The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 2025

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Maurice Fraser Lecture – 18 November 2025

    The speech made by Sir John Major on 18 November at the Maurice Fraser Lecture held at the LSE European Institute on 18 November 2025.

    BRITAIN IN A CHANGING WORLD

    Thank you for that very kind introduction ‒ and for the invitation to deliver the Maurice Fraser Lecture.  

    Maurice was a Special Adviser at the Foreign Office during my brief tenure as Foreign Secretary in 1989 – between the much longer tenures of two great public servants ‒ my predecessor, Geoffrey Howe, and my successor, Douglas Hurd.  

    He was to work with all three of us – for a total of six years from 1989 to 1995 ‒ making him, or so I was told, the longest-serving Special Adviser in the recent history of the Foreign Office.  He was that near-mythical creature:  a round peg in a round hole.   Few – if any – Special Advisers have been awarded the Legion of Honour by France.

    He had a formidable knowledge of world affairs, a tireless enthusiasm, a wicked sense of humour – and a total commitment to his country.

    It was for that – and so many other reasons – that I asked him to join me at No10.  But Maurice’s allegiance to the Foreign Office was too great to tempt him away from it.

    Maurice studied at this university, and it was where he chose to return to share his experience after he left Whitehall ‒ first as a Lecturer, then as a Fellow and finally as a Professor.  In many ways, the LSE was his spiritual home. 

    So it is a great pleasure to be here at the European Institute with his family, friends and former colleagues, to celebrate his remarkable – but too short – life through this Annual Lecture.

    * * * * *

    This evening, I wish to look at Britain’s future role in our changing world.

    That world has undergone many changes over the last fifty years and – whilst a large number of those changes are welcome – others are not.

    Globalisation has retreated.  Free trade has given ground to Protection.  Tariff barriers have risen.  Theft of intellectual property has become more blatant.  

    The stability of the rules-based post-war system is crumbling.  No country, no organisation, no Leader has stepped forward to seek a new consensus – to repair what is damaged, and replace what is lost.    

    Adherence to the written and unwritten rules of international conduct has fallen away.  The moral principles of politics are losing out to transactional arrangements.    

    As power shifts, and alliances are re-arranged, much that we once took for granted is no longer certain.  Current American policy has even upset calculations once believed to be settled about our future security and economic wellbeing.

    Our world today is unsettled, grumpy, fractious, changing in character as economic hardship bites, populism increases, and America and her allies grow apart.  For nearly two decades, democracy has been retreating as autocracy rises.  

    Basic expectations have been broken.  

    In the post-war years, it was the experience of most that improvements in our lifestyle had either been delivered – or were on the horizon.

    Downturns came, of course, but these were overcome and better years followed.  

    Slowly, if irregularly, democracy offered hope – even to those at the back of every queue.  Nations in the democratic West came to believe this improvement was an unbreakable trend:  it wasn’t.

    Since the financial crisis of 2007, too many people have seen little or no improvement in their living standards.  Taxes have risen, Pay packets buy less.  National and personal debt has soared – and hope has become anxiety.  All this has added to the disillusion with democracy.

    There is now a significant war in Europe, for which the outcome is uncertain – and the aftermath even more so.  

    The language of politics has changed.  It is harsher, more aggressive, more focused on the battles of politics than the welfare of nations.  

    A form of populism has taken root that builds its support by condemning others:  its target could be migrants, or minority religions, or people of another race – or any vulnerable group.

    It seems that if anyone is “different” and can be scapegoated – then they are fair game.  The late Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, noted that “Antisemitism is the best warning sign of a wider threat to a free and tolerant society”.  

    I agree with that:  venom directed at one source will be directed at others too.

    This mode of attack is not restricted to individuals or groups.  Populists use it against all authority and so-called “elites”.  

    “Elites” are treated as if they were “the enemy within”, and Governments as if their shortcomings were the root of all ills.

    Even the Judiciary is attacked, as if it were a subversive body, seeking to undermine the State.  No-one should be complacent about this.  If the Law loses its authority, the bully walks tall – and the lawless walk free.  

    The objective of the populist is as old as time:  if someone else is in the dock of public opinion, those who denounce them must surely be on the side of the majority.  The outcome of all this is to set citizen against citizen.

    Such behaviour debases all who practice it.  It is ugly, divisive, and racist – and daily on display.  

    RUSSIA

    In the midst of our unsettled world, President Putin has turned Nation against Nation.  The invasion of Ukraine had no credible or justifiable cause.

    Across Europe – and within his own country – Putin’s “3 Day War” is now over 3 years’ old.  So far, 400,000 Russians and Ukrainians have been killed – and many more are suffering from life-changing injuries.

    Only one man is responsible for this slaughter.

    The innocent civilians, who have died under bombs and drones, are considered by Putin apologists to be simply “collateral damage”.  They are not.  They are victims of mass murder and, when the fighting is done, this should not be forgotten.  

    There is a price to pay for mass murder and, if justice has any meaning, Putin will be brought face to face with it.  

    It is vital for future peace in Europe that Putin does not gain from his War Crimes – either on the battlefield or in an enforced deal.  

    Putin claims all of Donetsk, knowing Ukraine cannot cede it to him.  And President Zelensky must not be pressured to do so in return for promises that Putin is unlikely to keep.

    Western support for Ukraine has suffered from not being full-hearted.  The allies, generally, have provided enough for Ukraine to fight on and keep Russia at bay – but not enough for Ukraine to drive Russia back and end the conflict.  

    There are three ways in which this war can develop.

    It can continue indefinitely – in more or less a stalemate – if the democratic West holds back on increased support for Ukraine.

    But – if Russia gains the upper hand because Western support has dropped – then a compromise deal may be forced upon Ukraine.  

    That would be a shameful outcome, and one all of Europe – and beyond – would come to regret.  

    Putin would claim a victory, and be likely to re-group and test Western resolve again:  a bad outcome could be the preliminary to another war on a future date and a wider terrain.

    The third option is that Western support increases, Ukraine advances, and Russia retreats.

    If Putin loses, or is forced to withdraw, he loses face.  Conceivably, he may even fall from power.  If so, we cannot know if a successor will be more tractable – but it would be surprising if he were not more cautious.  

    America and Europe must weigh these alternatives.  Only one is likely to ensure peace.  They should take it.  

    One final point:  this conflict is not against the Russian people:  it is against Putin and his regime.  

    Putin has no scruples about creating chaos in other countries.  We should have none in telling his people how he deceives them ‒ and loots their assets.

    The prize of his departure would be the much safer and more stable Europe that Western democracy longs to have.

    CHINA

    Russia and China are allies against democracy, and friends only when it is mutually convenient.  There is no doubt that China has usurped the influence of the former Soviet Union and is the dominant state.

    Today, there seems to be no limit to Xi Jinping’s power or tenure of office.  He is supreme, and building up a more assertive China both economically and militarily ‒ especially in and around the South China Sea.  He is very much aware that China is America’s only Superpower rival.

    China now boasts the world’s largest Navy, with more warships and submarines than America ‒ and she continues to build them.  

    In the late 16th Century, China was the pre-eminent global power.  China has not forgotten this ‒ and nor should the world.

    President Xi is consolidating Chinese influence with diplomacy.  China offers development finance through loans and grants to nations across the globe.  

    Xi is presenting China as a champion of multilateralism ‒ in sharp contrast to President Trump’s arbitrary increase in tariffs on imports from friends and allies that has caused a great deal of anguish.

    It seems an upside-down world, in which America offends her allies, while China embraces them.  

    This “embracing” was very much the visual from the recent Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, hosted by China, and attended by India, Turkey and Egypt ‒ all of whom have been more generally considered as allies of the United States.  

    A wise America would gather them close, not push them away.  A friendship broken can be hard to regain.

    China is a strong opponent of liberal democracy, believing it to be inefficient and a potential risk to her authoritarian ways.

    Nonetheless, we must work with China, but set parameters to what we will accept.  We should not overlook her shortcomings:  her treatment of the Uighur Muslims;  her failure to honour promises over Hong Kong;  her threats to Taiwan;  her theft of Western technology.

    China will resent criticism, but may respect it.  She will scorn weakness – and we should remember it is weakness that encourages over-reach.  

    Nor should we be gullible.  China is a great power, but can be chillingly repressive.  Her philosophy is not inhibited by democratic instincts, or individual human rights.  If China believes actions are set against the interests of the State – she will crush them.

    As China says ‒ “We believe no comments challenging national sovereignty and social stability fall within the scope of freedom of expression.”.  That restriction is the very antithesis of democracy.

    It is a sentiment we should not ignore.

    BREXIT

    In an act of collective folly, the UK voted to leave the EU.  Across the world, our enemies celebrated.  Our friends despaired.  

    We left Europe on a minority vote of 37% of the electorate, after a Referendum Campaign that was packed with misinformation and misjudgement.  It left our country poorer, weaker and divorced from the richest free trade market in history.  

    The national interest was brushed aside by false hopes and promises, that even a Cabinet dominated by frontline Brexit enthusiasts was unable to deliver.    

    The gains – from Brexit – that were promised so confidently can now be seen to be illusory, while the forecast damage of leaving the EU has become only too apparent.  

    The nation soon saw “project fear” become “project reality”.  It is no consolation that a majority of the public now – overwhelmingly – recognises that it was misled.

    In their moment of triumph, Brexiteers predicted other countries would follow their lead and leave the EU.  None has ‒ all saw only too clearly that Brexit was packed with disadvantages.

    As we meet, nine further nations now wish to join the EU which is an apt comment on the world view of Britain’s decision to leave.

    The UK once revelled in being a leading member of a EU, with half a billion citizens and the undoubted first ally of the United States – the world’s most eminent super-power.  Today, we know we are neither ‒ and so does the world.

    As we plan for the future, we must see ourselves as we now are:  and what we are is 

    70 million people in a world of 9000 million.

    The UK has a proud history, a wealth of talents and a role in the world that continues to be significant.  

    So, we have much to offer our partners.  Our national assets would make the European Union stronger and better equipped to face an uncertain future. 

    Our collective future demands a Europe that conducts itself as an economic super-power alongside America and China:  the alternative is to be ever subordinate to their political and economic whims.  

    As I look to the future, I have no appetite for that.

    I know the shortcomings of the EU ‒ I lived with them for many painful years.  But, in a dangerous and uncertain world – with two unpredictable super-powers – I believe Britain’s future is safer and more economically secure inside a powerful bloc of neighbour nations than outside.

    But we cannot simply knock on the door and rejoin the European Union.  Too much political and diplomatic blood was spilt for that to be an easy option.  There are many barriers to a return to full membership that will be difficult to overcome – perhaps for many years.

    That said, there are areas where we can make a start and – looking forward – the plain truth is that the EU is too important for the UK not to be part of its decision-making process.  

    My immediate ambitions are limited, but a necessary beginning.  The changing public mood will help.

