BP, her own stock market suffered badly. Then came her incursion into Georgia.
    (i) In one day the market wiped US$ 16 billion off Gazprom, and US$ 6 billion off Rosneft (State-owned oil company).
    (ii) In one week, FEX reserves fell by US$ 16.4 billion.
    Post Georgia:
    – Hopes of a rally are low.
    – Investors are wary.
    – Russia is finding it difficult to raise capital overseas.
    All this may give Russia pause to think and – while she does – those who wish to chastise Russia might also bear in mind that – as a nation – she is indispensable to:
    – Action on climate change.
    – Hindering drugs from Afghanistan.
    – Preventing Iran from getting the bomb.
    CONCLUSION
    My theme has been that – in order to frame future policy – we need to understand changes in a world re-shaping economically, and re-balancing politically.
    Inevitably, there is much I have not touched upon: the high price of oil that will give Sovereign Wealth Funds an extra US$ 1 trillion to invest for every year the oil price stays above US$ 80 a barrel. Nor have I touched on the risks of nuclear or biological terrorism. Or the insecurities created by the arc of uncertainty from Syria to Pakistan.
    All these will create headaches for modern governments, but let me add a little balance: despite the economic downturn, we have just enjoyed fifteen years of high growth – hundreds of millions have been lifted from poverty.
    One advantage of global markets is that investment across nations minimises the risk of wars. Science is raising the quality of life. In the last forty years – since 1968 – life expectancy has risen faster than in the previous 4,000 years.
    China and the US have huge inter-locking economic interests. (I never thought I’d see China fund America’s deficits). Japan and China are beginning to repair old scars. Democracy is expanding. And Africa is growing faster than at any time in our lifetimes.
    Sometimes, I think we should be more self-confident and more aware of what has been achieved. We should not fear change.
    In a preface to some famous essays, Sir Francis Bacon flatteringly observed to his Patron that “You have planted things that are likely to last”.
    So have we – in our own time. The Free Market. Democracy. The English language. All gifts from the West to the world – with Britain a principal donor.
    Through all our history, change has been our ally: if we embrace it in the future as we have in the past – it can be so again.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Prostate Cancer Charity Dinner – 18 September 2008

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Prostate Cancer Charity Dinner, held at The Dorchester on Thursday 18th September 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Some may wonder why I am here – let me tell you. John touched on it.

    Last year, my brother died of prostate cancer. Many – thank goodness – are cured, but Terry was not: and it was a tragic sight to see his bravery as the battle was slowly lost; and fear of the outcome turned into the inevitability of defeat.

    I shall never forget seeing my brother shrink and fade: desperately trying to project hope and faith in a recovery that was never going to come. Cancer is a wicked enemy which – in recent years – has robbed my family of my brother, and also a much-loved mother-in-law and son-in-law. That is why I am here.

    The Prostate Cancer Charity fights cancer through vital research as well as offering support and information to sufferers.

    But – in today’s circumstances – it is not easy to raise funds – to touch people’s hearts – which is why occasions like tonight are so important.

    The Charity is doing wonderful work, and the 100 men every day who are diagnosed with the disease deserve all the support they can get.

    Very little in life is certain, but it is encouraging that medical science continues to improve – and that new treatments and cures become available.

    Advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes and cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing more cells for those suffering from Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. It may soon even be possible to replace heart muscle cells. These are innovations that once would have seemed like black magic. Soon, what was once fantasy may be an everyday reality.

    Current research may enable scientists to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research to target drugs to treat specific parts of the body more effectively than ever before. Imagine the benefits to patients if chemotherapy could be so targeted in cancer treatment that it caused only minimal side effects. All this lies ahead.

    GLOBAL CHANGES

    I was asked to talk for a few minutes tonight about something topical. I thought, of course, of the credit crunch and recession, but however painful they are – and they are – they will pass.

    I’d prefer to touch on something wider.

    Fifty years ago, no-one could have confidently predicted the social or geopolitical landscape of today.

    Russia and the US were the two super-powers. China was isolationist and a mystery. Japan had barely begun her post-war rise. The EU was in its infancy. Germany was divided. Oil was US $3 a barrel, and the Islamic Revolution unthought of. Nor did many foresee the economic rise of what we patronisingly called “The Third World”. And who would have imagined America would be on the verge of electing either a black President – or a lady only a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

    In the Industrial Revolution, it took Britain and America 50 years to double the income of their populations: China has done so in less than 10 years, and others look set to follow suit.

    This extraordinary change in the world economy partly explains high energy and commodity prices, including food.

    If one billion Indians – one sixth of the entire world population – together with millions of Chinese, Brazilians and Malaysians – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand for food soars.

    And so does the price: this has caused panic in large importing countries like the Philippines; and food riots from Cairo to Haiti. The politics of food is moving to the front burner of controversy.

    So is climate change.

    One element crucial for economic and political stability everywhere is energy supply and energy security. And this is linked – to a greater degree than is comfortable to Governments – to the dangers of climate change.

    And hard-to-ignore science tells us it is changing. Some enthusiasts over-exaggerate the changes, but they are real. The burning of fossil fuels – and last year, China alone built one hundred coal-fired power stations – continues to raise dioxides: by 2050 they are likely to be double the pre-industrial level.

    The fact that CO2 is growing at this pace is generally agreed among scientists, and most – but not all – expect this to lead to global warming of between two to five degrees.

    This sounds small – but isn’t: in the depth of the last ice age, the temperature fall was – five degrees. However, a single figure is utterly misleading: the land warms more than the sea and high latitudes more than low. So the impact of global warming is not uniform.
    Nations can adapt to some of the adverse effects of warming – but it is too costly for the very poor nations of Africa and Asia.

    As yet, climate scientists are not able to predict where the flood or hurricane risks will be. We don’t yet know what parts of the world could face drought. This highlights a difficult part of the problem – the effect of global warming is not localised. Innocent non-polluters may suffer – and the guilty may not. To put it at its mildest, this does not make it easier to persuade the polluters to stop.

    There are also time-lags: the main downsides of global warming lay a century ahead. It takes decades for the oceans to adjust and centuries for ice-sheets to melt entirely. Even so, a hundred years may be in the lifespan of our grandchildren and so it is close enough (and the damage great enough) for us to take serious action.

    Here, politics intervenes. The great emerging economies have not caused this problem, but without their restraint we can’t solve it. It is a difficult political sell – but global CO2 emissions need to be reduced to only one-half of the 1990 level by 2050. It won’t be done without new technologies: we may not be able to survive without energy – but nor will we do so without clean and sustainable energy.

    Let me touch on one final change that will affect us all.

    In the last fifty years, world population has grown from less than 3 billion to over 6.5 billion. It is projected to reach 8 or even 9 billion by 2050 and nearly all the growth is in the developing world.

    In some countries, fertility has fallen below replacement level – in Italy and Singapore for example – but Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda are countries whose population is set to more than double.

