The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Economy

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Attlee Foundation Lecture – 18 March 2026

    The Attlee Foundation Lecture 2026, delivered by Sir John Major at King’s College London on 18 March 2026.

    ATTLEE FOUNDATION LECTURE 2026

    A PIVOTAL YEAR FOR DEMOCRACY

    First of all, I would like to thank the Attlee Foundation for inviting me to deliver this Lecture.  I am privileged to be here this evening, and delighted to be at King’s, where I feel very much at home.  

    It is a quarter of a century since I left front line politics, but I still have an observer’s interest in our world and our country.  Both are in an uneasy state, and actions – or in-actions – this year may be pivotal to the future.

    Let me do a little ground clearing.

    Some may be surprised that a former Conservative Prime Minister would deliver a lecture in honour of a former Labour Prime Minister.  

    They shouldn’t be and, in a world of grown-up politics, they wouldn’t be.  

    It is easy to admire Clement Attlee for his record of achievement;  his political courage;  his resolute defence of our country’s values;  his creation of the NHS;  his commitment to public service;  and the manner in which he put the interests of his country before his own – or those of his Party.  

    Of course, were he and I both active in politics today – there would be differences of policy, of priority, of philosophy.  We are political opponents.   But mark this:  Opponents, Yes.  Enemies, No.  

    Democratic Parties do have enemies in politics, but they are populist insurgents who seek to divide and not unite.  

    They are careless of the strife they cause.  They trade on grievances in our society.  Where ills exist – they exaggerate them.

    They then blame those ills on minority groups of a different race or religion.  It is ugly politics that deserves no place in our country.

    Our political system would work to better effect – and be more honest – if mainstream politicians acknowledged that their priorities – I emphasise priorities – have far more in common than they wish to admit. 

    That may surprise you, but consider this:  all our three main Parties are in favour of greater economic wellbeing;  secure defence;  decent public services;  thriving health provision;  affordable housing;  flourishing education;  and healthy employment.  

    This is what we expect in our liberal democracy, and when these priorities are not delivered the nation becomes disenchanted ‒ as it is now.

    We are not alone.  

    Over the last two decades, democracy has been retreating around the world.

    Nearly three-quarters of our world live outside democratic protection.  

    Autocrats undermine democracy to entrench themselves in power.  If we do not recognise the dangers of that, and protect ourselves against it, autocracy may, one day, overwhelm us.

    At my age I have a limited lease on the future, but let me say with all the force I can muster:  if we were to cast aside our mainstream politicians – as polls suggest we may do – then a gap would open up, and that gap may not be filled by democrats.  

    So – if you rejoice at the dire polling of Labour and the Conservatives ‒ beware of what you wish for.  

    If they were to fall, who knows what will rise:  you may find that autocrats-in-power do not share the democratic instincts of the politicians you have discarded.  

    Many people worry about what lies ahead.  Some are bewildered, even frightened, by the changes in our world.  It would be a self-inflicted wound if they turned to the extremes of politics because democracy was not speaking for them.

    We know democracy can succeed in the most unpromising circumstances:  the Attlee Government proved that eighty years ago.  

    After a crippling war, our country was near bankrupt.  The War had enhanced our reputation for courage and persistence, but left our immediate prospects in tatters.  Six years of conflict had left families bereaved, cities destroyed, and the Exchequer bare.  

    The British people had endured years of hardship.  The age of deference was on its death bed – and our battle-weary predecessors demanded a brighter future.

    In retrospect, 80 years on, the 1945-50 Government, and its Prime Minister, are held in high regard.  The problems they ‒ and their successors ‒ faced, and overcame, should be an inspiration for what could be achieved today.

    But there is no room for complacency.  No reason for the careless assumption that democracy is so entrenched it cannot be undermined.  It can – and around the world – it is.  

    Electors should treat with suspicion rash promises from infant Parties that have never experienced the complexities of democratic government.

    Our liberal-democracy is not perfect, but it is far preferable to any of the alternatives.  It has checks and balances unknown to other systems.  It has the ability to dismiss the inadequate, and haul down the over-powerful.  

    It exists to serve the nation.  It does not compel the nation to serve the State.

    Our political system is an enabler.  Its policies enable peace, resists war whenever possible, and promotes justice, wellbeing, growth, care where needed, enhanced life expectancy, and transformation of life opportunities.  

    Along the way it makes mistakes, but its purpose is to extend freedoms of choice and action that more extreme politicians would curtail.

    But … but … we cannot ignore the uncomfortable truth that, in recent years, our democracy has fallen short of expectations.

    People have faced higher costs and rising taxes.  They have seen no real increase in their post-tax income – nor in their standard of living.  

    When – over a period of many months – our three mainstream Parties collectively register barely 50% in opinion Polls it is time to be concerned over what may lie ahead.

    In a bid to reassure electors, politicians talk of “reform” to come.  It’s a useful word – reform.  It can mean everything or nothing.  Reform means change.  Change means upheaval.  Upheaval provokes opposition.  

    Upheaval may be necessary but – sometimes – it is better to make progress on the everyday issues of politics.

    Is policy strangling initiative or encouraging it?

    Are tax levels deterring savings and investment?

    Is planning holding back housing for the homeless and the would-be home owner?  

    Does the benefit system encourage or discourage unemployment?  

    Can the triple lock be targeted to pensioners who really need it?  

    Can Parliament act more strongly against the misuse and abuse of social media and, if so, how?

    Can we fund the Armed Forces we need?  

    Will this mean more spending – or savings elsewhere?

    There is certainly no shortage of issues to settle.  But it is not only policy that needs updating:  so does our political system.

    Politics has a grubby underbelly that can make it look seedy.  

    We need a spring clean.

    Is political funding corrupted if ‒ with no qualifications other than money ‒ donors receive honours or preferential access to Ministers?  

    Should political donations be capped to protect against undue influence?  I believe the answer is – yes.

    Should the House of Lords be elected or appointed?  An elected Upper House would meet democratic aspirations, but would be a monumental mistake.  It could – and would – challenge the primacy of the Commons and create constitutional confusion.

    It would not retain the wisdom and lifetime experience to enable it to discharge its primary function of revising legislation.  It would not be a partner to the Commons:  it would be a rival.

    Recent General Elections have thrown into doubt the continuing validity of the “first past the post” system of voting.  

    As voting preferences spread more widely it provides distorted results.  The democratic case for examining this is growing, although changes would come with distinct drawbacks.  

    Should Members of Parliament who defect to a different Party be compelled to face a by-election?  Constitutionally, no – as they are deemed to be elected as individuals.  

    But, in the real world, they are elected as representatives of a political Party.  So – yes:  logic and common decency suggest they must face the electorate again in a by-election.  

    If the House of Commons wishes to regain the respect it has lost, it must justify the status-quo – or change it.    

    And one further thought:  is it not time to recognise that Brexit has failed to deliver its many promises, and the loss, each year, of £100 billion of European trade, and £40 billion of tax revenue is doing enormous damage to the lives and livelihoods of the British people – and their future?  

    Money is the root … of good public services.  Imagine how much better they – and our military power – might be if that money was still available to the Exchequer, instead of being thrown away with such a casual disregard of the consequences.  

    I do not believe we can fully rejoin the European Union in the near future.  But economic wellbeing tells us we should re-build relationships with our closest neighbours as swiftly and as comprehensively as possible.  

    When we left the EU, we broke up a European alliance of 500 million people.  We did so as America – with its 340 million citizens – pivoted away from us towards the East.  

    Suddenly, our closeness to the European and American power blocs was reduced.  This left the UK more solitary and vulnerable.

    My father was brought up in America, and taught me to admire the virtues of that great Republic.    

    Our two countries saw the world through similar eyes, and had much in common.  But our relationship, once rock solid, is now more nuanced – and more distant.  