    The Polls tell us that well over half the electorate believes it was a mistake to leave the EU, and less than one-third now supports having done so.  Among the young, support for Brexit falls as low as 13%.  The trend is inexorable.  

    That is why it is disappointing that both Government and Opposition are so wretchedly timid in their ambition.  Both Labour and the Tories are terrified of the residual Brexit vote.  

    Our economic and political interests could not be clearer, but short-term Party political calculation is given priority over the national interest.

    Brexit is a flop.  It will not leap up from its death bed.  It is losing our country £100 billion of trade every year – as well as the tax revenue that trade would deliver.     

    Just think about that.  Every year – every year – the loss of billions of European trade is damaging our finances.  The loss is made far greater by decisions the present Government has taken.  That is one reason why we are facing a difficult Budget later this month.

    Serious economists forecast a cumulative loss to the economy of £311 billion by 2035, together with 3 million fewer jobs and a fall in trade levels with the EU.  

    As of now, many small and medium-sized firms have been defeated by post-Brexit bureaucracy, and simply stopped trading with Europe.  It is baffling that – at a minimum – we are not looking at how to negotiate away such frustrations.

    New trade deals – supposedly to cover lost European trade – have not done so.  Most are simply roll-overs of past deals.  Some are positively damaging.  

    The much-promised “mega” trade deal ‒ swapping additional American trade for lost European trade ‒ has never happened – and shows no sign of doing so.    

    Much though I wish otherwise, I do not foresee an early return to full membership of the European Union.  We have lost the unique and advantageous deals we gained in negotiations in the 1980s and 1990s – and I do not believe they can be regained.  

    Without them, a full return to Europe is almost certainly unobtainable in any likely Parliament until a younger generation of pro-European politicians come to power and the Brexiteer voice retreats again to the fringes of debate.

    In the post-Brexit years, it has become glaringly obvious that it is in our self-interest to rebuild a better relationship with the EU as an institution and bilaterally with individual Member States.

    The Government has made some modest steps that are welcome:  none is dramatic – but all will play a small part in building trust.

    More collaboration is under discussion ‒ such as youth mobility schemes, and integration into the Electricity Market.  Hopefully, they can be agreed.

    I hope ambitions can be raised to examine rejoining the Customs Union and, thereafter, the Single Market.  Neither will be easy or painless ‒ and both will face political opposition and negotiating hurdles.  

    But ‒ if a fair deal can be struck – it will be welcomed by trade and commerce, by a majority in Parliament, and by pragmatists everywhere.  And it can be achieved.  

    We may even be helped achieve an improved relationship by the evident wish of our European neighbours to build an expanded military presence across Europe, but within NATO.  British military capability is important to Europe.  

    If we try – and are rebuffed, we must try again.  The prize is worth the effort.  And, although those within the EU are tough negotiators, they must know that their long-term interests – and ours – are coming into alignment.  A deal can be done – and it must be done.

    UK

    Politics is a tough trade ‒ perhaps more so today than at any time outside of war.

    The commentariat, media, and social media give politicians little or no slack, even when dealing with novel and complex challenges.

    Let me turn to some of these challenges relevant to British politics ‒ though not necessarily unique to us.

    The cost of servicing our public debt is now over £100 billion a year, and the Chancellor’s second Budget in a few days’ time promises to be a painful lesson in what happens when nations spend too much and earn too little.  

    We are told constantly that “the broadest shoulders must bear the greatest burden” – 

    as, of course, a progressive tax system should ensure they do.  But it cheats the nation to pretend “the rich” can bear all the burden – or have not been bearing an increasing portion for a long time.

    In the late 1970s, the top 1% of UK taxpayers paid 11% of the total income tax take:  

    last year, they paid not 11% ‒ but 29%.  The Chancellor should beware:  to force the rich away will place a far greater burden on “the average tax payer”.

    We are not alone in our problem.  The scale of national debt is reaching crisis levels in rich countries as well as poor.

    Already, 60% of the world faces debt-to-GDP levels of over 100% ‒ including most of the world’s largest economies.

    This is an indictment of governments offering “Jam today” and “a bitter pill” tomorrow.  It’s now “bitter pill” time.

    No-one can be sure when the crisis will be triggered ‒ or what the catalyst will be ‒ but the world cannot continue to overspend and expect economic security.  And nor can we.

    IMMIGRATION

    A word about immigration.  

    No-one should blithely assume this is a short-term problem that will easily go away:  it won’t.  Last year, 950,000 migrants arrived ‒ 50,000 illegally by boat.  

    This is obviously socially unsustainable.  But the lure of our country will not disappear.  The long-term demand to come here will continue.

    The scale of this demand – although unwelcome – is a back-handed compliment.  No-one clamours to enter Russia, China or Iran.  Even so, there is a practical limit to how many the UK can absorb.  

    Yesterday, the Home Secretary presented new plans to Parliament that are controversial – but also more comprehensive than anything we have previously seen.  

    They deserve careful study – not instantaneous acceptance or rejection.  

    But – however the Home Secretary’s plans proceed – a long-term solution is likely to include a pan-European effort.  All of Europe faces this problem.  

    One aspect of reducing migration would be to make it more palatable for migrants to remain in their own countries.    

    The policy of cutting aid and investment to poor countries is very shortsighted:  it will accelerate demand to migrate as hardship increases.  This is a policy that acts completely against our own interests.    

    It is morally wrong, politically wrong – and heartless.  

    There have been hints that the Government will now re-think this policy:  it should do so as soon as it can.  

    POPULISM

    Let me return briefly to populism.

    Populism is no longer a fringe problem of a few outlandish politicians:  it is now mainstream and professional, and we should recognise the threat it poses to democracy.  If we do not – and it gains power – it will not tolerate its opponents.

    It is not easy to defeat populist groups offering disaffected people simple solutions to complex problems.  After all, if the established politicians have seemingly “failed” in finding solutions, it is human nature to look elsewhere.  

    But populism is a dead end.  I offer two antidotes to its appeal.

    The most effective – is policies to remove deeply felt grievances and regain political support.  

    Contented nations rarely support populism.  A return to stable growth would end much of the public dissatisfaction that gives life to it.  Such a recovery would also ease the minds of many people worried about their future.

    The second defence against populism is to expose the dangers of its policies and the unworkability of its solutions.  

    I do have a warning though:  over-the-top attacks on populist Leaders – as opposed to their policies – can be counter-productive.  Unworthy attacks can offer them the oxygen of public support:  a dissection of harmful and undeliverable policy can take that support away altogether.  

    The truth is that the only side populism is on is its own.  It cares for no-one else. And if it flourishes, democracy declines.

    Democracy has a lot to lose.  The established political Parties need to defeat populism – not copy it.  The sooner they raise their game the better.

    SUMMATION

    I would like to end on a personal note.

    I talk about the risks we face, because we dare not ignore them.  

    I talk of the future, because the present must prepare for it.  

    In modern politics, multiple challenges and day-to-day crises crowd in so fast, that it sometimes seems the future is crowded out by the immediacy of now.

    We must stop that, or we will simply drift, and events – rather than our national interest – will forge our future.  If that were to happen, it would be a profound failure of Government.    

    My worry, to put it bluntly, is this:  the future seems to be secondary to the frustrations of today.  But it shouldn’t be.  Future problems can become today’s problems very quickly.

    If we don’t face up to the risks of war;  of national debt;  of climate change;  of long-term migration;  of the health – even survival – of our political system;  then we fail in the duty we owe to our history, our present, and our future.  

    I believe in our nation:  in its history, its values, its natural sense of fairness and justice, its essential kindness and tolerance – and I admire the way in which it has always risen to existential challenge.  

    We must look to the future without fear of change, or timidity of action, but with the conviction that we can build the welfare of our nation, and sustain our place in the world.

    We have faced far more difficult times than now, and come through them.  The choices and challenges of today may be more complex, but they are less stark than we have faced before.  They can be overcome – and must be.

    But, to do so, we must abandon the cacophony of spin, soundbite, and empty noise – that so often substitutes for political debate about the well-being of our nation.

    It is time to turn our back on complacency, on pessimism, on short-termism, on the second rate, on the fear of failure, on artificial divisions – and raise our ambitions to bring substance to the fore in politics, pride back in to our nation, and hope back into our lives. 

    This is the principle by which Maurice lived, worked and taught.  

    And the principle which – I believe – runs deep within us all.

    We owe such an approach to the future. 

    It is my fervent hope that, together, we can work towards that outcome.

  • Sir John Major’s Remarks at Conservative Party Lunch – 28 October 2025

    The extracts from a speech made by Sir John Major at a Conservative Party lunch on 28 October 2025.

    At the moment, our country is drifting.  People don’t know where to turn.  Our political system is creaking, and anxious people are turning to populist politicians who have no philosophy, no experience of the complexities of Government, and no hope of lifting our four nations back into prosperity.  

    Unthinking populism has already wrecked our trade with Europe and made us poorer, weaker, and less relevant in the wider world.  Do not allow it to take away the decencies and civilities of our country as well.

    We, as a Party, are ourselves in part to blame for our present difficulties.  There have been too many internal squabbles.  Crises have been handled poorly.  The electorate believes we have taken them for granted.  

    At the last election, we had the worst result in our history.  Labour won a massive majority but – and it’s a BIG but – with a share of the vote so small it would have lost every other election over the last 100 years.  

    That said, our own pitiful share of the vote means we must re-think, re-assess, understand what failed, correct it, and begin to re-build. 

    Let me make this point.  Far more is at stake than just the political interests of the Conservative Party.  Around the world democracy is retreating, and autocracy is advancing.  Our political system is falling into question.  We should fear this trend.

    Frustration with democracy should not blind us to the toxic nature of nationalism ‒ or any ‒ and every form of populist or authoritarian government.

    Polls tell us that many voters, especially the young, seem to favour a “strong man leader”, who will sweep away all problems to produce a shining new world.  

    It really doesn’t work like that.

    Even a brief glimpse at history tells another story, for such figures lead no-one to Utopia:  instead, to gain and keep power, they sweep away the compromises and decencies of democracy.  

    If we wish to continue to enjoy freedom of choice and action we must work with – and for – democracy, and not let apathy bury it.  Only democracy will uphold the personal liberties we take for granted in the UK.    

    What must we do?

    To recover, our Party must first answer the question:  

    “I vote Conservative because ….”.  It is vital for the Party to regain a narrative, and a reputation for wishing to serve the people of the United Kingdom, over and above themselves.  

    We need to engage in a dialogue with the nation.  People have a right to know not only what the Conservative Party is doing, but why it is doing it – and what it will mean for their own futures.

    We must take people them into our confidence:  talk more with them and less at them.  We must offer deliverable policy – not spin, or soundbite, or unrealistic policies.  Let us leave that to others.

    We know the objective.  We cannot recover without growth;  without public and private investment;  without incentive and reward.

    If ambition and initiative are crushed, we will sink into long years of slow growth or no growth.  That is how democracy falls and autocracy rises.

    We need to applaud success and innovation – and not tax it until it collapses, or leaves our high achievers taking their ideas and their money elsewhere.