    These changes – in medicine, science, economics, climate and population – are ushering in a different world from the one we have known.

    It will need different skills and longer-term decision-making by our leaders – not least in politics – to protect our interests. And it presents a challenge that none of us dare ignore.

    But – to return to my initial remarks – nor should we ignore the risks of Prostate Cancer, or neglect to help the charity.

    Tonight, you are here doing precisely that. It is only with your help that the charity can fund the research which is so crucial to identifying new ways to detect and cure this wretched disease.

    Alas, for my brother, that research is too late. But with your help, it will come in time to save the lives of many thousands of others. And for that, I am enormously grateful.

  • Sir John Major’s Article on the National Lottery – 24 August 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on the National Lottery, published by the Sunday Telegraph on 24th August 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    One would need a heart of stone not to have enjoyed the wonderful British triumphs at the Beijing Olympics. Day after day, young British athletes have surpassed themselves and the whole country has been uplifted by their performances. As we celebrate the most successful modern Olympics we have known, we can marvel at the dedication of the athletes who have sacrificed so much in pursuit of their dreams.

    But such commitment needs support. Athletes need gymnasiums, swimming pools, velodromes and running tracks upon which to hone their skills, and the Lottery has helped pay for them: talent is the first ingredient for Gold, but the best coaching and facilities are indispensable.

    Of course, the purpose of the Lottery is much wider than support for our sporting elite – important though that is. The genesis of the Lottery lay in my belief that sport, the arts, our heritage and charities enhance the quality of life for millions of people – and I noted at the Treasury that, in the scramble for taxpayer funding, they always lose out to Health, Education, Social Services and Defence. As Prime Minister, my solution was the Lottery: additional funding, free of Government interference, to provide resources to replace dilapidated facilities, repair decaying buildings, and boost the arts and charities.

    And it has done so. Since its launch in 1994, over £21 billion has been distributed to over 300,000 local projects, as well as to the many mega-schemes of national importance. Without the Lottery there may have been no new Wembley Stadium, no National Cycle network, no velodrome in Manchester, no Eden Project in Cornwall, no renovation of the Royal Opera House at Covent Garden. Nor would there have been new village and community halls, bowling greens, cricket nets, arts clubs and so much more in towns and villages in every corner of our country. Over the past fourteen years, the Lottery has been the essential ingredient in the greatest enhancement of cultural and sporting life in Britain over the last century.

    But it is more than that. The provision of grassroots facilities for sport and the arts offers lasting social benefits. Where would we prefer our young people to be – in clubs or gymnasiums or on street corners? Members of teams or gangs? Given worries about obesity – do we wish them to be fit or fat? And – for the more mature in our society – do we approve or disapprove of increased social and sporting facilities, such as bowls? Such questions have easy answers.

    Lottery funding has also benefited our heritage and the arts, with repair and renovation to churches and ancient buildings, and encouragement of artistic talent.

    And, at the top level of sport, we love to win. Our national characteristics may enable us to accept defeat with good humour, but we cherish success.

    Success uplifts our nation: witness the impact of the Olympics, or the 2005 Ashes win or, sadly long ago, the 1966 World Cup win. We will enjoy more such triumphs only if we develop the grassroots of sport. And we love to celebrate our icons. The success of Freddie Flintoff or Chris Hoy or Rebecca Adlington, or the talents of Kenneth Branagh or Judi Dench, are more exciting to us than the activities of politicians or businessmen. If we nurture grassroots talent, a new generation of icons will surely follow.

    The Lottery is more than a cash dispenser: it is a social tool and the present Government has a mixed record in caring for it. To their credit, they have widened the use of Lottery funds – as I would have done myself. To their discredit, they have siphoned off funds for their own pet projects. In 1997, one-fifth of Lottery proceeds went to each of the long-term good causes. In 1998, the Government cut that to 16.6%, and later the Big Lottery Fund dipped into the bran tub yet again – and sport, the arts, heritage and charities were the losers.

    It is not easy to disentangle by how much the four main good causes have lost out, but it is literally billions over the last decade. At present, I calculate annual funding has dropped by about one-third from its peak.

    Additionally – although once more the figures are unclear – grassroot schemes have lost about a further half a billion pounds to fund Olympic infrastructure. A contribution – as with the Commonwealth Games at Manchester – is acceptable but half a billion is far too high a loss for grassroots sport. This reduction is in direct contravention of the promise which helped London win the Olympic bid: “To capture the imagination of young people and leave a lasting legacy”.

    What of the future? I would like to see Lottery proceeds returned in full to their original purpose so that sport, the arts, heritage and charities would each receive 20%. The final 20% could be ring-fenced to re-introduce sport into the State sector of education – a plan I would have implemented had I won the 1997 Election. The opportunity to enjoy sport – and to excel at it – must be as great in State Schools as in Private Schools: we need to unearth and develop that talent. I shall forever regret that I did not ensure that provision was put in place when I was in a position to do so.

    I should also like the distributing bodies to set out their objectives for the next decade – and be prepared to stage funding over many years. Where appropriate, I would hope objectives could be agreed with Government, so that taxpayer and Lottery funding could work in harmony. If Lottery largesse is to continue at a high level, prizes must remain attractive even though they are often controversial. I am not personally offended by instant wealth – nor, I believe, are the 70% of the public who play the Lottery each week.

    Over time, Lottery proceeds can further advance the renaissance of British sport and the arts; widen leisure for every age group; improve services for the disadvantaged; and repair our ancient buildings for future generations to enjoy.

    My hope is that, with the help of Lottery funding, our 2012 Olympians may be able to build on success in Beijing, to win an even greater haul of medals on their own home soil.

    I, for one, will be cheering them on.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 13 July 2008

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 13th July 2008.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Welcome Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Good morning Andrew.

    ANDREW MARR:

    How bad is it going to get in your judgment?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think it’s quite clear how bad it will get. I think we’re going to be very close to recession, if not technically in recession, two quarters of negative growth. I think that’s entirely possible. But the problem we face at the moment is rather different from the one we faced in the early nineties or indeed in the early eighties.

    ANDREW MARR:

    In the early nineties we had that terrible problem of negative equity in particular and unemployment shooting up. A lot of people will say well it can’t be that bad this time round.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I said just now the problem was rather different. If you recall, on the day I became Prime Minister we had interest rates at fourteen percent. We had inflation at nine and a half percent. We had unemployment beginning to rise. All that was happening. We were heading for a recession as a result of the nineteen eighties boom.

    Now it was necessary then to deal specifically with one primary problem. And that primary problem was endemic inflation which had damaged the economy time and time again in the last forty years. And it’s precisely for that reason of course that Margaret Thatcher and I entered the exchange rate mechanism to bear down on inflation which was our predominant problem. And we did so.