    After WWII, the Marshall Plan helped rebuild shattered European economies and – in the post-war years – America was the rock upon which democracy prospered.

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

    America’s purpose, echoed by later Presidents, was to secure a freer – and safer – world, in which the strong pledged their protection of the weak.  No fee was asked.  No deal demanded.  No investment or payment expected.  It was altruistic policy in a harsh world.  

    It was what made America great.  

    I saw this first hand at meetings in the White House and Pentagon, when the most senior Military personnel of both countries were present.  Their mutual respect and friendship was self-evident.  Trust was instinctive and total.  Nothing was held back.

    Our political and military relationship was one of shared values – on every issue from human rights to free markets.  So I know what we had, and deeply regret that it seems to be falling away.

    Since the turn of the century, America has economically out-paced both the UK and the European Union.  At the millennium, the GDP of America and the EU was similar.  Today, America is half as big again.

    There is now a new tone from America.  President Trump argues that America is being “ripped off” by trading partners and – without consultation – he raised tariffs on imports from wealthy and poor countries, whether friend or foe.

    When the Supreme Court ruled these to be illegal, he reimposed a 15% general increase using different powers not yet tested in Courts.

    Uncertainty was reinforced by the President’s dismissive attitude to Europe, his demands for the ownership of Greenland – the territory of a NATO ally – and his expressed view that the incursion of Ukraine by Russia was solely a problem for Europe.

    This is not the America we have known.  

    Vice-President Vance also accused Europeans of being a greater threat to freedom in Europe than Russia.  That was offensive and absurd in equal measure.  

    It was President Putin who sent Russian troops to invade Ukraine ‒ not vice-versa.  It is Russia and Putin that conducts a “shadow war” of mis-information;  takes cyber action aimed against Western Europe;  and murders political opponents within Russia and – as we saw at Salisbury – in other territories, too.

    When President Zelensky visited the White House to seek support, he was “ambushed” – no other description suffices – by President Trump and Vice-President Vance.  It was Zelensky – not Putin – who was accused of “gambling” with World War III.  This turned truth on its head.

    Yet when President Putin arrived in Washington, he was greeted with full honours.  Putin revelled in his red-carpet reception, and appeared able to persuade President Trump that black was white.  

    President Trump’s priority is set out in two alluring slogans:  “America First” and “Make America Great Again”.  This explicitly puts self-interest before the wider international interest, and has begun to further pry apart the “rules based” system that was built and led by America herself.  

    That system was fraying ‒ but is now fracturing.  If diplomacy, consultation and co-operation breaks down, we will be moving towards the law of the jungle with which no country should be content – and in which no country is safe.

    My fear is the risk of stepping into a world in which “might is right”, and the mighty behave in an unprincipled and lawless manner.  

    In such a world the rights and prosperity of weaker nations are subordinate to the will of the strong;  greater powers are deferred to – not because they have justice on their side – but because they have the power to compel acceptance of their will.

    Such a concept is truly terrifying.

    How different that is from our expectations.  In 1949 – one year after the Marshall Plan was put into action – the NATO Treaty was signed.  

    The Treaty included an Article 5 Agreement that an attack on one Member will bring all others to their defence.  

    But is that still so?

    Will America – with all her military power – still be willing to come to the defence of a NATO ally?  NATO is, of course, a defensive – not an offensive alliance.

    I hope so.  But the Vice-President is on record as saying “I just hate bailing out Europe again”.  The American Defence Secretary added:  “I fully share your loathing”.

    Were these remarks merely frustration?  Or were they voicing future policy?  

    It is striking that neither comment was disowned by the President.

    If America did resile from Article 5, it is hard to see how an American could remain as Supreme Allied Commander.  Yet it is inconceivable – given America’s great military power – to imagine anyone other than an American leading NATO, as it is currently constituted.

    I suspect that, underlying all this, is America’s determination that Europe should bear a higher share of NATO’s overall costs.  That would be fair.  The burden has fallen too heavily – and for too long – on America’s shoulders.  

    American power was vital in winning both World Wars in the last century, although history tells us that she joined World War I only in 1917 after German submarines sank American ships.  

    And, in World War II, only after Japan attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbour in 1941. 

    The worry for the future – to voice the private fear – is that past American Presidents only gained the support of their public to enter the two World Wars after America herself was attacked.  In future, without that imperative, can we be utterly confident of American participation?

    President Trump – against his own campaign oratory – has shown himself prepared to use America’s muscular power on overseas missions.

    I am conflicted by the American-Israeli attack on Iran.  

    In one sense, this was a wholly understandable response to Iran’s behaviour over many decades.  

    I have no illusions about the distasteful nature of Iran’s clerical leadership.  They unleash terror ‒ and fund murder and mayhem through their proxies.  

    This brutal regime has shown it is willing to murder any of its own citizens who are brave enough to protest at the mis-government that scars their lives.

    So ‒ why am I conflicted?

    It is because of what was not done ahead of any military action and ‒ crucially ‒ the wider implications beyond that.  

    There was no diplomatic attempt to obtain a UN Resolution to give legality to the war.  No nation – other than Israel – was even consulted.

    This was despite the fact that the war was bound have much wider repercussions across the Middle East – and beyond.

    Many nations will pay a price for this war.  

    Hostilities will not end when bombing stops.  Old hatreds will linger.  New hatreds will have been born.  A new generation may have been radicalised.  Retaliation may be deferred – but it is likely to come.  

    This war will have a long tail.

    Its aims have never been clear and – since the conflict began – they have been changing by the day.  No exit strategy is known.

    The President demanded surrender.  He is unlikely to get it.  

    For Iran, one should think Persia, and remember her history.

    Persia was a dominant world power when America and the UK were still living in mud huts.  She will not admit defeat.

    Neither America nor Israel were prepared to put “boots on the ground”.  This comforted their domestic audiences, but made regime change – always unlikely ‒ completely impossible.

    Whilst they restricted conflict to the air, American leaders encouraged Iranian citizens to take to the streets and confront well-armed Basij volunteers.  These are part of the Revolutionary Guard, which murdered 30,000 demonstrators only weeks earlier.  

    Unless – and until – the regime is seriously tottering, that encouragement to rise up is an invitation to suicide.

    In due time, the war will end.  

    What will it have done for the rule of law and the protection of the rules-based-system of behaviour that has served the world so well in the aftermath of World War II?

    The American Defence Secretary was contemptuous of …. “vague notions of international law” and the “…. stupid rules of engagement”.  

    Such disregard of law is a shameful example for a law maker to set.

    If the international rule of law is dismissed so casually, what are we left with?

    I can only speculate, but I believe we will be left with a more fearful world, in which wars may be more numerous and alliances less secure.  

    A world in which disputes are settled ‒ not with diplomacy or adjudication or agreement ‒ but by force:  the victor being the most militarily or economically powerful.

    This heralds a playground for the strong, perhaps Russia or China – or even America ‒ and a future of unease, even fear, for the weak.

    That would be a wretched legacy to pass on to the next generation.

    The mercurial nature of President Trump upends the accepted norms of diplomacy.  

    But the message for the UK and Europe is clear and unmistakable:  we must plan and enact policies to improve self-dependence.

    This will require us to raise budgets to enhance our military capacity for defence and offence.  That effort must be within NATO and not separate from it.  

    It will be an expensive and long-term commitment.  After decades of peace, Governments must now persuade their electorates that military spending must rise – perhaps at the expense of social expenditure or higher taxes?

    Assuming that can be done, countries must agree to purchase arms collectively.  And, in doing so, the weapons must be inter-operable on land, air, sea – and below the sea.  That will mean purchases from national suppliers may be less easy.

    Matters such as these – complex as they are – cannot be left undecided if NATO is to be battle ready and a credible deterrent to any hostile intent.  