    What do we care about most?  I would suggest it is our families, our children and grandchildren.  They have had a tough time for two decades ‒ the desertion of the under-35 vote is no surprise.

    They have to pay for University education:  their parents did not.

    They won’t enjoy final salary related pensions.  They are done and gone.  

    Without help from their family, they can’t afford to buy a home of their own.    

    If they can’t buy, they must rent. 

    If they rent, they can’t save for a deposit for a house.  Schemes to help have come ‒ and gone.  

    For the first time I can recall, the modern generation will be poorer than their parents ‒ surely the very definition of failure, and one I never thought I would see in our own country.

    They are not alone, others have grievances – not least taxpayers and the elderly.

    We have all fought many elections.  We know a war cannot be won without an Army.  Nor can an election be won with only half a Party.  Our Party needs to open up its arms to all who share our broad philosophy – not a narrow strand of it.  

    The Party needs its Right Wing, its Centre, and Centre Left Conservatives back together in the fold.  If that can be done, then we may – once again – widen our appeal and be a power in the land.  The alternative is bleak.

    Let me stress the reality about our modern electorate.  The silent majority still exists.  Our task is to find them again.  

    43% of our nation is classed as “Centre” or “Middle Ground”.  You cannot ignore them if you wish to govern.

    To those who think differently I would ask a question:  where have the squabbles, the fratricidal disputes, the bone-headed rejection of tolerance, the hostility and mean-spiritedness of a minority within the Party, the sheer chaos brought about by self-centred ambition to captain the ship got us?  Where?  

    The answer stares at us reproachfully in recent election results and opinion polls.  Taken together, they have turned the greatest political warship in the history of our nation into a wreckage of the high ambitions our Party has always been proud to represent.  But it need not be so.  

    The Polls tell their own story:  only a small number of young people voted Conservative at the last General Election.  This is truly shocking.  We once had the largest youth membership of any political party ‒ yet now the young dismiss us.  We need to ask “Why?” ‒ and put it right.

    The average age of Conservative supporters at the 2024 election was 66;  and only among the 75 year olds and above was the Party the dominant choice of voters.  

    The message is unmistakable:  change – or cease to be relevant.  

    We Conservatives have always been a coalition of ideas.  Our Right and Left Wing can differ on policy.  But, historically, they accommodated one another because they shared a broad philosophy that transcended disputes on specific policies.  

    No-one was dismissed from the Party for disagreeing with the majority view.  All strands of opinion were represented in the high counsels of the Party.  We opened our arms to welcome new members.  

    That broad approach served us well.  We fare less well when moderate opinions are banished or – where maintained – tolerated and ignored.  

    So ‒ when our Party says “No” to Europe.  “No” to Climate Change.  “No” to Overseas Aid – it falls out with the majority of public opinion.  

    Such policies may delight a minority of opinion, but not the broad mass of electors in our essentially tolerant and kindly nation:  it seriously alienates many of them.  

    This world of “No” gives a false impression of our Party.  We do not believe in “No” to helping others or – as our opponents falsely claim – “Yes” to helping ourselves.  

    This loss of pragmatism, tolerance, nuance ‒ call it what you will ‒ has left many long-term Conservative supporters politically homeless.  They are not Socialists or Liberals – nor ever will be – but the form of Conservatism they had always supported seemed to have been cast aside.

    Whenever our Party lurches too far to the Right ‒ or condemns moderate Conservatives ‒ it pulls us further away from the traditional mass of our vote.  We can almost see and feel our vote moving away from us.  If you look at the results of recent by-elections the evidence is clear to see.    

    Some extreme voices wish to narrow our appeal further by expelling “One Nation” Conservatives from our Party, on the spurious grounds they are not Conservative enough.

    Yet “One Nation” Conservatives believe ‒ as I do ‒ in personal freedoms;  private enterprise;  free trade;  fair laws;  low taxes;  prudent public spending;  an international outlook;  and compassion for those facing hardship.

    What part of that is not Conservative?  To suppose anyone holding those views is un-Conservative is absurd.  And to embrace such a narrow philosophy shrinks the Party from being a broad-based national movement, to resembling a petty and mean-minded cult.

    A look at the recent decimation of Conservative seats in our once solidly supportive counties of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and the West Country is a reflection of how support has been lost by this abandonment of the Centre.  

    What of our opponents?

    We can rely on Labour to fail – they are already doing so.

    Their objective – to grow the economy – is right.

    But their policies of over-taxation;  restriction;  a denial of aspiration;  hostility to risk takers;  a conscious desire to level down instead of levelling up – will deny them growth and guarantee stagnation.

    I spoke – many years ago – of my desire to see a classless society:  the present Labour Government is the most class conscious administration I have seen since the early 1960s.  Last week’s by-election result – in friendly territory – shows how widely they are disregarded.  

    Reform UK is now showcasing its defects.  It gained support by highlighting grievances, and scapegoating minorities.  If any one of a minority group is a law-breaker, or violent, or sadistic, Reform label them all the same.  But, of course, they are not.    

    More recently – in an effort to be all things to all people – Reform is now embracing overspending, nationalisation, and promises that will never – can never – be met.  If you doubt me ‒ look at their performance in the local authorities they now govern:  they are completely out of their depth.  

    Other policies are ill thought out.  Reform wishes to nationalise half the water industry, yet does not seem to realise the reason for privatisation was because the State had no funds for investment.  Nor do they now.  

    This is amateur populism let loose.  Such foolish promises illustrate their unsuitability for power.

    As Reform becomes ever more unrealistic, it opens up a big space on the Centre-Right of politics which is where Conservatism flourishes.

    We must grasp this.  

    Our nation does not ask for the moon.  In essence, people’s demands are very simple.  They want a better life:  a home;  a job;  more choice;  more freedoms;  more security ‒ not least in retirement.

    Kemi Badenoch has set up Commissions to prepare future policy:  that is the right way to proceed.  It showcases serious intent.  More please.

    The possibility of electoral recovery is better than many believe.  The electorate is less committed to any one political Party than, perhaps, at any time in the last 65 years.  

    We are now a nation of floating voters, and the Conservatives must offer sound reasons for them to float to us.  In a nation disillusioned with politics we must re-offer hope and integrity.  

    I spoke disparagingly about populism because of what it can do.  It can steal our future and undermine our freedoms.  Let those who want to desert their present allegiance do so – and run to Reform UK.  We will be better off without them.

    Some Conservatives wish for an alliance with Reform.  Why?  Reform wishes to destroy the Party.  Fortunately, our Leader opposes such an alliance and is right to do so.

    The majority of Conservative voters understand that – if we were to allay with them – we would forever destroy the tolerant, broad-based, national Party that once we were – and can be again.  It would be beyond stupid.

    It is time for we Conservatives to face up to our responsibilities to our nation and our democracy.  If we ignore them, the nation will ignore us.  

    But, if we rise to the challenge, we can return to being the great political force which once we were.

    That is our duty and our privilege.  

    It is time to begin.  We have no time to waste.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Inaugural Lord Lothian Lecture – 15 October 2025

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech to the inaugural Lord Lothian lecture at the Global Strategy Forum on 15 October 2025.

    When Clare and Mary asked me to deliver this inaugural lecture on behalf of the Global Strategy Forum, it was easy to say “Yes”.  

    Michael and I became friends – and allies in politics – from the moment we met 50 years ago.  We came from different backgrounds, mixed in different circles, had different leisure pursuits ‒ but we shared the same political space, and beliefs about the purpose and practice of politics.  

    Michael was an easy colleague.  Loyalty and moderation were at the very core of his politics.  He believed in the power of persuasion, and the essential decencies of human behaviour ‒ even when faced by adversaries that denied both of those virtues.

    He was clever, compassionate, sensitive and intuitive and – where he saw wickedness or hardship – he felt an obligation to put it right.  

    Michael carried his compassion as a shield against bigotry.  He preferred to offer a hand up not a put down.  He wished to understand rather than condemn, and to face up to challenges rather than pass them by.

    His focus was progress, not regress;  the future not the past;  and his aim was to put right what was wrong.

    When, in the early 1990s, I was trying to build a Peace Process to end violence in Ireland – North and South – I knew I would benefit from the abilities of Paddy Mayhew and Michael Ancram.  They were both custom made for the task, and never once did they disappoint.  

    Michael and Paddy had extensive private contact with all the Northern Ireland Parties:  often a frustrating experience, but both had the gift of listening – amid, of course the occasional Paddy eruption ‒ and, slowly, progress was made and early trust established.

    It was essential preparation for more challenging meetings that were to come.  When we reached the stage of face-to-face discussions with the IRA Michael ‒ as Minister of State ‒ was the obvious choice for the initial contact.  

    This was at a time when such responsibilities carried great personal risk and thus ‒ before appointing Ministers to the Northern Ireland Office ‒ I would always ask if their families were content.

    It is to their credit, and that of their families, that no colleague invited to serve stepped away from the challenge.  And so it was with Michael, who didn’t hesitate.  

    There was deep suspicion of the Peace Process from many of the Northern Ireland Unionists, and their allies in Parliament and Press.  Michael was an arch-comforter, damping down Unionist fears of “secret deals” or “unadmitted concessions” to Sinn Fein or the IRA.  Progress was not easy.

    I recall briefing John Smith, the then Labour Leader, in my office in the Commons.  Whisky in hand, John offered “help in principle” and chuckled as he added “but you do know there are no votes in it”.  Nor were there – but that was never the purpose.

    A Belfast without bombs, with blood ties not blood flowing, a generation able to grow up without inheriting the hostility and hatred of community division.  That was the purpose.  And Michael’s instinctive character of peacemaker made him perfect for the job.  

    His brief was tough as the IRA peered suspiciously at every proposal.  History was a bar to progress.  The memory of past grievances was ever present:  the Black and Tans, the Hunger Strikes and Bobby Sands ‒ these, and much more, were always a block to trust.  

    But Michael’s efforts were brave and unrelenting.  The progress he made with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness paved the way for Paddy Mayhew to join him for more in-depth discussions.  

    He, Paddy and I were hugely frustrated that we were unable to complete the Process ‒ but were comforted in the knowledge that – against all predictions – we moved the dial from conflict towards peace:  and delighted that Tony Blair and New Labour completed the work.  

    Today, in Ireland – North and South – we are at a place where none of us dared to hope we would be.  

    Michael truly deserves his place in the pantheon of Irish peacemakers.

    * * * * *

    There are times ‒ and now is one such time ‒ when change seems to come at a gallop.  Between Ancient Greece and the 15th Century no-one challenged the wisdom of the ancients until the Renaissance.  

    A 10th Century European would easily have recognised 15th Century European life:  a child today would barely recognise the way of life 50 years ago.  

    As we meet, our world is in an unsettled state.  Liberal Democracy is in retreat.  Autocracy is thriving and spreading.  Globalisation is fraying.  The post-war consensus is weakening at best and – at worst – may be on its way to breaking up.  