    And the result of that of course, the figures when I became Prime Minister in nineteen ninety were awful. When we left I think by common consent we left the best economy people had seen for a very long time. But in the interim some very painful things were done and you mentioned some of the results of those painful things. But they were done to get inflation down, to put the economy on an even keel. And as a result of doing that we’ve had an extremely good economic run for a very long time.

    So the circumstances are different from the nineteen nineties.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Are we going to have to see similarly painful things in order to get inflation down now? And by the way what do you think inflation really is now?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well on the second point it certainly isn’t the figures produced either by the Cost And Prices Index or indeed the Retail Prices Index. If you recall the government changed the mechanism for calculating the CPI. They took out housing costs and they took out Council Tax. Now that for many people’s expenditure is probably forty five percent of their expenditure. So the CPI is the government’s preferred measure. But it’s an extremely misleading measure in terms of people’s spending patterns.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So do you think inflation’s what double, double the CPI figure?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Oh I think more than that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    More than double? Where would you put it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think it depends precisely where your income group is.,

    ANDREW MARR:

    But roughly?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I would think for most people on average incomes if you look at what’s happening to food, you look at what’s happened to heating, you look at what’s happening to the expenditures that most people cannot avoid, I would say inflation is probably double the RPI figure so we’re between eight and ten percent.

    ANDREW MARR:

    The government says that most of this, if not all of it, is imported. It’s what’s happened to oil prices, it’s what happened to food prices, it’s, it’s a global problem, a banking problem and, and Britain is relatively well placed to deal with this.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well to the extent it’s well placed it’s because of the structural reforms of the eighties and the destruction of inflation in the nineties. It’s got very little to do frankly with what the present government have done. But as far as the cause of the problem is concerned the government’s mantra certainly is that this is an imported problem and that is partly true.

    It is certainly true that there is an element of imported inflation with oil prices. That is undoubtedly true. What is equally true I’m afraid is that because of the actions the government themselves have taken over the last ten years or so we are not in a very good position to deal with that problem.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Actions and spending too much?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    They certainly can’t cut taxes because they, in terms of increasing consumer choice because they have such a big fiscal deficit. They can’t increase public spending because they’ve already spent the, the money that we would normally use. So they have cut off the solution to this problem just as the problem has arisen.

    And it’s quite extraordinary that over ten years in which the world has had the most benign economic circumstances for a very long time, that we have run up such a huge fiscal deficit. We have increased taxes to the extent that we’ve increased taxes. And we have a trade deficit that’s about between fifty and sixty times higher than it was in nineteen ninety seven. So the problem is although there is a problem the traditional solutions to that problem are not practical at the moment.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Are not available. So what can they do do you think?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think to a certain extent they’re going to have to sit this through. It’s going to take a couple of years to work its way through. Nobody’s quite certain how serious it’s going to be. I think it is a very serious problem. Some of the talk of Armageddon I think is overdone. I don’t believe that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You travel around the world. You’re in the States a lot. These two big mortgage companies which are deeply in trouble in America, is that kind of thing going to be, be felt here? Is that, is that part of the crisis?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think that must be one of the great worries that you’re going to have the collapse of a large institution, a large financial institution, and that would present very real difficulties for the Bank of England. But here again I’m afraid the regulatory changes made in nineteen ninety seven, certainly, if one puts it as its kindest, muddied the regulatory system.

    And the result of that may well have been Northern Rock. So I think we do have to look very carefully at precisely where the responsibility is for regulation. Some people I think are pretty unclear about that. We need to be absolutely clear about that.

    And the other thing that is essential, not something I can see that can be done over night, but at the moment the government, the state, are consuming between – depends on whose figures you use, the government’s or the OECD’s – between forty two and forty five percent of the national income. Well you and I are old enough to remember Roy Jenkins saying once you came above forty percent you were damaging a plural society.

    Now on the government’s own figures it’s around forty two to forty three percent. On the OECD’s forty five. So undoubtedly for the medium term health of the economy the proportion of public expenditure to national income has to fall. Now that plainly can’t be done over night, but it must be an objective for this chancellor and future chancellors.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes. Should be said you weren’t in parliament but your party wasn’t vociferously opposing any of those increases in public spending as they happened.

    When we look at what’s going to happen now, however, house prices are bound to fall quite sharply. Everybody accepts that.

    Unemployment’s about to go up again. And we’re going to see inevitably increasing numbers of bankruptcies aren’t we?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think you are. Quite how bad that will be I’m not sure. Once again the unemployment figures are quite difficult to disentangle because the method of calculation now is different from the past. And a huge number of people who perhaps traditionally would have appeared in the unemployment figures now receive Invalidity Benefit and are excluded from the unemployment figures. So unemployment, if you’re seeking the comparison you made at the outset with the early nineties is certainly a good deal higher than the government say. There are going to be more bankruptcies.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Again, have you any sense of where it is really?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there have been so many technical changes.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s impossible?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I mean well I think if one wished to be fair to the government I think it’s impossible to make a guess. But substantially higher than the

    figures they produce. I think that is true.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Right.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There are going to be some more redundancies. I think that is clear. There are going to be some bankruptcies.

    Depending upon how liquid the banking system is and how available loans are will be absolutely crucial to determining how bad the situation is. So the underlying sub prime mortgage problem which has damaged inter-bank lending for example is very important.

    Fear is toxic and…

    ANDREW MARR:

    And it’s spreading?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    And it is spreading. And that is a real, quite apart from the realities of the situation that, that toxic element, that fear element is very serious. And I think the government and the bank will need to look and see how they can give some hope, some circumstance where one can see things beginning to get better. And the sooner we can identify some of that and put that in place I think the better it will be for everyone.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Can I ask you about the Conservative Party because in many ways they are playing tunes that you will find familiar, what David Cameron said about responsibility and so on. You, I think you talked about we should understand a little less and condemn a little more and got into some trouble of that but there’s certainly echoes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it was, that’s because it was totally distorted. I mean…

    ANDREW MARR:

    Inevitably. It always is.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    When I, well I dare say. I mean it’s a dangerous territory, but I mean there were two things. I said “back to basics” which was actually about traditional education and nothing to do with the matters that subsequently earned huge headlines. And when I said we condemn a little, should condemn a little more and understand a little less I was talking specifically about making sure very young children under the age of two or three actually understood there were boundaries and one didn’t instinctively say oh well, isn’t he lovely, forget the fact that he’s breaking all the crockery.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But, but with knife crime and stuff people are talking about this again.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    But of course it was wholly misunderstood.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes but I mean, but in a sense what David Cameron is saying now?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s quite similar to what you were saying.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s very similar. And indeed I think the underlying prescription needs to be similar as well. If you look at knife crime in the cities, if you go back to the time when I was a boy I, I lived in the middle of Brixton at a time of quite a lot of social turmoil, when there was relatively little to do. But there were gymnasiums, there were places where you could go and you could box, you could play indoor soccer, you could do things of that sort.