    Do not misunderstand me.  I do not – in any way – wish to push America aside.  She remains the most important ally to the whole of Europe.

    For the UK, the Trans-Atlantic partnership is key to our security and intelligence.  It is in our national interest to sustain this relationship even if we are in dispute on other issues.  

    At No10, during Gulf War I, I experienced first-hand what could be achieved when working closely with one of the finest foreign policy teams America has had:  George H W Bush, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft.  President Bush and I never held back from speaking truth to each other, and never once did that impair our relationship.

    But today, there is a tendency to tip-toe around the President to avoid upsetting him.  Although I understand that, I do not agree with it.  

    Sovereign States that demean themselves will be seen as subordinates and not allies.  That is not a role for the UK.  

    If we disagree with American policy we should say so – as a friend that cares for the wellbeing of an ally.  Statesmen do this in private ‒ not in public.

    Our frankness may cause uncomfortable interludes, but we must never lose sight of what is morally decent and right, and stand up for what we believe.  

    In all our years of history, this is what the UK has done:  it was right then – and it is right now.    

    Let me return to the words of Clement Attlee:

    “…. peace does not come about through wishful thinking.  Peace is not just a negative absence of war;  peace means that you get rid – as far as you can – of the causes of war.”

    What do we mean by “Peace”?  It seems an easy question – but is not.  

    To fully enjoy peace, men and women need to be free.  By free, I don’t only mean to be at liberty.  I mean to be free of war;  free of fear;  free of want.  I mean freedom to worship without persecution, and freedom to speak against injustice and oppression.

    The concept of peace is wide-ranging.  Peace of mind is very precious but ‒ in the 21st Century ‒ a majority of people in the world don’t enjoy it:  the growth of stress, of pressure, of mental health, tell us that we are far from that ideal.

    There has been progress.  Many diseases that killed or crippled have been overcome.  Child mortality has fallen dramatically.

    Hundreds of millions have moved out of dire poverty;  similar numbers now have fresh piped water and electricity.    

    But, as rich nations reduce their aid budgets, poor nations continue to struggle – and the international liberal order loses its attraction … and its potency.

    There is an ancient responsibility upon every generation to leave behind a better world than they inherited.  We are not doing well on that front.  

    Our young generation has no direct experience of war.  They have grown up in a better environment.  They travel more.  Intermingle more.  Inter-marry more.  They are blind to colour and ethnic background.  They are free of many of the inhibitions and prejudices of their forebears.

    They do not view ancient enmities through the same eyes as previous generations.  They welcome communal action on issues like climate change that can only be overcome by working together.

    “Peace” ‒ said Attlee ‒ “does not come about through wishful thinking …”

    Indeed not….. not in any form.

    It comes about by working together – with civility, respect, fortitude, and mutual understanding – to diminish the causes of dispute and strife.  

    If we truly wish to create a safer world, that is the route we must take. 

  • Sir John Major’s Interview with Amol Rajan – 18 September 2024

    Amol Rajan’s interview with Sir John Major, broadcast on BBC Sounds on 18 September 2024.

    BBC Sounds Link

     

    AMOL RAJAN

    Sir John Major is perhaps the most unlikely of our modern British Prime Ministers, the son of a circus impresario. He grew up in poverty and left school with just 3 O-Levels. Yet that didn’t stop him rising through the Tory ranks at remarkable speed, serving as Foreign Secretary, then Chancellor for Lady Margaret Thatcher, and then finally her replacement and successor as Prime Minister. His victory in the 1992 election saw him win more votes than any British leader in history at a general election, but battles over Europe, sleaze and the future of the Tory party led to his defeat in 1997.

    Tony Blair, with a Labour landslide, ended 18 years of Tory rule in which Major had been a central figure. Sir John rarely gives interviews these days, but the man once held as an emblem of meritocracy clearly feels as strongly as ever about what his party, his country and his generation need to do urgently to fix Britain’s problems, restore its pride and help it thrive In the 21st century.

    Here is Sir John Major. Sir John Major, very good to see you. Thank you very much indeed for agreeing to speak to me. I can’t help but note that you don’t often do interviews these days, so I must start by asking why you’ve agreed to do this one.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s a rather unusual question, but I’ll give you a strictly truthful answer. There were two reasons, really. One, because it was a lengthy interview, and I do think a large number of the short interviews I see merely produce soundbite answers. They don’t really inform the public, and I think fewer, rather longer interviews would be more useful to the public. And secondly, though I probably shouldn’t say this, it’s 65 years since I joined the Conservative Party. I was, am and always will be a Conservative. But in recent months, a little longer, a few months, there’s not been a great deal I could say that I would wish to say in favour of what the previous Government were doing. That being so, I thought it better just to stay off the air. Now, of course, the election is behind us. The party’s looking again to the future, and I can return to speaking out, hopefully in favour.

    AMOL RAJAN

    [narrating]

    Now 81 Sir John is much more likely to be seen at a cricket match than in Downing Street. But he remains hugely influential in British politics, even though his seven years as this country’s leader hark back to a very different era. Sir John’s life story is by any measure remarkable. He is the son of a mid Victorian, his father Tom was born in 1879 and in his mid 60s when his son John was born. A circus impresario, he fell on hard times when a deal went sour and the family moved from a bungalow in Worcester Park, a suburb south of London, to a two bedroom apartment with a communal toilet in Brixton’s Coldharbour Lane. Sir John endured poverty and hated school, giving it little effort and leaving with 3 O-Levels.

    I met up with him at the Oval, home to Surrey Cricket Club, where he was once President, and just over a mile from the Brixton street that decades earlier Sir John had called home. Sir John. It’s not a bad sight, is it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I mean, it’s absolutely beautiful.

    AMOL RAJAN

    When did you first come here?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I first came to the Oval, I can’t be precise to the date, early 50s, 1952 or 1953.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Did you come with your father?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    No, I came on my own, I would have been 10, and we lived in Brixton. I could walk here in 25 minutes, it was very cheap to get in here if you came just for the afternoon. So I was a regular attender, pretty much from the early 50s. I was here for the whole of the seven years that Surrey won the championship. This marvellous county team, arguably the best ever, though Yorkshire would disagree with that, and I just saw some wonderful cricket here. It brings back the most extraordinary memories whenever I come

    AMOL RAJAN

    Well, they’ve given us lovely sound effects of the leather on willow and I could talk to you for several hours about cricket and cricket alone, but my paymasters tell me that there are some other subjects that we should touch on. So let’s start with one other thing that we’ve got in common, which is a childhood in South London, but you resist the invitation and the temptation to cast your childhood as a sort of school of hard knocks. You’re humble about your humble origins, and I do think it’s a very unusual beginning for a Prime Minister. And I do think that it’s quite remarkable that you should have entered Number 10 from where you began. So I want our audience to understand where you began. Just describe, if you would, the circumstances of Coldharbour Lane, because it was really just two rooms and a lavatory, wasn’t it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, there’s no lavatory actually, it was three floors down. Before I mention that, I should say my experience wasn’t unique, in the post-war period and in the early 50s, there were many families who lived in exactly the circumstances we did, or a good deal worse. There’s no point crying about that. I was extremely lucky in the family that I had, even if they had been unlucky in what life had done for them. But there were just two rooms, so there were five of us theoretically, my father, my mother, my older brother and sister, who were both older, my sister 13 years, my brother 11 years older than me, a parrot and a dog. There plainly wasn’t room for us all, so my brother moved out and actually lived in a shed for a long time, while they were repaying debt and there wasn’t much money.

    I can’t ever recall my mother buying herself anything new, never a new dress. No luxuries, never a hairdo, never a meal out, never the cinema, never a holiday, certainly nothing remotely as smart as a bottle of wine in the house. So that was the experience of millions of people at that time, so I’m not saying it was unique, please don’t get that impression, but it was very different from life as it is today. 