    As for our own country, we now have fewer committed friends than once we had.  We need to remedy that.

    As these trends thrive, I hope nation states recognise the risks, step up, urge conciliation and begin the repair of our failing institutions.  Leaders need to be proactive – not locked in a defensive crouch.

    In our unsettled world, only an unpredictable America, and a hard-to-read China, are political, economic and military super-powers:  no other country comes close.  Their future behaviour and bilateral relationship are critical to us all.  

    Both countries know they are destined to be rivals ‒ and allies only on individual issues.  The world needs them to find an accommodation with each other, while they must persuade their domestic audiences they are hard-nosed defenders of their own philosophy and national interests.

    There are trip-wires ‒ most obviously Taiwan ‒ but, if diplomacy and self-interest prevails, with trade and regular contact uninterrupted by threats of high tariff impositions, then a long-term, and mutually beneficial relationship is entirely possible ‒ but only if they will it.

    If they do not, and lapse into serious conflict, then they could set the world aflame.  

    But I don’t foresee that.  Sensible diplomacy and pragmatic self-interest should be able to prevent full-fronted confrontation whenever – as is likely – frustrations and disputes arise.  

    CHINA

    Historically, China has been the victim of military conflict, not the aggressor.  That said, she has been dramatically increasing her military capability, at an extraordinary pace.  No-one should underestimate the scale of this, nor her growing capacity to enforce her will militarily.  

    Events ‒ and American policy ‒ may determine the future:  if America withdraws from her post-war role in favour of more isolation ‒ will China step up and try to fill it?  The answer to that is likely to be “Yes”.

    There is much we neither know, nor understand about China.  She is an enigma.  The first verse of her National Anthem is encouraging:  telling citizens to “Arise, you who refuse to be slaves”.  

    It’s an enticing invitation, but not to be taken too literally.  Perhaps my view is cynical, but I have vivid memories of Tiananmen Square.  Those who did arise were soon silenced – and none too gently.  

    As China has grown in power, she has begun to assert herself in Asia, and increase her influence worldwide.  She is an avowed opponent of democracy, which she considers an alien and inefficient form of government.

    China is sufficiently self-confident to break international Treaties.  Persecute the Uighurs in Xinjiang.  Threaten Taiwan with a military assault.  Ignore promised freedoms to Hong Kong.  

    All that ‒ and multiple cyber threats and industrial larceny – may be laid at her door.  These are the actions of an ambitious nation prepared to bend others to her will.

    Her trade and investment grows each year.  A majority of countries around the world now conduct more trade with China than America ‒ in some cases, far more.  Apparently blind to the implications of this, current American policy on tariffs may widen that lead.

    I have no doubt our government wishes to have a good relationship with China.  Who would not?  But it cannot be a subservient one.  China would not respect that.

    AMERICA

    For most of the post-war years, America has been the rock upon which democracy prospered.

    Her influence was overwhelmingly benign when President Truman committed to:  “support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”.

    So was it when, over a decade later, President Kennedy committed to confront: “the common enemies of man ‒ tyranny, poverty, disease and war.”.

    The purpose behind these noble sentiments was to create a freer and safer world, in which the strong pledged their help to the weak.  No price was asked for this.  No deal demanded.  No investment or payment expected.  

    It was high politics in a harsh post-war world, when to help others was not seen as a business opportunity.  This approach, it seems, is now out of fashion.

    Today, America has a less altruistic policy.  The President’s ambition is to “Make America Great Again” – although it is puzzling that being the richest and most powerful nation in the world is not already seen as an indication of greatness.

    In the MAGA quest, America has embraced national self-interest.  The President ‒ with the support of the world’s richest man ‒ abruptly cut off aid to the poorest people in the world and those organisations whose role is to cure the diseases that most afflict them.  

    Forecasts of the long-term implications of this are dire.

    A Report in the Lancet tells us that US aid alone prevented over four million deaths ‒ one third of them children ‒ in every year of the first two decades of this century.  That support has gone.  

    It is a harsh policy that ends such a benevolent approach, despite the pain and loss it will cause.  But America is not alone in turning her face away from the human rights of the weak.

    Other countries, including the UK, have cut aid.  I know that times are tough for us and many others, but we are not facing mass hunger, and our sick are not going without medicine or care.  

    In reflective moments one may wonder:  where is the Good Samaritan when he is most needed?  

    I believe the scale of cuts to aid is wrong on practical as well as moral grounds.  In due time, whenever more people flee poor countries for richer pastures – as they will – we may regret how little we did to keep them settled where they are.  

    President Trump has also imposed tariffs on imports from most of the world in pursuit, as he cheerily puts it, of:  “making America richer and richer by many billions”.  

    This not only hurts allies, some wealthy, some not – but also countries that are poor and, in some cases, very poor indeed.

    Apart from filling the US Treasury coffers, the tariffs are justified by the claim that they are imposed upon countries which had allegedly been “ripping off America” for years.  If that were so, they were remarkably unsuccessful given America’s economic pre-eminence.  

    It may be ‒ when American consumers realise that the tariffs are raising prices in their own High Streets – that they might consider it is they who are being “ripped off”.  American taxpayers please note:  rising prices are a regressive tax.

    I was brought up to admire America.  I still do:  there is much to envy.  But I don’t admire her present approach.  Nor should the American people.  It comes at a high cost to her reputation for free trade and sensible economics.

    Many countries will be bruised by the new tariffs, and resentful that they felt forced to accept for fear of more severe impositions if they did not do so.  

    In what passed for “negotiation” I do wonder what negotiating power smaller nations had to deploy?  “Little or none” is my guess.  They faced a choice of submitting – or a worse deal.  If nothing else, the tariffs showcased the raw power of America.

    Our flexible English language has a word for pressure imposed by the powerful on those who are weaker.  It is a good old word:  we call it “bullying”.  We may fear the bully.  We may accommodate the bully.  But we never forget the bullying.

    There is no doubt that America is a great power.  But with that power comes great responsibility about how it is used.  

    The President needs to understand that any casual disregard of long-standing international mores risks undermining – to the point of destruction – the rules-based system of laws and behaviours that have been a shield and guardian to the world over the last seventy years.

    Leaders who do not make that clear – preferably privately, but unmistakably – are betraying their responsibilities.

    Allies and opponents alike are baffled by the President’s inconsistency.  

    Such unpredictability may be a useful enforcement tactic in negotiations – as we have seen – but it carries a dangerous risk of misunderstandings and misjudgements that could be very damaging in the longer-term.  Trust and certainty matter in Statecraft.    

    RUSSIA

    I wish to turn – but briefly – to Russia.  She is a real and present danger to democracy.  The war in Ukraine is indisputably Putin’s war.

    Putin has moved from being an authoritarian Leader to a totalitarian one.  There seems to be no domestic check on his behaviour.  Outspoken opponents disappear or die mysteriously.  Planes fall from the sky.  So do opponents from high windows.  National assets are looted to support Putin’s cult of personality.

    In war, Russia shows no restraint.  The civilian is as much a target as the soldier.  Even Ukrainian children are stolen and indoctrinated against their own family and country.  Let me not mince words:  that is wicked to the core ‒ no other description suffices.

    We should not be surprised.  Russia has become a repressive rogue State, hostile to democracy.  The controlled media feeds civilian Russia with untruthful propaganda that includes bare faced lies about the West.  The truth – in Russia – is whatever Putin wishes it to be.

    Russian citizens – patriots by instinct – are fed untruths throughout their lives and, because that is all they hear, they believe it.   

    By any yardstick, Putin is a warmonger, not a peacemaker, and little will change in Russia until he is gone ‒ at which time someone will be brave enough to list his many crimes.

    It was revealing that, when Prigozhin, Leader of the Wagner group of mercenaries marched on Moscow, no-one of influence spoke up for Putin conscious that he ruled by fear ‒ nor against him knowing it would be life-threatening to do so.

    I hope no Western policy maker forgets that Ukraine is our battle as well as theirs:  even though it is Ukrainian blood that is being spilled, our own interests are also at stake.  If Putin gains from war, his demands will grow and not diminish.  

    The present outlook is that, unless America and Europe combine, in a far more powerful response to Russia’s aggression, the war will continue – perhaps for a long time.  

    Hopefully, President Trump will see Ukraine through the eyes of his Western allies, and use America’s power to protect Ukraine and deter further Russian adventures.  If Russia loses, the world wins.    

    And what a boost it would be to confidence and the global economy if wars in Ukraine and Palestine were to end.    

    Conflict, of course, takes me to Gaza.  

    GAZA

    It would be a miserly mind that does not welcome the ceasefire that has been agreed.  The killing has stopped, the hostages freed and – I hope – aid will swiftly alleviate suffering in Gaza.  

    I warmly congratulate President Trump, Qatar, Egypt – and, I suspect, contributors here in the UK – for this advance.  On this occasion, the President’s unconventional approach succeeded where others had failed, and a breakthrough to a better future may have begun. 

    But – it is a beginning not an end.  A ceasefire – not a certain and continuing peace.  Ahead lie serious questions, the answers to which will require good luck, good intentions and a herculean effort over a long period.    

    Wars have consequences that endure.  

    The bombs may stop, but will Hamas surrender weapons?  Who will rebuild the bombed-out wreckage and pay for it – with years of construction at a cost of many billions?  

    Will any Israeli Government accept Palestinian aspirations and, if so, can it be delivered against domestic opposition?

    Is a “Two-State” solution still even possible if Israel sets her face against it?  If not, what is the future for Palestinians?

    What, under any final agreement, will happen to the illegal settlements?  

    Will land be returned?  Or compensation offered?  Will future settlements be prevented?  

    Can Israeli-Palestinian relations be restored?  The Hamas attack on Israel killed 1200 people, and took many hostages – many of whom have since died in miserable circumstances.  It was an act of profound evil that led to an unrelenting response.

    In pursuit of Hamas, Gaza was turned to rubble.  The stated objective was the complete destruction of Hamas, which was never likely, and has not been achieved.  

    What was “achieved” was over 60,000 civilian deaths and many life-changing injuries that will not be easily forgotten.

    Nor will the blockage of aid;  the harrowing sight of starving men, women and children;  the image of dead bodies in ruined streets;  or the displaced families being herded around from place to place.  

    It will be hard for both sides to find forgiveness.  The Palestinians dreamed of a homeland.  Israeli Ministers wanted (I quote) to “bury the idea of a Palestinian State”.  

    This is not easily reconciled.  The risk of a legacy of hate passing down to future generations is very real.  Over time, war damage can be re-built.  But can minds be changed?

    Israel must also repair relations with much of the world.  Her approach – including the colossal misjudgement of banning the media from the war zones – lost the Israeli Government the benefit of any doubt over its actions. 

    The whole world knows the history of the Jewish people.  They have been treated cruelly throughout the ages.  But some of the actions of the Israeli Government lost them the sympathy and understanding they had earned throughout the post-war period.