    Now one of the reasons I set up the Lottery which the government have ransacked and taken a large part of the money sadly, was to set up things like that right the way through the big cities. We need to find things for our young people to do. In the early part of the century, the previous century when there was a lot of trouble with youngsters, er, youth clubs, the Scouts, things like that were established and became set up.

    Maybe not the same prescription. But we certainly need the opportunity for sporting facilities and arts facilities inside the inner cities so that youngsters have something to do when they go out rather than stand on the street corner. Give them something to do. Give them the opportunity to do it. I think that would be expenditure well spent. It was the purpose of the Lottery. I very much hope and believe that a Conservative government will return the Lottery to its original intention.

    And I think we should work with the voluntary agencies and bodies like Chance To Shine, for example, who do so much to spread particularly cricket, to bring those leisure opportunities to young people in the cities. We need to help them. Of course we condemn people who use knives. That is unacceptable by any measure. But let us give them something to do that will attract their interest. And if that isn’t worthwhile expenditure I cannot myself imagine what is.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Could you imagine yourself coming back into public life? Just listening to you talk now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, I don’t think so. No, no. I was in public life for a long time. I enjoyed most of it but I don’t think I’m coming back, no.

    ANDREW MARR:

    If, if those are areas where you and David Cameron would feel comfortable it seems to me in one other area the Party has changed radically from the Party that you were leading. In those days Euro-sceptics were a very, very difficult minority that you were struggling with. Now they’re in charge.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well they were certainly extremely difficult at the time. That is absolutely true. But I think public opinion generally has changed. There were some issues particularly on Europe magnified of course by our exit from the exchange rate mechanism.

    I mean because that was the European exchange rate mechanism, it was magnified out of all proportion. Had it for example been an American exchange rate mechanism we wouldn’t have had so much trouble with it. But there was a lot of Euro-scepticism. I think there is more unity in the Party. I, I hope it is not a unity that is wholly Euro sceptic. Europe is still our largest trading partner. It is our, it is our nearest partner. It is an enormous market. But I think a too prescriptive Europe wasn’t amenable to me in the nineties, let alone the Euro sceptics.

    And I don’t think it’s amenable to most people in this country. And I think the prospects now of Britain as a nation having more allies amongst the members of the European Union is greater now than it has ever been. When Margaret was there and when I was there we were often isolated in Europe. That is no longer the case.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One other thing which has come back again I’m afraid is sleaze. I mean the Conservative Party’s got yet more problems over who’s paying what to whom. So has the Labour Party. It’s not one party or the other.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well indeed it isn’t.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But this must make you kind of despair because you know it was, it was supposed to be something that was around in the eighties and then disappeared again, whiter and white, purer than pure. It’s back. Both parties.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I was concerned in the mid nineties which was why I set up the Nolan Body in the first place and that was widely criticised by many people.

    But I felt, frankly I didn’t know how widespread it might have been. My inclination was to think that it wasn’t very widespread and Nolan would show that. Well in fact over the years it seems to have been rather more widespread than I had thought.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Is there anything can be done about this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I strongly believe that it is desirable to audit which Parliament rejected last week. I think it is desirable to audit the money received by members of Parliament, the public funds received and the expenditure. I’m less certain about the publication of individual figures. They can be distorted and they can be utilised in a way that is often rather unfair.

    But I do not see any case whatsoever for there not being a private auditor set up by the Speaker or, or whomsoever who has access and audits the expenditure made available to MPs and the way they use the money made available to them and effectively producing an audit certificate saying this is within the rules. I see no credible case against that and I am absolutely baffled why the government opposed it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    When you look at Gordon Brown today human sympathy or Schadenfreude?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no, no, no. No. Well I hope it’s human sympathy. I have very strong disagreements with many of the things politically that Gordon Brown has done. But he’s doing an extremely difficult job. He’s doing it in extremely difficult circumstances.

    They may be partially of his making. But nonetheless it’s not helpful to the country or anybody else to have some of the comment about him that there has been and I, I regret that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    All right. John Major for now thank you very much indeed.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the National Sporting Club Lunch – 8 July 2008

    This is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the National Sporting Club Lunch, in honour of the South African touring team, held at the Royal Garden Hotel in London on Tuesday 8th July 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you, David, my book is available in all good book shops…

    Let me first welcome the South African team to England. We’re absolutely delighted to see them here – and looking forward to seeing them play on Thursday of this week. Huge excitement about this tour.

    From the few hours cricket our wretched weather has enabled them to have, it is regretfully evident their batsmen are in good form and I think everyone – with the exception of the English batsmen – are looking forward to seeing their new pace attack.

    Over the years, we’ve come to value games against South Africa and the forthcoming series, albeit only three instead of five that I would wish it to be, promises to be vintage. Let’s hope for good cricket (likely), good crowds (certain), good weather (hugely problematic) and a good outcome to the Series although that, of course, may not mean the same thing to the two Teams. In any event – should be a spicy contest. I don’t think I’m the only person who can’t wait for Thursday…

    By its very nature, cricket brings victory and defeat and delight and despair. Ironically, it was an Englishman with the unusual name – not of

    Despair, but of a man called Anguish – who, probably, first introduced cricket to South Africa. We can be grateful that he did because, since then, we have enjoyed watching a great stream of cricketers from Dudley Nourse to the present team.

    I look about this room and see my generation reasonably represented.

    One great regret for my generation is that – when politics ruled South Africa out of Test cricket – some truly great players like Barry Richards, Mike Proctor, Graeme Pollock and Eddie Barlow had their Test career ruined. As a result, cricket lost sight of what might have been one of the greatest of all Test sides in the long history of Test cricket. Thankfully – for South Africa – such days are long behind us.

    South Africa’s Captain, of course, for this Tour is Graham Smith, well-known here and widely admired. When England first toured South Africa in 1889, the English Captain for the First Test was also called Smith – C. A. Smith, but perhaps better known as C. Aubrey Smith, Hollywood actor, star of Rebecca and The Prisoner of Zenda.

    Aubrey Smith played only one Test whereas Graham has not only played a great many – with, hopefully, many to come – but Graham is by far a greater cricketer than his earlier name-sake. I am not sure, however, how good he may be as an actor!

    A few years after that first Tour, a trend began that has not yet ended. Over recent decades, several very fine South African cricketers have played for England – no doubt to immense South African frustration. This is not a new phenomenon. We are prepared to accept anyone.

    In the early 1889 Tour, an Englishman, R. M. Poore, once ADC to cricket’s Lord Harris in India – turned out for South Africa against the English tourists. Lord Hawke, the English Captain, and Harris’ protegé was apoplectic – and tried to poach him back to the England Team but lamentably failed to do so. I mention this only to discourage anyone from looking at the antecedents of any members of the current England team.