    AMOL RAJAN

    Was it happy?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Yes, it was. But my mother was a near saint in my view, largely because whenever there was half a crown to spare, it wasn’t spent on her, she would spend it on my father when he became bedridden and there was not a great deal of life left for him, except to talk, to remember the past, and occasionally have a small tot of whisky. So if she could save up enough money, she wouldn’t buy something for herself, she would buy a bottle of whisky for my father, who would treat it very sparingly, a very special occasion when you had a glass, but he loved it.

    AMOL RAJAN

    You were clearly supremely smart because you got into Rutlish Grammar School. How did you find that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That wasn’t the happiest of times, but let me emphasise that it was not the school’s fault so much as mine. When we went into Rutlish, it was moving up in the world, its prefects wore mortar boards. They were clearly aiming to make the school a much more attractive proposition, as seen from the 1950s. than it previously had been. And there was I, forgive me mentioning this because I don’t like doing so, but there was I in jumble sales school uniforms, who had to travel from Brixton to Wimbledon every day to go to school and back every day. So there was no chance of me doing any extra school activities, where so many friendships are born, or the the thought of going on school outings was just a non-starter. So I felt a bit alienated from school, as I say, my fault and our circumstances, but I absolutely rebelled in the most stupid way possible, in that I didn’t work.

    The only subjects I liked were English language, English literature and history. The rest I was completely disinterested in. So my school record was lamentable and a great disappointment to my parents. So I had to do the work I hadn’t done at school after I left it.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Why did you want to go into politics?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I guess it was in the blood.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Was it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, it was in my blood.  I first went to the House of Commons aged 13.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Colonel Marcus Lipton at the village fete?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    You’ve read my book?

    AMOL RAJAN

    Yes, yes, that’s right, out of respect, to do research.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Marcus Lipton was a Labour MP, Colonel Lipton, very safe seat, Brixton at the time. He was a superb constituency member, I don’t know that he ever did a great deal in the House of Commons, but as a constituency member, he was brilliant. Everywhere you went, he would be there and I met him at the local church. The Reverend F. Franklin Cheney had invited me, the local vicar, and I met Marcus Lipton. We talked, and he realised when I talked about the things that I was concerned about, he was prepared to give me time and listen, and he realised that I was more likely to be Conservative than Labour. You regard that as surprising, but those were my natural instincts. Nonetheless, he said “have you ever been to the House of Commons?” and I said “no”, it had never occurred to me that I could go to the House of Commons. He arranged for me to have a pass to go and listen to a debate and I went, and Macmillan was in the House and Macleod was in the House, but came in and left. So I saw the great figures of British politics, but that wasn’t what caught me, walking into the House of Commons it was the atmosphere, it reaches out and grabs you. Well, it reached out and grabbed me, and I thought as I walked out of the House of Commons, this is where I’d like to spend my life.

    AMOL RAJAN

    [narrating]

    In an era when working class boys were much more likely to join Labour than the Tories, Sir John became a member of the Conservative Party on his 16th birthday. Two decades later, having worked in Africa and the insurance industry, he was an MP. Admired by Mrs. Thatcher, he was a survivor of the Tory battles of the 1980s who, after a brief stint as Foreign Secretary, would become her Chancellor and then successor.

    Well, there’s a lot to get into. Let’s start with where we are as a country, the country that you led for seven years. You used to say vocally, publicly, that you dreamt of a nation at ease with itself. Has your dream come true?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Emphatically not, indeed, quite the reverse at the moment. Wherever you look, not just in our country, but right across Europe and the United States, there’s a great deal of dissatisfaction and a large part of it has come about from one single effect, and that is the financial crisis of 2007 to 2008 which has cast a very long shadow. In many European countries, and in parts of America as well, there are people who quite against all past and all tradition have had no increase in their net quality of life, in their net standard of living since 2008 to 2009. Now, that is unprecedented. That being so, it’s hardly surprising that people are upset and irritable with government and irritable with democracy, and they most certainly are. 

    Of course, there are other things that were not the result of any individual national government, the Covid pandemic, for example, was something that was unexpected. The Ukraine war, with all the difficulties created for governments right the way across Europe because of the increase in fuel prices, they were things no government could reasonably have anticipated were going to happen. And so, in addition, to the knock on effect from 2007 to 2008, you had these two mega events. The net result of all of those, I think, is a great deal of dissatisfaction and a great deal of pressure on democracy with the belief that it has been failing the electorates. You’ve seen that in the volatility of the electorate in the last two general elections.

    AMOL RAJAN

    A lot of people, a lot of voters, do think democracy is failing them, particularly young people, for reasons that we’ll get on to. Just before we do that and go back to where we are as a country today. Labour are back in power after 14 years. Given your answer to my first question about your party, would you say, did your party, the Conservatives, deserve to lose?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think there’s a time when democracy needs a change of government. Although I was the leader of the party at the time, I could see that, in 1997 we had been in government for 18 years, and it was perfectly true to say that we were tired and that we were running out of fresh ideas and we were running out of fresh people to make Ministers and reinject the government with vigour. So looking back absolutely personally, I can see why the country changed their minds in 1997, and of course, the same thing applies, although it was only 14 years on this occasion, but 14 years plus the difficulties of the pandemic that I’ve just been talking about,

    AMOL RAJAN

    We’re talking shortly after some data published showed there’s been a really significant fall in this country in national pride. Very significantly, fewer people are proud to be British and are proud of this country’s history. Why do you think that is?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think because they’re not seeing us succeed. I think there are a range of reasons, that’s partly because of their own personal experience, it’s partly because many of the things that they took for granted appear to need reform, appear to be broken. If you look at the post war settlement, most of that is now out of date, and yet, I see no one on the political horizon anywhere around the world who’s going to gather people together and look again at a new settlement that might be appropriate for the 2020s. It’s a different world from 1945 and 1946, and  it hasn’t updated the fundamental structure of Western democracy.

    AMOL RAJAN

    You think we need a new settlement?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it would be very helpful to have a new settlement. Let me give you one illustration, and it’s an illustration for which I do not have a solution. But if you look at the permanent five Security Council, they are no longer the five most powerful nations in the world as they were in 1945 and 1946. Of the five of them, they all have a single nation veto for action. So with China and Russia, many of the things that the UN really was really established to do, to prevent wars, for example, they are stymied completely because there’s a one nation veto. Now I would like to see the permanent members increased, there are big countries like India, Brazil, Japan, who perhaps usefully ought to be there and certainly I’d like to see an end to the one nation veto. I think it would reflect the world we live in, rather than the world that was.

    AMOL RAJAN

    That world is changing very, very fast, and some people don’t like how it’s changing. When you were elected into Parliament in the late 1970s throughout the 1980s, you often saw riots on the streets. One of the first things that we’ve seen in this country after the election of Sir Keir Starmer’s Government has been major rioting. Why do you think we’ve just seen riots on the street in this country?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, I think it’s a function of the general dissatisfaction. If people are broadly happy with the direction their life is taking, then they don’t riot. If they aren’t happy, then they are much more likely to be subjected to things like rioting when seductive voices suggest we all ought to do this, we ought not to do that, and encourage people to take action against it. When people are content, or more content than they are at the moment, they resist those siren voices. At the moment they’re not, and so those siren voices have had some success.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Let’s get into some of the hard policy choices that come from that. One of the choices that the Keir Starmer Government has made concerns the early release of prisoners and prisons was a big part of your thinking. Obviously, when you were in power, prison reform is a subject on which you have been outspoken in the past. How would you have approached the dilemma of, on the one hand, wanting to be tough on rioters, but on the other, the fact being the prisons are full, and therefore you need to release people?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, let me go back in history a bit for this, because it’s quite an interesting background. I was a humble Parliamentary Private Secretary in the home office in the early 1980s when Willie Whitelaw was Home Secretary, and I will never forget the day he burst into our morning meeting having just been told that the prison population had reached 40,000. “Terrible” he said, “how could it possibly be 40,000?”, but it’s now more than twice that. You ask ourselves this question, is there twice as much crime? No. Is there twice as much violent crime? Well, the public don’t believe it, but actually violent crime overall has been falling for some time. Are the police more efficient in catching criminals? Are they twice as efficient in catching criminals so they filled up the prisons? Well, I would think probably the answer to that is, no, they’re not twice as efficient as they used to be.