    I have Jewish friends whom I cherish, and it is heart-breaking that antisemitism and fear has been returned to their lives so unfairly in so many countries ‒ not least our own.  

    Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people around the world have shown their dismay at the conduct of the war.  They do not deserve to be treated as complicit in what has been happening in Gaza and the West Bank.

    It is the Israeli Cabinet – and they alone – who must answer for their decisions.

    LOOKING OUTWARD

    As more nations look inward I see opportunities to look outward.  The UK’s relative “hard power” has fallen in recent decades and, even though events suggest that will be repaired – as it must – it is still wise to build up our “soft power”.

    Our links to Europe and America may be looser now than once they were – and that is a loss – but it does free us up to be a far more independent voice in our troubled world.  

    An Age of Reason is badly needed, and we can help usher it in.

    Let what we say about international policy echo for its good sense:  let it have a clarity beyond pious statements issued for the sake of form.  I wish our voice to be heard and our nation to earn respect in a role that no other nation has taken up.

    There is ample scope and appetite for such a voice.  Much of what should be said is held back ‒ and why?  Is it because of diplomatic niceties;  an unwillingness to stir controversy;  or common or garden plain funk?

    Meanwhile, the post-war institutions are failing to deliver what the founders expected of them.  Self-evidently, hampered by its own rules, the United Nations is not delivering peace and security. 

    The membership of the Permanent Five is out of date and needs reform.  A credible option is to enlarge it to embrace countries such as India, Germany, Brazil, and end the single nation veto on action that so often leaves the UN looking powerless when a powerful lead is vital.    

    As a founding Member of the Permanent Five, the UK is well placed to argue the advantages of such a change.

    Our worldwide reach and assets leave us in a position to be a candid friend, a conciliator, a conscience in support of those who have no voice of their own.

    We should dust off our “soft power” assets.  Our voice, our global spread, our language, the BBC World Service, our Universities, our culture – especially our theatre.  Until recently, I would have added our leadership in Overseas Aid.  I hope, soon, to be able to do so again.    

    I hear the objections ringing in my head.  It’s altruistic.  It’s pointless idealism.  It will come to nothing.  It will gain us nothing.  Perhaps not.  

    But it will gain us respect.  Friendship.  It will help our voice resonate far and wide.  More than anything, it is also the right thing to do.  In our mercenary world, is that too naïve a reason?

    We British are 70 million people in a world of 9 billion.  We are not the mighty power that once we were.  We cannot compel as once we could.  But we can offer the world an example, and speak out for the decencies and civilities that lie deep-rooted in the British instinct.

    What do we stand for as a nation if not for that?

    I will close as I opened.  

    I spoke of Michael’s belief in the power of persuasion and the decencies of human behaviour.  I reminded myself that where he saw wickedness or hardship, he felt an obligation to put it right.  

    I believe – throughout our world – there is audience crying out for such qualities of leadership.  

    Let us show that it can be done. 

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Institute for Government Conference – 19 June 2025

    The speech made by Sir John Major at the Institute for Government Conference on 19 June 2025.

    THE NOLAN PRINCIPLES AT 30: WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE?

    I’m grateful to the Institute for Government for inviting me to address this Conference.

    For many decades, Britain enjoyed a global reputation for being free of corruption and bad practice. That is less true today. It is in our national interest to regain that reputation.

    It is now 30 years since I set up the Nolan Committee to make recommendations on Standards in Public Life.

    Nolan set out the seven principles of: selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty and leadership – and they remain as relevant now as then.

    The vast majority of elected or career public servants obey them. But a minority does not and, when that happens, there must be consequences. Too often, there are none.

    It is an immense privilege to serve in public life, but it carries obligations.

    Everyone – especially if elected – should be held to the highest standards of probity. Too often, they are not.

    The misconduct of a small minority has left trust in public life at too low a level: scandals in political funding; in the award of honours; in lobbying; in unsavoury behaviour; in bullying; in the saga of “Partygate” – all tell us that a re-set is essential.

    In recent years – in addition to individual lapses – we have seen governments break or bend the Law; ignore the conventions of good conduct; and shield their own colleagues from justified censure.

    Two very senior and distinguished Advisers to one former Prime Minister resigned due to their recommendations being ignored. Such episodes lead to a collapse in respect for politics and government.

    The point is simple: if public life deceives, or misbehaves – or is even thought in any way to be corrupt – this may be shrugged off.

    But, by tolerating bad behaviour, we invite its repetition: this demeans public life, betrays trust, and increases public cynicism.

    It has been our past practice to offer guidance on good conduct – and trust it will be delivered. That was the Nolan approach.

    But experience has taught us that no rules can deal with individuals prepared to ignore them and – sometimes – sanctions are required.

    The problem is that to rely on “convention” leaves loopholes for those with lax scruples. That being so, it is time to strengthen the safeguards around propriety, to ensure our public life is as free from fault as we wish it to be.

    It is a healthy British instinct to be sceptical of authority.

    But, today, scepticism does not fairly describe the public mood: a more accurate description would be a mixture of cynicism and disillusion that stretches across most of our public institutions ‒ The Church, Parliament, Police, Public Service and Press among them. That is not healthy.

    The Committee on Standards in Public Life has reported that social and political trends have coarsened standards. That is true, but put too gently.

    Standards have been undermined by being ignored, by being broken, by public figures who put personal or political interest before public virtue.

    This Committee specialises in evidence-based “enquiries” and “reviews” across all of public life. Over 30 years, its reputation has grown, but its reports ‒ like all the bodies that regulate the Executive ‒ have remained advisory.

    I have re-read those reports over a long period, and am full of admiration for the Committee’s work.

    Three thoughts occur: as an advisory body, without casework, it need not be statutory – although that status would strengthen its authority and be a safeguard against any temptation to abolish the Committee.

    Also, its modest budget is inadequate for its role.

    Most strikingly, I am baffled that more of its recommendations have not been implemented.

    One welcome change would add to the Committee’s authority: the Government should respond publicly and fully to Reports within a reasonable time: too often, it does not.

    The Ministerial Code is the Prime Minister’s document and, as matters once stood, he was the prosecuting Counsel, jury and sentencing judge of the standards expected of a Minister.

    That has now changed. The Prime Minister has an Independent Adviser who can initiate, investigate and report on questionable behaviour including, if necessary, even that of the Prime Minister.

    The Adviser can recommend sanctions on those who break the rules and if the Prime Minister demurs – either over culpability or sanctions ‒ the Adviser can ask for the Report to be published in full.

    This is a good discipline to ensure recommendations are taken seriously, and not brushed aside.

    I am conflicted on whether the “Independent Adviser” role should be statutory. On balance I think not ‒ even though two Prime Ministers have flirted with abolishing the role, or leaving it unfilled.

    However, I think their successors are likely to understand that an Adviser with powers can spare stress to Prime Ministers.

    The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards oversees the Code of Conduct for MPs, and the Register of their financial interests.

    He has a high operational independence to investigate complaints about Members of Parliament and, where necessary, refers cases to an Independent Expert Panel to determine sanctions – or to the Parliamentary Select Committee. These options should preclude the need for a statutory basis.

    In stark contrast, I hope ACOBA – the Advisory Committee on Public Appointments – can be put on a statutory basis, and given deterrent powers.

    ACOBA advises upon the propriety of former Ministers and senior civil servants taking jobs within two years of retirement, or leaving the Commons. The purpose is to avoid even the suspicion of mis-use of privileged information. But, as of now, ACOBA has no power of enforcement.

    High profile figures have ignored its advice. Lord Pickles, a former Chairman, has said: “There can be no credibility in a system that continues to have no demonstrable or tangible deterrent for non-compliance”.

    Lord Pickles is right: he named no names, but he could have implicated very senior figures who broke the rules without consequence.

    There is a secondary issue concerning middle-ranking civil servants who are below ACOBA’s normal eyeline. A steady stream are leaving public service for the private sector with little or no oversight.

    This may not yet present a serious problem, but does merit scrutiny of officials who may have been privy to sensitive policy.

    The Public Appointments Commission monitors appointments to large and small public bodies, to ensure they are made on merit alone and not by political bias.

    The Commissioner sets up independent assessment panels to vet potential candidates and – from time to time – they have stood their ground in rejecting high-profile candidates, even when favoured by senior politicians.

    But their role is not as straightforward as it may seem.

    The Commissioner can face excessive lobbying by Ministers and Special Advisers to add or remove names from the list of potential appointees.

    Typically, such representations are more about political preference than ability. This undervalues merit. Ultimately, Ministers make the final decision.

    It would be far better if lobbying from within Government were restricted to Ministers alone who, in case of controversy, could be called to defend their role publicly. Special Advisers are there to advise not enforce, although – from what I have seen and heard – some have little understanding of that distinction.

    I would also note that fewer Special Advisers – with more experience of their subject and less political ambition – might serve the nation better.

    I believe the remit of HOLAC – the House of Lords Advisory Committee – needs an upgrade. There is no way, in recent years, that the appointment of Peers passes any form of democratic “smell test”. Amidst worthy appointments, others seem eye-wateringly inappropriate.

    It would be reassuring if all candidates proposed by Party Leaders were privately referred to HOLAC to be investigated for suitability and ‒ crucially ‒ for a commitment to undertake the work of the Upper House. Their nomination should only proceed once HOLAC approval has been obtained.

    The present vetting system is haphazard. HOLAC examines the propriety and suitability of Cross Bench Peers, but examines only the propriety of Political Peers nominated by Party Leaders. This makes no sense at all.

    Suitability is important: the Lords is a working House and has an important role in our Constitution. I see no purpose in appointing Peers unsuitable for the work, or unwilling to do it. The tradition of doing so is longstanding, but it is time it stopped.

    Governments of both main Parties have resisted HOLAC’s remit to vet the suitability of political Peers – for fear it would limit the Prime Minister’s role in recommending them.

    Frankly, if candidates can’t or won’t do the job, they should not be given a seat in the Lords.

    There are also unscrutinised nominees to the Lords – regarded as the Prime Minister’s exceptions: they are senior civil servants.

    I welcome top civil servants going to the Lords, since they are likely to be valuable in revising legislation. I would, however, wish to be sure that HOLAC also scrutinises their suitability and commitment.

    There should be no free pass to becoming a legislator.

    The quality of public life has been examined, not only by the Committee on Standards, but by other interested bodies over recent years. More often than not, I find myself in broad agreement with their recommendations.

    I do note, however, that Governments do not. When they respond to Reports – often late – they do so with a gift for obfuscation. Recommendations are treated with the utmost respect, short of acceptance.

    Far too often – and with words of which any Circumlocution Department would be proud – recommendations are rejected, or watered down, or kicked into the future, or replaced by some muddy alternative.

    I hope the Prime Minister will accept that upgrading our armoury against abuse will safeguard propriety in public life. To do so will reflect credit on the Government, and be a boon to our international reputation.

    I would like to touch ‒ briefly ‒ on three other concerns.

    The Electoral Commission ought to be a wholly independent body.