    One of the delights of cricket is that you don’t have to be good at it to enjoy it. I have always loved cricket but was only an average player. My failure to pick in-swing, out-swing, leg-spin, off-spin and length – condemned me to a life of politics.

    Once, I failed to pick the wrong people and questioned their parentage. With apologies, it was true. I was once forthright in private and off the record.

    Nevertheless, cricket was always a solace, even in the most difficult days. I remember after having lost the 1997 Election rather comprehensively, I went to the West Indies to watch an England game and – with that gift that served me so well in politics – picked the only game in Test history that was abandoned because the pitch was unfit.

    Hopefully, the weather won’t call off any of the games during this Tour and I wish the South African team a good Tour, free of injury – and (of course, within the limits of my English prejudice) every success both on and off the pitch.

    It is, Graham – truly – a delight to have you here.

    [Indistinct, but anecdotes relating to cricket].

    I don’t expect any instances like that but I do expect some wonderful cricket and I think a very large part of that wonderful cricket will be played by the South African team.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments at the Lunch for Alec Bedser’s 90th Birthday – 4 July 2008

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s comments made at the lunch to celebrate Alec Bedser’s 90th Birthday, held at The Oval on Friday 4th July 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Today is Alec’s 90th birthday. If I had any doubt that Fate had a sense of humour, Alec being born on Independence Day removes it: some think St George’s Day would have been more fitting. I disagree: George was a Greek, living in Syria who never visited England. Not at all right.

    Alec was born into a world now gone. On his birth date, Mehmed VI became Emperor of the Ottoman Empire. Later that month, the Soviets murdered the Czar and his family at Ekaterinburg, and the Battle of the Marne began. And yet, July 1918 had its good points: four Nobel Prize Winners were born together with one of the greatest bowlers in the long history of cricket.

    Today, Alec Bedser is revered in every part of the English-speaking world.

    Gathered here, today, are friends of a lifetime. Arthur Morris, Neil Harvey, Ken Archer and Alan Davidson have flown in from the opposite end of the earth. Richie Benaud is here, too. So are a galaxy of England players, some former team-mates of Alec. They are not only here as good friends to Alec: they are here because Alec is a good friend to them. Today, we celebrate Alec Bedser the man as well as Alec Bedser the great cricketer.

    I know that view will be shared by those here from Alec’s other great love: golf. Peter Alliss, John Jacobs, George O’Grady and his old friend and neighbour, Ken Schofield, will tell you Alec was a top-class golfer, too – well able to hit a Par 4 on the 14th at West Hill.

    In Pro-Am tournaments he partnered the great golfers, such as V J Singh, who played with Alec because they wished to win, and being second best was never a Bedser characteristic.

    Others present can – and will – speak more authoritatively about Alec’s cricket. I saw him only from beyond the boundary; they saw him at close quarters – too close sometimes if they were batting.

    His record is remarkable. He lost six cricketing years to the War, but still took 236 Test wickets in only 51 matches. If Tests had been as frequent then as today, his tally would have been phenomenal. In his first Test at Lord’s, against India in 1946, he took 11 wickets prompting his mother to say – when asked for some treacly quote – “Well, that’s what he’s paid for, isn’t it?” Glib platitudes were never a Bedser trait.

    In his early Test days Alec was often the alpha and omega of the England attack. Later, at Surrey he was the core of the greatest bowling attack any County side has ever put into the field. He bowed out of first-class cricket, with 5 for 25 for Surrey against Glamorgan. As a bowler, he was in the line of Sydney Barnes and Maurice Tate, and – 48 years on – his equal is yet to be found.

    Sometimes, little things tell you a lot. In his long career – which ended at the age of 42 – Alec only once left the field during play. He didn’t turn his ankle, pull a muscle or feel queasy. Nor did his studs or stitching work loose. He was never on a piece of elastic reeling him onto the masseur’s table and – if nature called – she was told to wait until the next interval. Nor did he begin the day’s play with a cuddle in a huddle: the senses rebel at the very thought.

    “Nothing can come of nothing”, said King Lear to Cordelia. Nor can talent.

    Is it God-given or the result of hard work? Both – of course. No-one could have bowled Alec’s leg-cutter without those huge hands. And no-one could have bowled over 16,000 first class overs – more than 1,000 a year – without massive stamina and supreme fitness. And no-one – without diligence and practice – could have gained his uncanny accuracy.

    Nor can a personality come of nothing. Alec’s character is as steady as a rock and as certain as the changing of the tides. He is a tribute to what must be a long line of ancestor Bedsers. I wish I’d known them – I daresay they told it as it was.

    When his playing career ended, Alec continued to serve cricket: as an England selector and long term Chairman; as a Tour Manager; as President of Surrey – and, more ephemerally, as a peerless judge of the game.

    Watching cricket with Alec is to enjoy a master-class in the finer points of the game. To ransack his mind is to open a treasure trove.

    Sometimes this was unnerving because he and Eric remembered everything. I said to him (rather smugly) one day that – as a boy – I saw him get Maurice Hallam caught in the slips off a rare out-swinger. This – remember – was one of nearly 2000 first-class wickets.

    “Ah”, said Eric, “yes, it was second slip!” “And it wasn’t an out-swinger” chimed in Alec, “he just mis-judged it!”.

    In this room are over 100 friends of Alec. At a conservative estimate he would, on average, have known everyone for 40 years: some, of course, far longer. Add it up – and there is over 4,000 years of friendship gathered together. And yet, there is one glaring absentee: Eric.

    Eric is not here: at least, not visibly so. And yet – I daresay he is somewhere about, because he was never far from his twin. No-one more enjoyed Alec’s success: Eric over-flowed with pleasure when his brother joined the select band of cricketing Knights. “Quite right, too”, he said to me, adding in character, “Course, he should have had it years ago!”. And how he would have loved the tributes – so richly earned – as Alec celebrates this special day (which, of course, is Eric’s birthday, too).

    Now, it’s after mid-day: so Eric will already have raised a pint in the Long Room to toast Alec. Let me now invite you to rise and do the same: the toast is – Alec – a very Happy Birthday.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Freedom of the City of Cork Presentation – 20 June 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Freedom of the City of Cork Presentation, held in Cork on Friday 20th June 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There are some days that are indelibly printed in the memory: today is one. I shall always treasure the memory of this honour, and the delightful poem by Thomas McCarthy. All that, and lovely Irish music too! My only regret is that Michael Flatley was not dancing to it!

    It is an especial pleasure that this honour is in company with Albert Reynolds. Albert and I first met as Finance Ministers, and became Prime Minister and Taoiseach at almost the same time. From the moment we met, we both decided to put the Northern Ireland Peace Process at the top of our agenda.

    It looked hopeless: decades of mutual suspicion/recriminations/injustice/ violence. Few thought success was possible.

    Albert and I believed in politics of reason/persuasion: we believed that violence would never reach a solution: but dialogue might.