    So what has happened? What has happened is, in the interim, whenever there’s been something wrong, one Home Secretary or another from both parties has decided we have to be tough on crime. The easiest thing to do is add to the tariff. Now, there are many people who should be in prison, people who are violent, people who are habitual criminals, I thoroughly agree they should be in prison. But I think I would argue that there are many people who have misbehaved, but they ought to be treated by non custodial sentencing of one sort or another.

    AMOL RAJAN

    So we’re locking the wrong people up in some cases?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think there are some of the wrong people we’re locking up and I think we’re locking up too many of them. It’s not for me to pick up precisely who they should be, but it seems to me we have something like, I think 6,000 women in prison. I don’t think there’s 6,000 violent women in prison, many of them will be there for relatively simple things and they could have been punished another way. The problem about saying sending people to prison ‘isn’t it a deterrent?’, you can argue that case to violent prisoners, yes, I accept it’s a deterrent and you must do it. I’m not a softy about that, but what I do think is where people are marginal and you send them into prison with the crowding we’ve got, they’re probably in their cells for most of their day. There’s very little recreation and in very few prisons is there actually any attempt at rehabilitation.

    The vast number of people in prison, an astonishing statistic, actually have a mental capability of about 11 or 12 years old. They need some assistance so that when they come out of prison they haven’t just learned the things they learned in prison, which may be an addition to how you commit crime, but they’ve learned something that will enable them to get out of prison and find a job and create a different life for themselves. If they haven’t gone to prison, but they’ve had a non custodial sentence, it’s more likely that can happen. Now from the point of view of the public, should we not be focusing where we can, and it’s not everywhere, but where we can, should we not be focusing on turning people who have committed crime away from further crime once their punishment is over? I think we should, and I don’t think we’re doing that as effectively as we should.

    AMOL RAJAN

    As you say, for 30 years, the direction of policy has been against what you say. So why has prison reform of the kind you’re advocating now, and in fairness, have advocated for a long time, why has that prison reform not happened? Why is it not fashionable?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s not happened because it’s just too easy to say  ‘we must deter these people, we must punish them, we must send them to prison, we must make sure they don’t they don’t offend again’. The point is that last point, actually you send the wrong people to prison, you may well be encouraging them to offend again, because when they come out, what do they do? They may have lost their home, they may have lost their marriage, they may have lost their job. Who is going to employ them? You’ve just come out of prison. How many people? They’re not all as forward thinking as the Timpson family, who take in a lot of former prisoners and rehabilitate them after they’re out of prison.

    Now I repeat, I’m not some soft liberal saying we should understand everything that’s gone wrong and treat people excessively leniently. Where necessary, there should be hard sentences to protect the public. My point is, I believe we’ve sent a lot of people to prison who are not of real danger to the public, who are foolish and have been dishonest, but there are probably better ways of punishing them than incarcerating them in a prison system that can’t take them in any decent circumstances. What is truly horrifying, most of our prisons are very old, they were built for one person in a cell 150 years ago. There may be two or three people in a cell now, and they may be in there for 23 hours out of 24. What does that do for someone when they’re there? How alienated from society are they going to become?

    AMOL RAJAN

    Do you think your position that you articulate now is a vote winner?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it could be explained if you mean, is it going to be bitterly attacked by people to say, I am tough on crime? Yes, of course it is.

    AMOL RAJAN

    I just mean that you’re completely out of kilter, as you yourself acknowledge, with the direction of policy, and have been for the last 30 years. And it’s very striking to me that I hear very, very few people, the Timpsons being an exception, very few people, making the case you’re making in a General Election.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, I suppose most people think it’s not what the electorate wish to hear. It is in a civilised society what I think the electorate has a right to hear. We haven’t got a really hawkish nation who’s out to punish people, of course not. If we had, why would so many people from abroad wish to come to this country? I don’t see them queuing to get up into China or queuing to get into Russia or Iran or North Korea, I do see people with hope in their hearts trying to come here, because they see us as a place of hope. I think you need to examine policies and see, have we got that right in the past? There are some areas why I appreciate my view is very much a minority view, but I think I’m under the belief that we are a democracy in which a majority view should be aired.

    AMOL RAJAN

    You mentioned millions of people around the world do want to come to this country, as you say, with hope in their hearts. But do you think the scale of immigration that we’ve seen to this country in recent years is one of the reasons that in your first answer, when I asked you if this is a nation at ease with itself, you said, no?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Absolutely, I could have done that. People are fearful. I mean, with the best will in the world, we could not remotely take even a majority of the people who actually wish to come here. In a sense, we should be proud that people from all around the world look on us as a bastion of freedom and wish to come here, but we are a small island. We need to recognise what we are, we are 70 million people in a world of 8,000 million. Let us get ourselves in context and we are a small island. There is a limited amount that we can do, and I think we should do our limited amount. But beyond that, the public and governments are quite right to say, we simply cannot take people beyond a certain number.

    AMOL RAJAN

    So why has immigration been too high? Why has it got to the levels it has, over 700,000 net, Do you think?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    There’s been a big change, of course, since Brexit. Lots of people from Western Europe who work, particularly as it happens, in the hospitality industry have left, and other people have been actually encouraged by the Government to come here, and then with the people who come here by boats, who haven’t been encouraged to come here at all, but do because they’re not quite sure where to go. Of course, there isn’t the space for all these people, I see that, but how we deal with them is a separate question from whether we actually have enough room to take them. No, we haven’t got enough room to take them, but the manner in which we deal with them, the manner in which we process them, the manner in which we deal with them when we say we can’t have them here is a separate matter.

    AMOL RAJAN

    You mentioned the boats. Are you glad to see the back of the Rwanda scheme?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Absolutely.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Why?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    If you really wish to know, I thought it was unconservative, unBritish, if one dare say it in a secular society, unChristian and unconscionable. I thought that really, this is not the way to treat people. We used to transport people, nearly 300 years ago, from our country, felons who at least had had a trial and been found guilty of something, albeit that the trial might have been cursory. I don’t think transportation, for that is what it is, is a policy suitable for the 21st century.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Let me challenge you on that because a lot of people, some in your party, some outside of your party, some that were once in your party, would say what’s really unconservative or unChristian is allowing this boat crossing to continue. The way you stop it, this was the argument of the former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the way you stop it is by having an effective deterrent. You could tell that the Rwanda scheme was going to be a deterrent because other countries were looking at it and were thinking about whether or not they might do a similar thing. So isn’t it actually the compassionate view to take all measures necessary to stop the boats, as someone once said, and isn’t the threat of deportation to Rwanda part of that policy?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It doesn’t seem to have been working, the threat has been there for some time and it hasn’t stopped people coming. Are they seriously saying to me that somewhere in the backwoods of some North African country, they actually know what the British Parliament has legislated for? I think not. I absolutely think that is not the case. So I’m not sure that it is the deterrent at this stage. If it had actually happened, it might have been, but it would still have been odious in my view. But there are ways in which we can deal with this, better ways. Every nation in Europe has got this problem. Let me put it in a wider context, because it’s a long term problem,

    AMOL RAJAN

    And it’s a hard problem to solve.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Which is why, over the last year, I kept my mouth shut about what I thought about it. It is a very hard problem to solve, and my sympathy goes out with Ministers trying to do it, because it is difficult. But let us put it in a proper long term context. There are people coming from all around the world who are coming here, and the more autocracies grow in other parts of the world, the more people have a life without the freedoms that we enjoy, the more they will seek to come here. There’s also the problem of Africa. Over the next 50 years, the African population is going to grow disproportionately to the rest of the world. In the next 50 years, it’s highly unlikely that the degree of investment in Africa will be able to provide good towns, good facilities, good hospitals, good education, all the things that they will need. A lot of people from Africa over the next 50 years will look for something better for themselves and their families, and they will come north and they will try to come to Europe. This isn’t just a short term problem.