    Our previous Government took legislative power to offer them so-called “guidance”. Yet “independent body” and “Government guidance” cannot co-exist.

    As yet, I can’t see that this has caused any great difficulty …. BUT …. one day it will.

    The present Government may wish to repeal that power in its forthcoming Election Bill. It would be reassuring if it did.

    A more serious issue is the funding of politics. This is always problematic ‒ and doubly so when politics is out of favour with the public.

    The first issue is foreign money. A few weeks ago it was widely reported that an American multi-billionaire was about to fund a British political party. It didn’t happen ‒ nor should it: the Party concerned would have been a wholly-owned subsidiary of foreign money.

    We need to refresh protections, and close off this pipeline before it becomes a problem.

    Domestic funding is an issue, too. The political Parties are only partly funded by their memberships. Apart from public funding, support comes from the Trades Unions; corporate or private donors; and, today, increasingly, by a very small number of very rich individuals.

    No-one who cares about democratic freedom can be comfortable about this development – however innocent the intent of some donors may be.

    This is not a new issue, but its salience is growing. Cicero warned of it 2000 years ago ‒ and the Trump Presidency with its billionaire chorus, reminds us that excessive influence of the mega-rich is incompatible with democratic politics.

    This is not easy to deal with. In principle, everyone should be free to dispose of their money as they wish. On the other hand, we must ensure that policy is not for sale to the highest bidder – nor a swift route to any sort of public preferment.

    No-one wishes to see a further increase in the public funding of politics, and so – in the absence of wider sources of income – a limit to individual donations per Parliament looms on the horizon.

    “One Man, One Vote” is an established principle: it must not be supplanted by “One Man and his Money”.

    I wish to see respect return to Parliament. It does not help when – time and again – policy statements are leaked in detail, or announced to the media, before a Statement is made in the Commons or Lords.

    Such disrespect to Parliament must stop.

    One final thought. With a few tweaks, the Nolan system can become an even more formidable protection against bad behaviour. I know our present Government promised a new Ethics Commission but, so far, this seems to be stuck in the long grass.

    Concerns about propriety are well made, but I see no need to reinvent the wheel.

    My very friendly advice to the Prime Minister would be to stiffen up Nolan, and leave the Ethics proposal where it is!

    * * * * *

    Earlier, I referred to our widely-envied reputation for being free of corruption and bad practice.

    I regret the slow erosion of that reputation – which we would once have thought indestructible.

    It is time for us to reverse this trend before the damage becomes beyond salvage.

    Let me finish where I started: we need to demonstrate to the people of our own country – and far beyond – that the Nolan principles of selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty and leadership in Public Life are effective and – where not – put measures in place to enforce them.

    Once we do that, we begin to restore trust and – with it – faith in politics.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview with Nick Robinson for the BBC World Service – 8 May 2025

    The interview between Sir John Major and Nick Robinson, recorded for the BBC World Service.

    NICK ROBINSON

    For this interview, I met Sir John Major, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who came to speak to us at the BBC headquarters at Broadcasting House. You’re going to hear Sir John’s recollection of the end of the war, what it meant for him and his family, as well as the lessons he believes we should learn from the sacrifices that were made then, his concerns about the future of the NATO alliance, the future of Ukraine and the threat it poses to us all, if tyranny is, in his words, allowed to succeed. Welcome to the interview from the BBC World Service with me, Nick Robinson.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I, of course, was only two when the war ended, and don’t have any direct memories of it, but I do recall my parents talking about it later. I recall one thing, I think my mother said at the time that the day must have been the most joyous day in the whole history of our country and I think that is probably true. What people perhaps didn’t focus on then was what came after the sheer change between before the war and after the war, in the lives of so many families, the sheer difficulties that they were to face when you had a country that was all but bankrupt, if not actually bankrupt, where you had rationing on food still for another eight or nine years to come. People had no concept of how life would change, and it was a very tough few years following VE Day.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Given what you say, which is inevitably that there will be fewer and fewer people with direct memories. Do you fear that we as a country may forget the lessons? May forget what that generation grew up knowing?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think there’s a real risk of that. I mean, at the moment, people take democracy for granted. I don’t think it’s safe to do that. Democracy has been in retreat for the last 16, 17, 18 years in many parts of the world and we have some people running countries at the moment who are far from democratic, they’re tyrannical. I think the people faced by Hitler realised they were facing tyranny and they fought together in order to ensure that tyranny was defeated. But there is tyranny in different parts of the world and we have to be as strong and as resolute about it now as they were then.

    NICK ROBINSON

    How do you convince a younger generation who may, some, look at this and think this is just nostalgia? This is an older generation saying that everything we’ve mentioned before, this was the greatest generation, this was our finest hour. How do you convince them?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Everything in our country wasn’t better before, despite all the problems we’ve had since the wartime period, the lives of people today are despite the difficulties we face, despite the lack of growth in recent years, despite the immediate problems, all of that is immeasurably better than the life in and in the 1940s and the 1950s. Once again, if I can quote my mother, doing it twice in just a couple of minutes, she once looked back on those days and referred to them as “the days of lino, no hot running water and outside toilets” and that was the way most people lived. There were people who were very lucky and lived in a different style, but the vast majority who were alive during those days will remember that. Nothing like that would be remotely acceptable today.

    As far as democracy is concerned, we actually have sight in Ukraine of what an anti-democracy led by a tyrannical leader is actually capable of doing, without purpose, without reason, without justification. They invade another country, are continually bombarding both the civilian population and the military establishments and also, unbelievably, in this day, had people whose job it is to kidnap children from Ukraine and steal them away from their parents and into Russia. Now if that isn’t tyranny, I don’t know what is. If we hadn’t had NATO, if we weren’t built up as a military establishment, who knows how much earlier this might have happened? Who knows how much further Putin and his plans may have gone?

    NICK ROBINSON

    How much further? In other words, for those who think that that’s Ukraine, she borders Russia, it’s a long way away, this won’t affect us.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    No, try and say that to all of Russia’s neighbours, and they’ll tell you very differently. They are frightened of what may happen and they have reason to be frightened if Putin gets his way over Ukraine. By get his way, I don’t just mean take over all Ukraine, which I don’t think he’s capable of doing, but actually a bad peace is made in which he’s offered things he should not be offered and given advantages he should not be given. He has to be seen to lose or the danger of Putin continues. If Putin gets away with it, what is to stop other countries thinking they can do the same? Why should President Xi not think well, ”the West are very weak-kneed. I think I can deal with Taiwan now.”

    Why should not other people in different parts of the world do exactly the same thing? Open the doors to any success for tyranny, and you are opening a very dangerous situation indeed. We have to keep saying that. We have to keep defending democracy, keep explaining to the next generation what it is that it means not to be democratic. Let me give you an example, young people today often say very savage things about politicians and successive governments, they’re perfectly entitled to in this country. Indeed, it’s a national habit, it’s something we have come to expect. If they said that in Russia about Putin, they would be falling out of a high window in Moscow or be in a gulag somewhere in Siberia. That’s the difference between living in a democracy, which we should cherish, and living in a country as Russia is, with its ill-fated leader and his nefarious activities.

    NICK ROBINSON

    You’ve warned just now very clearly of what you call a bad peace. There’s a word that we used to have for that, isn’t it? Appeasement?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Yes.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Would you use that word?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’m perfectly prepared to use that word.

    NICK ROBINSON

    And the suggestion by Donald Trump that territory is handed over would be appeasement, would it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t think we should do that, I don’t think that would be a proper thing to do. We’re in a very curious situation, because we’re not entirely sure exactly what America’s commitment to the war is. It seems to change with ad hoc remarks that appear on the internet and are suddenly said. Sometimes they’re overturned, sometimes they’re not. So we can’t be sure and uncertainty is a very risky proposition, but what it has done has made it clear to the Europeans that we have failed to devote as much of our resources to our own defence in the last 30 or 40 years, and must now do so, so that we are ourselves in Europe sure of what defence we can offer for ourselves, rather than necessarily being prepared to rely on the resources of the United States. We cannot be certain that that will be there.

    NICK ROBINSON

    President Biden warned about the consequences of what you call uncertainty. He said that he feared that countries that border Russia were to use his word ‘accommodate’ with the Kremlin, they would change so as not to offend Vladimir Putin.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, early signs may not only be countries adjacent to Russia who were prepared to offer a defensive crouch when Putin demands something and that is unattractive. Once you get into that position, you are going to lose the argument. There is a growing risk of tyranny and that growing risk requires Europe to be as strong and self defensive as she can possibly make herself, and that means working together.

    NICK ROBINSON

    When you talk of losing the argument, do you understand that something that your generation of leaders have now lost the argument, that it is not just Donald Trump, there are people all over Europe as well saying, ‘let’s put our own people first. Let’s not spend money on worrying about someone else’s borders’.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I know. There’s a great far right nationalist surge in many countries, including our own. You see it in Germany, you see it in France, you see it in Italy, you see it in the UK, you certainly see it in Hungary. We should be agitated about that and if the Democrats don’t fight back, if the Democrats just begin to appease this far right thought, absorb it and pay off the dragon bit by bit by adopting a little bit of their policy, because it may mean that they attack you last, then that is absolutely the wrong way. We should have drawn a line in the sand, I think, some time ago, but I think it is very important now that the democracies begin to defend democracy itself and speak out against the sort of extreme right wingery we’re seeing in many parts of Europe, as well as other parts of the world.

    I feel very strongly about it. I’m coming to the end of my days, a few years left, I’d hope. But there’s no doubt that the longest days I have are way behind me, and I’m sorry perhaps we didn’t draw the line a little further, a little sooner. We certainly ought to draw it now.

    NICK ROBINSON

    When you say that others should draw the line clearly?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’m talking about the countries right across Europe. When you speak of Europe, but for an accidental geographical event a couple of billion years ago, we would actually be on the mainland of Europe. We’re not. But to all intents and purposes in terms of our security and our interests, we still remain in the European sphere of influence. We need to work with them. I don’t like the fiddling bureaucracy of Europe and never did. My support for Europe was always based on a very clear calculation, and it was this, ‘am I, my children and my grandchildren safer and likely to be better off in very large power blocs around Europe or isolated and alone in a world that is going to be rough and tough in the future?’ and the answer is yes, we are safer, and that is what has made me a supporter of the European Union, not the fiddling bureaucracies that so irritated us in the nooks and crannies of our life.

    NICK ROBINSON

    So if the current Prime Minister can get us a little closer, if not back in?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    No, you can’t get us back in now. I’d like to think we haven’t left, but we have left, and I do not think it is politically practicable to get back in immediately. But I do think we can get back in much closer and particularly into the Customs Union or the single market, because that is where we need to build. But we need to build first on the defence relationship. We need to work together in their interests and our interests, because we also have to strengthen NATO and our European neighbours are, of course, members of NATO themselves.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Now you were Prime Minister during another major anniversary, the 50th anniversary. Do you still have vivid memories of the people you met, the stories you heard?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I do, in fact, of three anniversaries, the D-Day 50 year anniversary in 1994, and VE Day and VJ Day. I have memories of each of them and they’re very vivid. I mean, the first memories one has is of the people we met. We saw some of them earlier this week, being interviewed on television, much older now, but in many cases, quite remarkable. Over 100 talking about what they remembered, what they’d done, what they felt, how they thought they were in a justifiable fight against evil intentions. It was absolutely remarkable to hear them, and we honour them, and we should do.