    But dialogue without agreement between the British and Irish Governments would simply sow confusion. That appreciation was the root of the Joint Declaration.

    Others had tried: others had cared – but only a joint Government agreement was likely to attract widespread support.

    The Joint Declaration not easily agreed. Went through many versions / much discussion / a lot of frustration – and the occasional squabble.

    But Albert and I got there in the end. Albert took political risks – for which I will be forever grateful – and so did I. It was worth it.

    What was the Joint Declaration?

    a powerful symbol of Anglo-Irish determination;
    a set of principles both Governments could accept;
    the essential bedrock of an agreement.

    It was not itself an agreement – but without it no agreement was possible.

    It offered reassurances essential to negotiation:

    To Nationalists:
    their traditions/aspirations would be respected;

    To Unionists:
    a United Ireland would not be imposed;

    To Paramilitaries:

    a way into democratic politics was open if they gave up violence.

    The Joint Declaration was the beginning of what we knew would be a long process. The Irish Peace Process was like a Rubiks Cube in Gaelic – never easy to solve.

    The Joint Declaration:
    Agreed objectives for London/Dublin;

    Addressed contradictory ambitions and fears.

    After the Joint Declaration, Albert and I were confident an agreement would be reached: my only regret was that it took so long.

    It was that path that has brought us here today: let me echo what Albert has already said: that we are proud to be your guests today, and that I am proud to be honoured alongside one of Ireland’s finest sons.

  • Sir John Major’s Article on 42-Day Detention – 6 June 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on 42-day detention, published by The Times on 6th June 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The Government’s legislation to permit 42 days pre-charge detention brings to the fore the wider question of civil liberties. In their response to the security threat ministers have dragged us ever closer to a society in which ancient rights are seriously damaged. I doubt this is the Government’s intention, but it is the effect. It began with Iraq.

    The invasion of Iraq was justified by over-egging the threat of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction – perhaps that error was genuine.

    But the case for war was embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York – for which there is not one shred of evidence. As we moved towards war, that misinformation was compounded by the implication that Saddam’s Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, which plainly it was not.

    These actions damaged our reputation overseas. And, at home – on the back of the threat of terror and two serious incidents in London – they foreshadowed a political climate in which civil liberties are slowly being sacrificed.

    We now know that, despite repeated denials, our Government was complicit in rendition, or – to put it in plain terms – the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.

    Although the intention was presumably to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus.

    I don’t believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.

    That is no longer theoretical: we now have home-grown terrorists – born in Britain, not in Waziristan. Will they be encouraged or discouraged to rally to militancy if we bypass the sober rituals of law with which we are familiar?

    The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular – and no less violent – assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering.

    After terrorist attacks on London, Parliament doubled the time that suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. Probably, that was justified. But soon Parliament will be asked to increase detention without charge to 42 days. To appease opposition, the Government is cobbling together face-saving compromises. If the measure is passed, it will be a pyrrhic victory that owes more to political survival than principle. Even so, it is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.

    There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. This is a slippery slope. Assertions that it “might be useful” simply will not do. If we are to curtail the liberty of the individual, we must have more certainty than that.

    But it is not only the case for 42 days detention that is bogus. So is the case for identity cards. They were to be voluntary. Now it is clear that they will be compulsory. Yet the Government has admitted that such cards would not have stopped the London bombers. Nor will they cut illegal immigration, since asylum-seekers have been obliged to carry ID cards for nearly eight years. Nor will they have any real impact on benefits fraud, as this is typically caused by misrepresentation of financial resources rather than by identity.

    The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” This is a demagogue’s trick. We do have something to fear – the total loss of privacy to an intrusive state with authoritarian tendencies.

    This is not a United Kingdom that I recognise and Parliament should not accept it.

    Nor do I believe that anyone can defend another government innovation: a national identity register containing the DNA of tens of thousands of people who have never been charged with an offence. Under present legislation, DNA can be retained permanently for even minor misdemeanours, such as being drunk. A total of more than four million samples are already on the UK database – far more than in any other country. This includes tens of thousands of children, and a disproportionate number of black men. If this is accepted, it will one day go farther. This cannot be right: for me, it is all uncomfortably authoritarian.

    So is a society in which the right to personal privacy is downgraded. These days a police superintendent can authorise bugging in public places. A chief constable can authorise bugging our homes or cars.

    The Home Secretary can approve telephone tapping and the interception of our letters and e-mails. All of this is legal under an Act passed by the Labour Government. None of this requires – as it should – the sanction of a High Court Judge. Francis Pym once spoke of the democratic deficit of any government having too large a majority. He was right. In a Parliament with a more balanced representation, the undermining of personal privacy, lengthy detention before charge, identity cards and a DNA register would have never been passed.

    I understand – and sympathise with – the complex dilemmas of security and crime that face the Government. But, while I understand their motives, their remedies are too stringent and not wise.

    No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity – but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our core instincts and – once in place – will be difficult to dismantle. It is a road down which we should not go.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at St Louis – 6 May 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s “Churchill Speech”, made at St Louis, Missouri, United States, on Tuesday 6th May 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    76 years ago, Churchill spoke in the St. Louis Woman’s Club. He was out of office and out of favour.

    He could not know that – one day, not far away, there would stand a remarkable Museum, dedicated to his life and hidden under a

    Christopher Wren church which was destroyed in the London Blitz, dismantled, shipped across the ocean and re-assembled at Westminster College, Fulton. I saw it today. It is an unsung gem in the heart of Missouri and – most probably – the oldest building in America.

    For Churchill – half American and half English – there could be no greater honour.

    And it is appropriate: for in the long history of the British nation, Winston Churchill stands as one of our greatest leaders, alongside Henry II, Elizabeth I and Cromwell.

    In the most savage war in history, he rallied the British Empire as it stood alone against Nazi Germany until – as he predicted in his own magical phrase: “The New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old”. It is a classic Churchill phrase: compelling, vivid, and touching emotion at a level deeper than prosaic language.

    That gift for language was part of his genius. He used it to inspire, to praise, to condemn and to mock. And, of course, to write. Like Shakespeare, Churchill invented new words by adding suffixes and prefixes: unwisdom and unsordid, for example, were unknown words until he invented them.

    Because Churchill is such a figure of myth and legend it is easy to forget that he held power in the lifetime of our parents. He is not a hero from the distant past. His world was the forerunner of ours. At Yalta, he helped shape that world – though not entirely to his, or our, satisfaction. His leadership at a time of peril will be admired a thousand years from now. In the long march of history, most are forgotten – Churchill never will be.

    In March 1946, he was invited by President Truman to speak at Westminster College, Fulton, and – as an incentive for him to accept – the President offered to travel to Missouri to introduce him. For a romantic like Churchill, Truman’s invitation was an irresistible one, and he responded with one of his most famous speeches.