    So how did we solve that problem? I don’t think we solve it just with the Rwanda scheme, and in any event, that would only be a tiny part of it. It’s only a tiny part of the immigration, let’s get that point perfectly clear. But I think if the European and other countries worked together and decided they would tackle this problem at its roots. Let us seek out where these rubber boats actually are manufactured.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Often China?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Often China. Let us ban their import into the whole of Europe, for example. Let us work together beyond China, where the boats have gone to, where people go there and seek out the gangs working with the local countries, not just Britain, but working with our partners all across Europe. It doesn’t mean you’re reinventing the European Union, they have a similar problem to us. Collectively we can provide a bigger deterrent. If we find they’re coming out of a particular port, you can actually police their port outside and turn the boats back almost where they start.

    There’s a range of things that, so far as I know, haven’t been looked at although perhaps they have and have been turned down for reasons I don’t know, but I don’t think they’ve been looked at. There are policies that are going to have to be in place for a long time, because I’m afraid now the scale of this migration has grown and the problem has grown as it has. It will be quite a long term problem, whomsoever is in government, and almost whatever they do, so we must find a better way of dealing with it. I think if we deal with it collectively we’re more likely to have a policy that would be more effective.

    AMOL RAJAN

    I’m very strongly struck by the clarity of what you say about legal migration and the strength of what you say about illegal migration, because people watching this should know that you spent many decades actually advocating for what you described as the heroic story of individual immigrants who come here because they want a better life for them and their family. You’ve also advocated the idea of a multiracial society. You once wrote:

     “Our house was multiracial for a time and it provided a good primer on poverty for a future Conservative Prime Minister, I knew the immigrants as neighbours. I played with their children. I shopped with them in Brixton market. I saw them for what they were, men and women seeking a new life in a land immeasurably wealthier than the ones they had left behind. Instead of inciting fear, the bigots should have gone to the Oval where, when the West Indies played, it was carnival time. The atmosphere was full of fun”.

    This idea that the bigots should have gone to the Oval prompts me to ask you whether or not you worry that bigotry has seeped into the Conservative Party?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    You say the Conservative Party, I don’t know why you single out the Conservative Party. There’s a degree of bigotry in the country, there always has been.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Is there in your party?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think there probably is in a number of parties, I don’t think it’s solely within the Conservative Party. Certainly some of it is in the Conservative Party, some of it is in Reform UK, I’ve no doubt some of it is in the Labour Party. Don’t forget, when you look at politics, people tend to think that fascism and communism are at opposite ends of the political pole. They’re not. They meet. They’re next to one another. So it’s not fair to say it is just the Conservative Party.  There are people in the Conservative Party who advocate policies I would disagree with. I wouldn’t call bigots that, they’re entitled to their view, and I’m entitled to my view.

    One of the things that has gone wrong in the Conservative Party is that these days, they seem to think it’s better to be part of the faction of the party, rather than in the party as a whole. But that has been going on for a long time. I well remember in the 1980s, Margaret sitting there musing when she looked at someone, ‘Is he one of us?’ and she was looking at another Conservative MP. She wasn’t advocating division, but of course, that sort of idea encouraged people to set up different groups. We’re left wing conservatives. We are one nation. We’re a different form of group on the other side, and family feuds are always worse than feuds with people with whom you have nothing in common. 

    That has happened within the Conservative Party and it has happened within the Labour Party. I think we are going to find that the present Government, with its huge majority, will find that huge majority is very, very difficult to cope with, because there’ll be a lot of people in it who have views very different from the mainstream view of the most senior members of the Labour Party. We shall see, but I think he’ll have great difficulty with that.

    AMOL RAJAN

    What kind of health is the Conservative Party in today?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s had a whopping great electoral defeat, it’s had three or four of those in its history, and it has recovered on each occasion. I may be deceiving myself, though I don’t think so, but I think a large part of our nation is, by instinct, centre right, not far right, but centre right. The only party that can legitimately appeal to the centre right is the Conservative Party and that is what we have to do. We have to decide where our natural support really lies and appeal to them.

    People may have made a misjudgment about the last election, we lost five seats to Reform UK, and people are jumping up and down, and some rather reckless people are saying, well, we must merge with them. Well, that will be fatal. We’ve lost five seats to Reform UK, we lost 50 to the Liberals and and we lost a huge amount to Labour. We lost the vote on the left more than on the right, and we have to focus on that centre right position. We’re not an ideological party, I do think traditionally we have been a common sense party. I’m always suspicious of ideology. Heaven protect us from the ideologues, they have bonkers ideas sometimes, sometimes they’re brilliant, but sometimes they have bonkers ideas that lead people astray. I think we need a common sense solution to the problem, and how can we encourage people to believe that that is what the Conservative Party is going to stand for in the future. And I’m optimistic. We have had such a bad defeat, we have got a base upon which we can build in a wholly new and, I think, potentially effective way.

    AMOL RAJAN

    You say you’re optimistic about the Conservative Party, a number of questions follow from that. First, have you made up your mind about who you’ll support to be the next leader?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I will look and see what they have to say. I’d like to support someone who’s going to look at the long term problems and make a suggestion as to which direction we should go. I’d like to look at someone who’s going to try and bring the party together and bring people back into the party who are genuinely centre right. So I’m more concerned with what they say than their individual personality. As to whether I have made up my mind, no, I haven’t.

    AMOL RAJAN

    I heard a story about how after you were voted out of office in 1997 you said to a young George Osborne, who was then your press advisor, I think it was his job to collect press cuttings for you and he’s had quite a career since. You said to him that the great danger for your party was to be taken over by its right wing. What’s the great danger today?

    AMOL RAJAN

    I don’t think the Conservative Party should be taken over by any part of it, there are different strands of conservatism. We need the right wing. What we don’t need is the far right, people who’ve attracted themselves to the right wing, who perhaps would be more comfortable in Reform UK than with us, but I don’t want to dispense of the right wing of the Conservative Party. They are a very important, valuable part of the Tory party, and so are the centre and the left of the Tory party. What I want is for them to reach a concordant so that they can agree and so that we don’t have these factional disputes within the party. They have done enough damage to us in more than one election over my lifetime.

    AMOL RAJAN

    But why do you say it would be fatal to merge with Reform UK? A lot of people think Nigel Farage should be in the Tory party.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t share that view.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Because I don’t think he’s a Conservative and he spent most of his time in the last few years telling people how much he dislikes the Conservative Party and would like to destroy it. I don’t think that’s a terribly good background for bringing someone into the party.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Just before we get into Europe, where that takes us, something strange is happening to conservative parties all around the world, isn’t it? Because you say conservatives stand for common sense, but I think one of the insights of conservatism is this idea that social goods are easily destroyed, but not easily created. And yet, all around the world, lots of conservative parties, like Trump’s Republicans, like perhaps the Conservative Party in this country, have been attacking institutions. They’ve been attacking democracy. Why has that happened do you think? Why have conservatives been drawn to those anti democratic tendencies?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I find it baffling that they’ve done that. I mean the previous government talking of the blob, the blob are people who work for the Government and who are the mechanism to transfer the Government’s policies to reality. Doesn’t seem to be very sensible to insult them, and the whole series of other people, judges were enemies of the people I seem to recall many people said. Half the nation who voted to sustain our position in Europe, a position the Tory party had had for 40 years, were insulted as remoaners. They’re not remoaners, they’re people who consistently supported a Conservative Party that existed for a very long time. So I find it very difficult to understand why people actually took that particular view, and I think insulting people whose votes you need and whose votes you’re going to ask for does not seem to be a very good form of candidacy, but that is what people did, and we saw the result at the general election.