    I think I’d make a further point, if I may. It was the People’s War in the sense that at home you had, apart from the armed forces themselves, you had at sea, you had the merchant navy, you had the Home Guard, you had the police service, the ambulance service, the fire service in particular, particularly in 1940 at the times of the Blitz. You had the Bevin boys who were digging out the precious coal we needed, you had the land girls who were digging out food. They were all part of our defence. We shouldn’t forget their part in the war as well.

    It revolutionised the lives of women. A lot had been done for that after the First World War, but after the Second World War, the things they did and the responsibilities they took changed the face of this country forever. We could never go back, and it was needs must and they rose to the challenge, and you saw the world change before our eyes in a very few years.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Sometimes when we think of veterans, we think of proud men and women, we think of their uniforms and their medals. We sometimes don’t think of the people who are not so visible, people who perhaps paid a price for what they went through. I think there was one man that you met all those years ago, a veteran who turned up at a commemoration.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That was at Hyde Park, the VE Day commemoration in 1995, and that was presided over that particular event by the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret and it was a very strong security perimeter. A little elderly man, rather scruffily dressed as it happened, in curiously on a warm day wearing an old Mackintosh, tried to get in through the secure external security barrier and he was pushed back. He didn’t say much, he looked a bit taken aback, but he was pushed back and he was turning to go when someone with sharp eyes noticed something underneath his old raincoat. They looked at it and it was the Victoria Cross and he had come across half the world in order to be at that particular ceremony. As he put it to me, very sweetly, very charmingly, later, I came here to see my Queen. I had never forgotten that. Once we discovered who he was and where he had come from, he was moved from the perimeter and actually managed to get on the dais with some other Victoria Cross holders. He had a wonderful day and met many of the people he’d met before. But my blood still runs cold at the thought that a holder of the Victoria Cross could have been denied access after travelling halfway across the world and that is something I think I would never forget.

    I remember on D-Day, a very long day, we’d gone from England to France, I spent the morning looking at the cemetery in Bayeux, and then we went on to Arromanches, and we were standing on a platform with the Queen and Prince Philip and other people to the march past of the veterans. We thought it would take a reasonable time, and it did, and they were very elderly people, many of them bearing the scars of war. And they came on and on and on. The event had started a bit late, because one head of government was a touch late, as I recall, not ours. The tide started coming in and people were getting worried about the tide coming in, and still the march went on and on and on and on. An unending supply, infinitely more people from Britain and the Commonwealth than anyone had ever imagined would turn up. It was the most moving occasion, because every one of those people had been involved in action in the war at some stage, and it was quite extraordinary. You wondered at the thoughts that were in their mind, the memories that were there, the things they had done and the things they had seen, and the lives they had lived thereafter, and how they got over those experiences. It was a very, very moving occasion.

    NICK ROBINSON

    We are celebrating the end of the war in Europe, not the end of the Second World War. As of course, many people beyond Europe will know that anniversary, VJ Day has yet to come. But again, you were in office, you were Prime Minister on the 50th anniversary.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Yes, I remember it very well. The predominant memory of that was sitting there waiting for the fly past up the Mall over Buckingham Palace and far away, led of course by a Lancaster, followed by a whole range of aircraft that I couldn’t identify then and can’t identify now, and of course, followed ultimately by the Red Arrows. But it was the Lancaster that sticks in my mind, because there was a long argument in a committee organising all this, upon which a member of my staff was involved about whether it would be a good idea for the Lancaster to drop poppies as it went down the Mall. For reasons that, to me, passed all understanding, the MOD was opposed to this and my member of staff wasn’t prepared to accept that. It was a fairly interesting argument, and eventually it was resolved in Number 10’s favour. It was decided the Lancaster would drop poppies, and it did. It was a very iconic, iconic is a word used far too often, but it was a genuinely iconic moment. There was one poppy dropped for every service man killed in the war, and it was really the most moving occasion. I know that members of the Royal Family who were sitting on the dais with me at the time, were as moved as I was by that. It was an unforgettable memory.

    NICK ROBINSON

    In conclusion, do you hope that people of whatever age will remember the commitment, the sacrifice that so many made?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I hope we will continue for a long time to remember the anniversaries of what went on, because it does remind younger generations of what their predecessors did and we will never see another war fought in the same way. So it is a unique piece of history and I think if they remember what they did, they’re more likely to remember why they did it, and if they remember why they did it, then the way of life that offers freedom rather than restriction is enhanced, and the people who have a political philosophy that rely on restriction and thuggery, rather than the aggregation of freedom that we all wish to see will be put to one side. So I very much hope we can continue to do that

    The way in which Ukraine is finally treated, the extent to which we realise that Ukraine is not just fighting for Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, and they’re fighting for a form of freedom that we have been privileged to enjoy in our country for a long time and never wish to lose. We have our role to play in that war to ensure that that remains in Ukraine and in other countries as well.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Thank you for listening to the interview from the BBC World Service.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on VE Day Anniversary – 8 May 2025

    The interview with Sir John Major broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s the Today Programme on 8 May 2025.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Our next guest is the last Prime Minister to have been born while the fighting was raging. He was Prime Minister when the country marked 50 years since VE Day. On the programme yesterday, we had President Biden, the last US president to have lived during the war who emphasised the need not just to remember on this day we celebrate the defeat of the Nazis in Europe, but to remember and learn, learn the lessons of history. Biden warned about the threat now to democracy, the risks of the absence of American leadership and what he called modern day appeasement.

    I have been speaking to Sir John Major about his reflections on this VE Day.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I doubt we’re ever going to see anything quite like it again, because when we come to the natural next occasion, it will be 100 years, and sadly, the whole core of the occasion, which is the veterans, will no longer be with us. So I think it is a very unique occasion. I, of course, was only two when the war ended, and don’t have any direct memories of it, but I do recall my parents talking about it later and I recall one thing I think my mother said at the time, that VE Day must have been the most joyous day in the whole history of our country. I think that is probably true, and what people perhaps didn’t focus on then was what came after – the sheer change between before the war and after the war in the lives of so many families, the sheer difficulties that there were to face when you had a country that was all but bankrupt, if not actually bankrupt, where you had rationing on food still for another eight or nine years to come. People had no concept of how life would change and it was a very tough few years following VE Day.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Earlier this week, on the Today Programme, we presented the programme from Coventry, the city that suffered the most during the war. You, I imagine, want people to remember that as well as the victory.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I do and for a very special reason. Coventry was bombed to non existence, it was a ruin and later, of course, we bombed Dresden in a similar fashion. The two sides of Dresden and Coventry have remained in very close touch ever since, but I still remember because I’d read about it years ago, of what the Provost of the Cathedral said at Christmas 1940, after the bombing. I paraphrase because it was part of the speech he made, but he essentially made three points. One, we do not seek vengeance for what happened, we do seek continued activity to make sure we act against the tyranny we have faced and, thirdly, that what we need to seek is a kinder and a simpler world at the end of this catastrophic war. I sometimes reflect upon that third point, we don’t really have a kinder and more sympathetic world than we did before. You think of some of the things we argue about and we discuss, it is totally out of kilter with those particular thoughts. I think there is a great deal of work to be done.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Given what you say, which is inevitably there will be fewer and fewer people with direct memories, do you fear that we as a country may forget the lessons? That we may forget what that generation grew up knowing?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think there’s a real risk of that. I mean, at the moment, people take democracy for granted. I don’t think it’s safe to do that. Democracy has been a retreat for the last 16, 17, 18 years in many parts of the world and we have some people running countries at the moment who are far from democratic, they’re tyrannical. I think the people faced by Hitler realised they were facing tyranny and they fought together in order to ensure that tyranny was defeated. But there is tyranny in different parts of the world and we have to be as strong and as resolute about it now as they were then. As far as democracy is concerned, we actually have sight in Ukraine of what an anti democracy led by a tyrannical leader is actually capable of doing, without purpose, without reason, without justification. They invade another country, are continually bombarding both the civilian population and the military establishments and also, unbelievably in this day, had people whose job it is to kidnap children from Ukraine and steal them away from their parents and into Russia. Now if that isn’t tyranny. I don’t know what is now

    NICK ROBINSON

    You were the Prime Minister during another major anniversary, the 50th anniversary. Do you still have vivid memories of the people you met, the stories you heard?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I do and they’re very vivid. The first memories one has are of the people we met and we saw some of them earlier this week being interviewed on television, much older now, but in many cases, quite remarkable. Over 100, talking about what they remembered, what they’d done, what they felt, how they thought they were in a justifiable fight against evil intentions and and it was absolutely remarkable to hear them. We honour them and we should do.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Sometimes when we think of veterans, we think of proud men and women, we think of their uniforms and their medals. We sometimes don’t think of the people who are not so visible, people who perhaps paid a price for what they went through. I think there was one man that you met all those years ago, a veteran who turned up at a commemoration.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That was at Hyde Park, the VE Day commemoration in 1995, and that was presided over that particular event by the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret and it was a very strong security perimeter. A little elderly man, rather scruffily dressed as it happened, in curiously on a warm day wearing an old Mackintosh, tried to get in through the secure external security barrier and he was pushed back. He didn’t say much, he looked a bit taken aback, but he was pushed back and he was turning to go when someone with sharp eyes noticed something underneath his old raincoat. They looked at it and it was the Victoria Cross and he had come across half the world in order to be at that particular ceremony. As he put it to me, very sweetly, very charmingly, later, I came here to see my Queen. I had never forgotten that. Once we discovered who he was and where he had come from, he was moved from the perimeter and actually managed to get on the dais with some other Victoria Cross holders. He had a wonderful day and met many of the people he’d met before. But my blood still runs cold at the thought that a holder of the Victoria Cross could have been denied access after travelling halfway across the world and that is something I think I would never forget.