    The speech is remembered for his sombre warning – added on the train to Fulton – that an iron curtain had descended across the continent of Europe. But, in typical Churchill fashion, the speech contained much else of substance, as he looked ahead to forecast the opportunities and perils through which our generation has lived.

    Nations, said Churchill, would need to be shielded from war and tyranny in a world menaced by poverty and privation. He urged a unity of purpose for the US and Great Britain and forecast – wrongly – so far! – that we might one day share a common citizenship.

    He was trenchant that we should not trust any third country with the technology of the Atom bomb, and he welcomed the birth of the United Nations as a clearing house to prevent war.

    Since then, time has moved on. Were Churchill here tonight, he would look to the future and – albeit as a poor substitute – that is what I propose to do.

    Let me start by reviewing some of the structures Churchill knew.

    NATO has served us supremely well. Its founding purpose was to defend democracy against the Soviet Union. And so it did. But the Soviet Union no longer exists. Even so, it would be folly to let NATO wither for lack of a clear-cut mission: we need to re-define its purpose.

    So, too, the United Nations. Today, it is widely derided – not least in the US. But the UN is an American invention: its Charter signed at the San Francisco Opera House in 1946.

    Its basic aim – to prevent war – is as relevant now as then, but the UN can only be as strong as its Members enable it to be. If its senior Member States are lukewarm in its support, then the UN is bound to disappoint.

    Certainly, it is in need of reform. When it was founded, the US, Britain, Russia, China and France appointed themselves as Permanent Members of the Security Council. But sixty years ago, the UN had fewer than 50 Members. Today it has over 190, and the continued tenure of the same nations is no longer acceptable to much of the world. Yet the Permanent Five remain in place.

    Unsurprisingly, nations like Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, now seek to join them. They have a powerful case – and yet it is denied. It shouldn’t be. If we wish the UN to fulfil its function – and it didn’t exist we’d have to invent it – then the present Permanent Members must admit others and dilute their power. Only then can the ambitions of its Founders be realised.

    Reform of international bodies is vital to the future. It’s not only NATO and the UN that need to be updated. So do the Financial Institutions and – above all – the “Group of 8”.

    The G8 – allegedly – comprises the most powerful industrial nations of the world – yet China and India are excluded from membership: frankly, that is absurd – and must be corrected.

    It’s also instructive to note what Churchill did not talk about at Fulton: the rise of terrorism; the danger of an Islamic Jihad to divide Christian and Muslim; the unstoppable advance of science; and the prospect of near-universal free trade and a global market. Nor did he envisage a world with America as the only super-power. Had he done so, he would have warned that great power attracts great enmity, often without reason. As a child of Empire, Churchill knew that – and lived to see the Empire fade away.

    In the sixty years since his speech, Churchill’s loathing of Communism has been totally vindicated. It was one of the most miserable creeds Man has devised. Around the world, it led to bloodshed, violence, repression and economic failure. Soviet-style Communism confronted the free world in a fifty-year Cold War – until the whole rotten edifice of Soviet Russia collapsed.

    Whatever perils face us now, they pale beside the risk of massive nuclear exchanges between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries. Now – that is gone. New – but lesser – threats lie ahead.

    The American Goliath – and her allies – are learning that massive military superiority in sophisticated weapons, although re-assuring, doesn’t protect against attack by small, highly dedicated groups. Nor does it prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    As a young man, Churchill went to war on a horse in Sudan and South Africa. He lived through an age in which Man learned how to kill his fellows in great numbers, and with great efficiency, on land, in the air and under water. Fifty years of science led to the sophistication of the Atomic Bomb. But that wasn’t the end of Man’s inventiveness. The destructive power of today’s nuclear weapons dwarf those Churchill knew and yet – despite this – the threat is very different and, I would argue, diminished.

    Both World Wars began in Europe. Today, the European Union extends from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia in the East, and military conflict between its Members is inconceivable. One worrying side effect of this new amity – as we learn to our regret in NATO – is that the Liberal democracies of Europe have little appetite for military expenditure.

    The main enemy of our lifetime, the Soviet Union, has gone. But the major portion of it – modern Russia – survives. We have grown up with a 20th century perception of Russia that runs very deep, but is now out of date. If we are to understand modern Russia, we must consider her history.

    The last century was a nightmare for Russia. Tens of millions were killed in the First World War, and yet more in the Revolution and the Civil War that followed.

    The famine of 1921, and the terror campaigns of the 1930s, claimed many more lives even before the Second World War robbed Russia of 70% of her young men between 18 and 32.

    Fifty years of repressive Government followed these horrors. So did economic stagnation, the Cold War and the decline and collapse of Communism as a philosophy – and the Soviet Union as an entity. Even then, the agony continued: economic and political reforms in the 1990s brought turmoil, crime, the Russian mafia and national debt.

    Until 1990, the Soviet Union – Churchill’s Russian “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” – was a persistent danger to us. It was a bleak time, now in the past.

    Today, we watch Russia warily as she becomes a newly oil-rich State. Russia makes money from an oil price of $14 a barrel; at $18 the income is significant; at over $20 it becomes rosy. At $80-$100 oil is an uncovenanted bonus, and offers a stability against which economic reforms and military re-equipment can be afforded with ease.

    Should we worry about this? I don’t think so – at least not yet or for a long time.

    It is probable that America spends as much on her military as the rest of the world combined. Certainly, she spends three times as much each year, as Russia and China added together.

    As a result, Russia is so far behind the US in capability, that any serious threat is negligible. The once Mighty Bear now has very blunt teeth. Nor is China a threat compared to the old Soviet Union. Although she, too, is spending far more on re-equipping her military than she admits – and, of course, has a huge conscript Army – she cannot match the superiority America has built up over decades.

    The gap is widening, not narrowing. In any major conflict, America has – and will retain – unchallengeable military superiority for a long time to come. Any security danger comes – not from large Nation States – but from rogue regimes and terror groups – and here the threat is imminent and serious.

    It is also universal. Every nation has a stake in this. In its different guises, terrorism has hit West and East as New York, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo and Bali can testify. All bear the scars and the fatalities of terrorist atrocities.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, the impact of the phenomenon is seen on a wider canvas.

    The failure to find WMD in Iraq was a disaster. It strengthened international opposition to the War and weakened support for anti-terrorist policies – not least in Afghanistan – where the European military and financial contribution for what is a necessary conflict – has been feeble.

    Although every NATO ally agreed to a military role in Afghanistan, many have offered only token troops and placed caveats on what those troops will do and where they will go.

    This is hopeless: it leaves the military burden unfairly distributed.

    It may take a long time to diminish the potency of terror. But one thing is certain: action against it will be more effective if it is international – and wholehearted. There is a further point too: to be successful, we need to know our enemy. The battle against Islamic terror groups is a war of the mind – in a culture we don’t understand. We should try harder to do so.