    AMOL RAJAN

    What has Brexit done to and for your party?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Brexit has been the most divisive thing that has happened in our party in my lifetime, it is less important what it has done to our party than what it has done to our country.

    AMOL RAJAN

    That was going to be my next question. What do you think it has done?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t think it’s done anything good, if I may just reflect on it for a moment. It’s made our country weaker, poorer and that is emphatically not in the interests of our country. It has broken us away from alliances that were useful to us. The world saw us as a member of the European Union. When we spoke, they believed we had 500 million Europeans essentially behind us in what we spoke, it was a megaphone to magnify our power in the world. Similarly, they saw us as the closest advocates in Europe, in the United States, we were inside the European Union that helped the United States keep an eye on European policy, and they think we’re less close to the United States. So you take two of the three most powerful blocs in the world, we were the closest ally of one, and we’re now less close than we were, and we were part of the other, and we are no longer in the other. So instead, we are isolated and outside.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Did it have to be thus? I mean, could Brexit not have, if delivered in a different way, could it not have fulfilled the promise of those who advocated it, which is that it would make us richer and more free? 

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s done exactly the reverse, hasn’t it? I mean, what’s the one thing that is consistent about the British nation for the last 400 years? We are a trading nation and what have we just done? We have broken away from the largest, richest free trade market the world has ever seen, and we were in the middle of it, as a leading part of it, and we have broken away from it. And what do we get instead, rolled over fresh trade deals with countries like Australia and New Zealand, who are old friends of ours, but the deals done with them were worse than the deals they rolled over. And if you disagree, go and ask our farmers what they think of the deals that were done. And the deal with Europe has gone. What is going to replace that? What is there that’s going to replace it? What has happened to all the benefits of Brexit that we heard about?

    AMOL RAJAN

    Maybe they’re yet to come.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t recall people saying during the election campaign, in 10 or 15 years time, maybe 20 we will have some benefits of Brexit. It was going to be milk and honey straight away, and it wasn’t milk and honey. Brexit was sold to the nation on the basis of things that haven’t happened and couldn’t have happened. There was a great degree of misapplication of reality, if I can put it in that delicate way.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Do you mean lies?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That’s another way of putting it. What was actually told to the people about what Brexit was going to be about. A large amount of that came from Conservative sources, not all of it. There were some very senior Labour sources who were part of that at exactly the same time. But I don’t see the great advantages that were going to come from Brexit have come yet and I don’t see any likelihood that they’re suddenly going to magically appear in the future. Let me offer you another illustration, one that most people won’t have come across. Europe has about 20 strategic agreements with countries around the world, all around the world, which cover a whole range of things and which are useful to both parties. We are their nearest neighbour, we turned down a strategic agreement because the politicians, Tory and Labour, were too foolish to agree that we actually have to have a closer relationship with Europe.

    I’m not bothered about the political loss of Europe very much, I am very much bothered about the trade loss. A Cambridge econometrics report published recently, there’s been a whole series of them, but I’ll just pick out one. I think every one of them, I can’t think of one that actually says we are better off because we’ve been through Brexit, they all say we’ve lost a vast amount of money. Cambridge Econometrics, if I remember, said we’d lost trade worth 130 billion. That would have been a huge amount of tax revenue for the Government and we wouldn’t be facing tax increases in the forthcoming budget if it hadn’t been for that sort of thing. We wouldn’t just have taken away fuel payments for the elderly if we hadn’t lost all that money, why do people not look at the practical example, the practical effect, that we are poorer. That is not some statistic, being poorer means taxes are higher, expenditure on public services are lower. That’s actually what it means, and that is what has actually happened because of the false promises of Brexit.

    People said we were going to get our sovereignty back. Up to a point that’s true, we now have sovereignty to be poorer, we have sovereignty to be less influential. I don’t think that was the sovereignty that people wanted when they voted in the Brexit debate. The Brexiteers now say ‘oh, well, get over it, it’s all gone’, but if my house had been burgled, I would be pretty fed up if the burglar then said, ‘well it’s all over now forget about it’, and I think so would most people. I think we have to remember it, because I think we have to make sure that nothing like this happens again. What is so dispiriting is that neither the Conservative Party, nor the Labour Party, nor even except in slogans, the Liberal Party, actually seem to be looking for a way to ensure we get back as many as we can of the trading advantages that we have lost.

    AMOL RAJAN

    So would you advocate going back into either the single market or the Customs Union?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I don’t think it is politically practical at the present moment, but I think it will happen. The next generation, the young generation, when they voted, voted overwhelmingly to stay in the European Union. In 10 years time, when they and their compadres are in Parliament and running the country, it may be possible to get back, but the Brexiteers did a good job in making it difficult, because we not only insulted our neighbours, but in addition to that, we have lost all the special advantages we had, the rebates, the opt out from the social chapter, all sorts of things like that, which they opt out from a single currency. All those things are gone.

    If we sought to get back, we would probably have to accept them, or we couldn’t get back. So it may be that that is going to be more than Parliament at any stage I can see will accept in the foreseeable future. What they’ll do in the long term future, who can tell because who knows how circumstances will change? But the Brexiteers did a very good job in dividing us from Europe, even though they did a very bad job improving our prosperity and our wealth when they did so.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Let me put two principled objections to what you’ve just advocated to your position. The first is about trade deals. The argument of those who advocated for Brexit in 2016, and advocate for it now, is that by virtue of leaving Europe, we are free in future to strike trade deals around the world, which should, in theory, it may not have done in practice yet, but should, in theory, make us richer to be in a trade deal and trade deals with the growing part of the world, in particular in Asia.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Do you think the European Union aren’t going to do that? 500 billion Europeans will strike a better trade deal with the growing part of the world than 70 million Brits can crazy. If there are trading opportunities that they can take, they will take them, and they will grow the European Union. And they will because of the sheer size compared to our size, they will probably get a better trade deal with whomsoever it is than we would.

    AMOL RAJAN

    But it’s Europe’s deal, not Britain’s.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    We were part of Europe. We benefited from the deal. What matters, to put it at its crudest, what is the cash flow and the job flow to the UK? That’s what determines our prosperity, that’s what determines our security and retirement. That’s what produces the resources in order to make sure that we have a properly funded defence policy. I’m afraid money is the root of all progress in many ways, and you don’t if you throw away the vast amount of money that came out directly in our direction because of the scale of our trading with the European Union, if you push that aside, it’s very difficult to replace in a way that could not have been replaced as a member of the European Union.

    I want our country to succeed. I want our country to be in a position where we are respected for what we are, because there’s no country in the world I’d rather live in than this one, despite its shortcomings sometimes. I want it to be respected, I want it to be wealthy, I want it to be secure. It’s never going to be the great military power. There’s only two superpowers now, China and the United States, below that sits Europe. But Europe isn’t a superpower in terms of politics and isn’t a superpower in terms of defence. So they sit a little below and there are countries like Britain and others that are coming up, like India and more that are coming up, who will sit on the tier below that.

    We will still have an important part to play in the future, because of our language, because of our history, because of our trade, because of some areas of our economy that we’re very good at, technology for example, because of the soft power we have. We have the best theatre in the world, we invented most of the sports the world played. This is a special nation, and it can be, and it should be, and we should play testimony to the things that are right. I wish we had been able to spend the last however many minutes it is we’ve been talking, talking about the things that are going right, or the things that could come right, rather than going over the things that have griped in the craw of vast numbers of people in our country and made it so miserable.