    NICK ROBINSON

    Sir John Major with his reflections on VE Day.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on The World This Weekend – 16 February 2025

    The text of the interview between James Naughtie and Sir John Major on BBC 4’s The World This Weekend on 16 February 2025.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Sir John Major, who combines a razor sharp observation of the here and now, with his own experience as Prime Minister. Coming to power soon after the fall of the wall, deeply involved in the chaotic translation of the Soviet Union into the Russian Federation and a leader who found himself involved in armed conflict in the first Gulf War shoulder to shoulder with an American president, George H W Bush. So I asked Sir John to put these days, now, in Europe in perspective. How serious did they seem to him? What change did he think was afoot?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    There’s no doubt in my mind that the world is changing and that it’s reshaping, that it may not be reshaping in a way that’s congenial to the west and that it’s a very unsettled time indeed. Many of the gains we thought we’d made over recent years, for example, as you said, when the Soviet Union collapsed, are now being reversed and you see a very aggressive Russia again in Ukraine. If they were to succeed with their adventure in Ukraine, no doubt they would be elsewhere before too long. We see globalisation retreating and there’s no doubt in my mind that democracy is threatened. It’s been in modest decline for the last 18 years, there’s an ugly nationalism growing, mostly from the intolerant right. So it is, as I say, a very unsettled time. At this particular time, the big nations, America, China, Russia, are beginning to act unilaterally, where once they would have consulted. That is a concern, because it does presage the prospect of very great and rather unpleasant changes.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    You allude to what’s happening in the United States and it brings us to President Trump’s dealings with Vladimir Putin and indeed to JD Vance’s speech to the Munich Security Conference. This is a kind of administration, to be quite blunt about it, you’ve never seen in your lifetime before.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    No, that’s perfectly true. It’s a very different presidency from Kennedy, from Nixon, from Clinton, from Obama, from the two Bushes. In fact, it’s a form of presidency I haven’t previously seen. The President’s phone call to Putin, in which we learned that negotiations to end the war would start immediately. There had been no consultation with Ukraine or anyone else. He then made concessions to Russia, which I think is fairly unprecedented, having made perfectly clear that the US troops would not defend Ukraine, that Russia might be able to keep land that Putin had taken by force and that Ukraine would not be able to join NATO. These were all unilateral remarks from the present administration in the United States to the world. Yet consider what happens if Russia can claim a win. China is going to notice that, and so will the world, and so will every tin pot dictator around the world. If America is not to stand behind its allies in the way the world has previously seen, then we are moving into a wholly different and in my view, rather more dangerous world.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    From what you think you have read into Trump’s dealings with Putin, that is exactly what you expect to happen?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That is what he appears to have been signalling, yes, and it’s extremely dangerous and it’s hard to understand why. The Vice President’s speech at the Munich conference, a rather unlikely venue for the speech he actually made, the political signal was obvious and misguided, I think, in the middle of an election in Germany. This is just an illustration of what is happening, but if you recall, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen died relieving Europe from the tyranny of fascism and the Vice President goes to Munich, ignores his host Chancellor Schulz, and arranges meetings with the leader of the most far right party. That is not what we expect from the foremost nation in the free world. It’s certainly not statesmanship, and it potentially gives off very dangerous signals.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    And he lectures Europe at the same time on the issue of free speech?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, that is extremely odd. It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling Mr. Putin. In Mr. Putin’s Russia, people who disagree with him disappear, or die, or flee the country, or, on a statistically unlikely level, fall out of high windows somewhere in Moscow. To lecture the West about democracy seems to be rather odd. He really should be doing that in Moscow, or perhaps even in Beijing.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Well, your view is plain, but I have to put it to you that Donald Trump is practicing what he preached. The voters, after all, a bare majority of those who did vote in the United States give a man a mandate to do this, and as a consequence, you might dislike it, but you can hardly complain that he’s doing something illegitimate.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    He certainly won a mandate. I don’t recall in his mandate a suggestion that he might take over Canada or Greenland or the Panama Canal, or any of the other things that are being suggested. I mean, let me say what I think Western governments will be unwilling to say publicly, but which I am sure they all feel. If America behaves in this fashion and retreats towards isolation, she leaves the door open to China and Russia to supplement her place in the world. The free world, I believe, now fears that America, with all her great power and prestige and all that she has done to keep the world safe in recent years, may now be turning her back on the international responsibilities she has previously taken. If she does so, there’s no other nation state that can replace them, other than China, and that is not something I think the West would certainly wish to see. If that happens, the world, including America, may regret what subsequently follows.

    Now I understand President Trump’s desire to make America great again, though I would have thought, since she is the most powerful and richest nation in the world, she could already claim that, but he wishes to make her great again. It’s a very different tone from a former American tone of paying any price and bearing any burden for the freedom of mankind, and the world needs to take account of that and discover precisely what is meant by all this, and then, as necessary, take action to safeguard their own interests.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    So John, it’s unusual to hear a former Prime Minister talking, if I can use the word, so frankly. Because, you know, there are protocols and a sense of politeness that prohibit people who’ve been in high office from maybe always saying what they think. You clearly feel that you’ve got to let this go, you’ve got to tell people what you believe.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I rarely these days appear on the media. I’d rather take the view that former Prime Ministers by and large should keep out of the way and leave it to the current generation. But sometimes there are things that need to be said that perhaps can’t be said so easily by the present Government or by politicians in office but that nonetheless need to be said.

    Now let me say something personal about this. My father was brought up in the United States, he was brought up in Pennsylvania and he lived there throughout his youth. He taught me as a boy to love and respect the United States and its people, and I always have respected them. It seems to me that it would be a very great tragedy with very uncertain outcomes if this great Republic began to preside over the death of the rules based society that has kept the world safe over the last 50, 60, 70 years. Yet, I’m not alone among politicians who think that rules based society is now at risk.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    I’m bound to take you back a little bit at this juncture and say that George H W Bush, father of a president, as well as a president himself, of course, was the first American president that you came to know well in office. You fought together, as it were, in the Gulf, and you saw through some very tumultuous times together, but the contrast with the current incumbent is dramatic, isn’t it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it’s total, yes. George H W Bush was not only President of the United States, but from my point of view, during his presidency and for many years afterwards, he became a much cherished friend and he was an internationalist of a very remarkable kind. He understood the world, and he understood that for every action, there is a reaction. I make that point because if America stepped back from the responsibilities they have so generously and bravely taken over recent years, somebody else will step forward to replace them, and I think we have to realise that, and we have to prepare for that if it should prove to be necessary.

    My preference would be for the United States and Europe to reach a great concordat again and to conduct negotiations in private and not by megaphone and not without consultation first. But if that can’t happen, then Europe, and I include the United Kingdom as well, even though we’re not in the European Union, then we need to look at our own future and begin to repair some of the gaps in our present position that would appear were America to retreat a little more behind American borders,

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Which must mean spending more on defence?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Undoubtedly.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    So if you were Chancellor, which you once were, you’d break your own fiscal rule wouldn’t you, and say ‘come on, this is a moment that really demands action, whatever we said in an election campaign?’

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I sympathise with the present Chancellor with the position she’s got. It’s very, very easy to say, from outside the government, I’d just do this and I’d spend all this money. I would prefer to say, I would realise in my plans that we have to make a very material increase in the level of defence expenditure and do it as a priority as soon as it is credible to do so.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    In terms of the Ukraine negotiation itself bringing this war to an end, there are two issues that arise very obviously. When European leaders, including Keir Starmer at this occasion, meet in Paris tomorrow night, it will be on their minds. The first is the inclusion of Ukraine in conversations between Trump and Putin, which hasn’t happened yet as we know. And secondly, there is the question of NATO membership, on which the United States seems to be determined, or at least minded, to block Ukraine from its ambitions to join. How would you see your way through those two problems?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    We need to consider, because it is relevant to what we decide, what happens if Mr. Putin wins? I use wins in the sense of gains territory, the world will see that at the same time as they see Mr. Trump talking of annexing Canada and Greenland. Now contemplate those two events running together, and ask yourself this question, what do Mr. Putin and President Xi think? They are dancing with joy. 

    Mr. Putin will see that he has received some reward for seeking to invade and annex Ukraine, and Mr. Xi will feel, if that has happened, what restraint is there on China beginning to grab Taiwan back again in a few years time? So we have to look at what the world would look like if that happened and it wouldn’t look very attractive, and we would wish it not to happen. So I do think we have to speed as rapidly as we can defence expenditure. I can’t say I have focused particularly on the credibility of Ukraine joining NATO, but if it’s not credible for them to do so, now, I think we ought to assist them so that it becomes credible as soon as possible.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    From your point of view, as somebody who was engaged in serious international negotiations at a higher level, the centrality of Ukraine to a settlement which is going to decide the future, not least in terms of its own borders of the country, is surely an absolute fundamental principle that Europe has to defend?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Yes, Ukraine should be a part of the negotiations. There is no justification for other nations and negotiating over Ukraine’s head, whether it is the United States alone, or indeed the United States and other allies, it is Ukrainians who have lost several 100,000 people in the battlefield. They have lost blood and treasure and a large part of their country, it would be intolerable were they not to be a significant part of the negotiations.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    And there will have to be some kind of security presence to safeguard their borders in the event of some kind of settlement?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That was a notable absentee from the reports of what was said by the President to Mr. Putin. There was no mention of any concessions to be made by Mr. Putin. There was no mention of any security guarantees to be given to the Ukrainians and both of those are an important part of what must happen when there is proper negotiations.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    How difficult would it be for Europe and for NATO, dominated of course by the United States as a member, where some possible deal on Ukraine would be seen by them as a sellout to Russia?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it would be immensely difficult, firstly, against the prestige of the United States. There are countries all around the world who rely on the power and strength and democratic power of the United States. If they believe the United States is no longer to be relied on, they will rethink their position. Many of them who are non aligned, might well realign behind China. Others may decide they’ll increase their own expenditure on defence. Some may decide, well, we had better get a nuclear weapon as well, because it seems as though it may be necessary to protect ourselves. Now, all of those things are speculation, but they’re not wild speculation. All of them are perfectly credible things that might follow from a belief that America had ceded its present role in the world as a whole simply to concentrate on the domestic greatness of the United States.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    You’re being very frank. You obviously feel very deeply about this.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, I suppose I have a limited lease on what happens in this country. I’ve been in it for my eight decades, but my children haven’t, my grandchildren haven’t and millions of other people haven’t. The future lies ahead. I would like our political parties to stop looking back at past generations of politicians and look forward to what is going to happen in the 2030s and the 2040s and the 2050s, to begin to plan for it, to begin to act for it, to begin to understand the way the world is changing and prepare for it.

    Those things seem to me to be extraordinarily important. Politicians today have a harder time, I think, than any of their predecessors, because of the advent of social media, the way in which the chequerboards of the world are changing shape at the present time and and the fact that our country has had 15 years without any noticeable increase in the living quality of most British people. in any part of the United Kingdom. That’s an extraordinarily difficult back loss for them to operate, but we do have to look forward. If we look forward, we can bring hope where there is none, and provide opportunity to a greater extent than there is at present. Those things need to be done. I hope Governments, this one and the next one are not too small ‘c’ conservative in what they think and what they do and what they believe can be achieved, because the world is moving and changing very rapidly. We have to move and change with it.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    If by some possibly divine intervention, you were given the opportunity to have a private conversation with President Trump, what would you say?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ve always believed conversation should be private, and I’m absolutely sure Jim that our conversation would far better be left private than public.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Sir John Major, and he writes our closing headline for us, because he has told this programme that democracy is under threat than it if the US retreats towards isolation, it will leave the door open for Russia and China to take its place in the world.