    The battle is against Islamic terrorism, but not Islam. If it were, we would be engulfed in a mighty conflict. Instead, we face highly motivated fanatical groups intent on the destruction of everything that does not fit within their philosophy.

    After 9/11, America went into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda training camps: she – and her allies – have ended up fighting the Taliban.
    Al Qaeda and the Taliban are different organisations, with few direct links. Yet they have a similar “inspiration”: both are fundamentalist, ideologically-motivated Muslim groups, seeking a purer Islam through a return to a Caliphate.

    And this emphasises the complexity of any anti-terror strategy: it must confront threats from many disparate groups. In Afghanistan, we have made progress: there is a Parliament, a Government, an electoral process, and central Government Ministers. None of this basic apparatus of order existed in 2001. Even so, we are far from the end game. Our troops will – at best – be there for years, and the diplomatic and financial commitment for far longer.

    In Iraq, much has improved too, but it is difficult to see an orderly withdrawal of troops in under 3-4 years and, even then, the allied involvement of special forces may stretch far beyond that – unless we wish to leave chaos behind.

    If Iraq becomes a stable country, with a form of democracy that survives, it will be a triumph. The War may have been launched under false pretences; it may have done immense short-term harm to America and Britain; but a benign long-term outcome will change the future of the entire region. The right combination of soft and hard power may yet deliver such a result.

    Let me turn now to economics:

    Churchill’s world of yesterday has long gone. He did not foresee the scale of the competitive challenge posed today by China, India, Brazil, Russia. Nor did he imagine the end of a Western economic dominance that had stretched back over two hundred years. But – as a practical politician – he would have recognised one ancient rule that still holds true today: economic power leads to political power.

    We, in the West, need to understand the scale of what is happening.

    It is not my purpose this evening to discuss the financial problems of the Markets – they will work themselves out – but I do want to emphasise the impact of changes now taking place.

    Energy prices have soared as demand has grown from the developing world. Once, emerging nations had a spurt of growth and fell away.

    Now, their growth continues. So, too – I suspect – will high energy prices. And food.

    If one billion Indians – one sixth of the entire world population – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand and price of foodstuff rises. One would need a heart of stone not to welcome the end of such hardship – even as we face the problems it poses.

    In this new world, all Governments are losing economic influence to the free market. Historic weapons, such as exchange or capital or import controls, are almost derelict. Competition in the global labour market continues to transfer manufacturing to low-cost centres in the developing world. Even tax policy is becoming ineffective or unusable since, if countries aren’t tax-competitive, capital moves to a more attractive host environment.

    Some people attribute the huge growth of emerging nations simply to the demand for raw materials, cost-effective manufacturing and the capture of a few niche markets. They are wrong: it is far more substantial.

    Outsourcing is growing rapidly. It is no longer restricted to manufacturing and call centres. Tax, accounting, financial, advertising and some legal services, can all be electronically delivered from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world.

    So, too, computer programming; architectural design; medical records; financial analysis; and research and development in the knowledge-based industries.

    An American economist (Alan Blinder), estimates that out-sourcing might cost the US many millions of jobs. If that is true of the US, it will be equally true – perhaps even more so – of Europe and Japan.

    Don’t imagine for a moment that I exaggerate. For the first time since 1820, world growth comes predominantly from the East. This will continue. Emerging nations hold 70% of the world’s foreign exchange reserves. They consume over 50% of energy and 80% of growth of energy over recent years. Their dynamism is striking. They are re forming the world market, and changing trade and investment patterns.
    China now manufactures 80% of the world’s photocopiers; 60-70% of mobile phones; 60% of digital cameras; and 50% of the world’s computers. If we are not already worried, we should be.

    In order to compete in the future, mature States must develop new science and new services. This is important socially and economically. Let me offer an example.

    America, Japan and the UK are leaders in investment in the knowledge-based industries – and especially Bio and Nano-technology. This requires huge research and development projects into this cutting-edge technology.

    This is likely to prove worthwhile. Demand is soaring for healthy food, pesticides, the control and destruction of pollution, forensic medicine, genetic engineering and new and better drugs to combat disease.

    Biotechnology may be in its infancy, but is already a $30 billion a year industry, with unlimited potential.

    Nano-technology offers similar scope across the engineering and biological sciences. These are sciences for the new century and can be developed by anyone – anywhere – with access to capital and expertise. The social and financial rewards of success promise to be staggering.

    Successful innovation may enable scientists to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research to target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine the benefits to patients if chemotherapy could be so targeted in cancer treatment, that it caused only minimal side-effects. All this lies ahead.

    Some commercial applications of Bio and Nano science are already apparent: the technology has revolutionised aspects of dentistry, dressings for burns, and better protection from the sun.

    Already, advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for those suffering from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon even be possible to replace heart muscle cells.

    These are innovations which – until recently – seemed fanciful. In Churchill’s world they would have seemed like black magic.

    But soon, what was once fantasy will be an everyday reality.

    And that concept – fantasy becoming reality – may be a leitmotif for the future. No-one should be complacent that the present world order is fixed: it is not. Compare and contrast Churchill’s world of sixty years ago with today. Then factor in the reality that the pace of change is accelerating. Our children and grandchildren will live in a very different world.

    CONCLUSION

    Let me try and bring all this together. As the years unfold, change will invade every aspect of our lives.

    In Churchill’s maturity, one hundred years ago, the UK, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface and much of the world’s economy. No longer: today, the age of Regal Empire has gone and the age of Commercial Empire is with us.

    All over the world, young people dress as they do on the streets of New York and London. Over 200 million Chinese – and hundreds of millions elsewhere – are learning English.

    Investment across nations minimises the risk of significant military conflict. Science is raising the quality of life. In the last 40 years – think of this – since 1968 – life expectancy has risen faster than in the previous 4,000 years. Now, science is on the verge of raising it still further.

    Despite the perils and frustrations of our world – of Iraq, Iran, terror, Afghanistan, Pakistan, a resurgent Russia – it is an exhilarating time to be alive.

    Despite garish headlines, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the confrontation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact has gone. The world is safer. The risk of widespread warfare has lessened.

    Despite some tensions, international relations are more benign than for decades. China and the US have huge inter-locking economic interests. Japan and China are beginning to repair old scars. Latin America is becoming a continent of democracies. Even Africa – poor forgotten Africa – is growing faster than at any time in our lifetimes. There is much to be thankful for.

    Sometimes, I think, we should be more aware – more self-confident – of what has already been achieved. Francis Bacon observed in the England of Queen Elizabeth I that “We have planted things that are likely to last”. So have we in our own time. The English Language. The Free Market. Democracy. All gifts from the West to the world, with America and Britain as the principal donors.

    We need to look at the future with a critical and honest eye, and see how it is – with one prime purpose: if we see how it is, we can shape how it could be. That is what Churchill would have done and – in this as in so much else – we would be wise to take the lead of one of the most remarkable men in the long history of the English speaking peoples.