    AMOL RAJAN

    I want to talk to you about democracy. Before we do that, let’s get to the second aspect of the Brexit vote on which I think your position ought to be challenged. A lot of people who voted for Brexit did so because they felt that being part of the single market meant we had freedom of movement, and they didn’t like it. Now, obviously it’s the case that since we had Brexit, immigration has soared. But did it need to happen? That might be the result of policy choices the Government made, but a lot of people listening to you might say, ‘you know what? Immigration was too high, we wanted it lower, and Brexit was our best hope of voting for lower migration’. What do you say to them?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I would simply point to the reality of what has happened. It was said that we were going to control our borders. It was another of those three word slogans, ‘get Brexit done’, ‘control our borders’. There are a whole range of them that were slogans rather than properly thought, our policy and the reality is quite different from what was promised, and that is true about immigration as well. So you can make that argument, but I don’t think it’s a substantive argument, and I wouldn’t agree with it.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Let’s turn to the New World Order. How would you describe Britain’s standing in the world today compared with, say, 20 years ago?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s obviously a little less than it was and that’s not because we have particularly failed. It’s because it’s the way the world has changed. China has been marching into the world in a phenomenal way ever since the Nixon visit in 1972 when Deng Xiaoping took China into the world in a quite remarkable way. Xi is doing something differently and much more nationalist, taking the Communist Party back, once again, the Chinese right back to the centre of Chinese life to a greater extent. But China has grown. America looks as though it may not be the America that would pay any price, bear any burden to protect the success of human rights, but I think America is still crucially important to the world and particularly crucially important to the democratic world. Without America active, on the side of the democratic world, there are very great difficulties to come, so we must make sure that they are.

    The world has changed simply because of the growth of different countries, a lot of medium sized countries in the world are now growing a good deal faster than the western democracies. Once you become richer, you become more influential and more powerful. The world isn’t only about money, and I set out all sorts of things we have in this country that don’t relate to money. But when you become a richer nation, you become a more powerful nation, so the world is changing.

    AMOL RAJAN

    One of those giant nations, the giant power, a great power, which is not a democracy, is China. Do you think we’re getting China right? Do you think our approach to China is a healthy one? Do you think we’re ready for a world in which China is as dominant as it is today?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s a very difficult question and to be absolutely honest, I’m not sure of the right answer to that question of how ready we are. I think a lot of work has been done, particularly to protect us against things like cyber crime and to protect us against China appropriating technology that is legitimately British. But what if you want a safe world in the future must be the primary aim of diplomacy. Primary aim of diplomacy would be to make sure that China and America may be opponents, but they don’t become enemies, and they don’t go to war. That must be the primary aim of diplomacy, and I think we have a role to play in that, and I think we should endeavour to play it.

    One of the things I think we would be wise to build up in the next few years, we’re no longer the great military power that we were, and we can’t afford to be, but we’re not insignificant. But in terms of soft power, I think we can build up our soft power. I think we can build up our diplomacy. I think we can often play a very valuable role in changing policy. Which is best in terms of leadership, winning a war or stopping a war in the first place? Good question, isn’t it? I think if you can stop a war in the first place, that’s fantastic, and we can play a part in all that, but we’re going to have to watch what is happening with democracy and autocracy, because the balance is changing and changing more quickly than most people realise.

    The main point about the autocratic nations, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela and many others, there must be about 40 nations in the world, something approximately who are autocratic or neo-autocratic. That’s one fifth, over a fifth of the nations around the whole world. As they grow, democracy has been shrinking. People don’t I think focus on it, but democracy has shrunk in every one of the last 18 years. We thought, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, that democracy had won the battle of ideas, but we haven’t. Autocracy has come roaring back in the last 15, 16, 17, 18 years, and we have to be aware of that danger, and aware of the dangers that could arise from it, which are many and various.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Is autocracy everywhere wrong?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s difficult to tell. I wouldn’t like it anywhere, because it restrains human liberty and human freedom. I think one thing our country has stood for is liberty and freedom, freedom of action, freedom of thought, freedom of religion. You don’t get that in autocracies. So I think there are bad aspects of autocracy. Whether they’re bad in every respect is a more debatable point, but if you believe in freedom and liberty, then you don’t want autocracies.

    But there’s a real danger here, let me give you a practical illustration. Let us suppose that the American President ceases to be active alongside Ukraine. Let us suppose Germany ceases to be active alongside Ukraine, and the Europeans pull back, and Ukraine loses, and Russia wins. Is that the end of the matter? No, it isn’t. Because for every event, there is a consequence. Now if Russia wins, they may not be immediately in a position to go after Moldova or other nations, because they will have been badly damaged by the war that there’s just been. But let’s assume Russia wins. How does the world see that? They will see that the West has funked and failed to protect a democracy, a big democracy, in Europe of all places, from an autocracy. Now, what does that mean for the perception of America? They haven’t prevailed. China will notice that. Will it encourage China to think, aha, we may be being too timid about whether we go into Taiwan, maybe America will do nothing about that either. And of course, what happens to the allies of the West? What happens in Asia, to Japan, to South Korea, to the Philippines, strong allies of the West, and they will see the West has funked it. What do they do? Do they decide we’re safer to line up behind China rather than the West? Or do they say, then we had better be prepared to protect ourselves better and start moving towards nuclear capability? So you get suddenly a much more dangerous world. For everything that happens, there is a consequence, and we need to think through what the consequences are. Those are two illustrations I gave you. I could give you 20 others.

    AMOL RAJAN

    So if the war in Ukraine is going to end by some sort of political settlement, a lot of people would say Ukraine’s land has been taken by violence, it’s been taken by force. Why should they give up an inch of land to what many people would say is a dictator or an autocrat?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I would agree with that. That’s why I think Russia needs to be defeated, and that’s why I think the West needs to continue its support of Ukraine, so that they have the capacity to defeat them.

    AMOL RAJAN

    But do you think the West has the will to do that based on what you see right now looking around the world?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I hope they have. I’m alarmed at the position of one or two Western nations. I’m alarmed at the possibility that America might decide that Ukraine is not a strategic interest, because she certainly is, to the position of the United States and the world. I think we should argue for the fact that we as a nation, should argue for the fact that she is and we should try and lead people into believing that it is right for us to defend Ukraine, because you are defending freedom against autocracy, and if you begin to weaken and lose on a mega scale, for this would be a massive setback, unlike anything we’ve seen before, then there will be a price to pay for that, and it may be a price we don’t wish to pay. 

    AMOL RAJAN

    Talking really about a new world order in which democracy is, to some extent, receding and autocracy is rising. What’s really striking is where that democratic recession, as some people have called it, comes from. Because around the world today, many young people are losing faith in democracy. If you look at the support for AFD in Germany, if you look at the support for Marine Le Pen in France, if you look at the support for Javier Millais in Argentina, a lot of these people are getting their support from those under 30. Look at what’s happening, as you say to real wages over last 20 years. Can you really blame those young people?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    No, I don’t, but you can’t expect these young people to have a strategic view of what happens if we were to lose the war, for example, and I don’t suppose they’ve even thought of it. This needs to be a matter of public debate. We need to set out for people what is at stake with Ukraine and it’s more than Russia just invading Ukraine. It’s much more important than that, because the implications of it are very wide, very varied and very bad, and so I don’t believe we’ve got a nation of youngsters who are less determined to be free than earlier generations. But I don’t think politics anywhere is widening the debate beyond the rather trivial, narrow lines of party disputes in country after country, and some disputes that hit the headlines.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Beyond Ukraine, there are a lot of people in this country, young adults, who might look at, I mean, you’ve been out of power for 27 years, so I’m not putting this on you, but they might look at your brand of politics, moderate in disposition, supportive of liberal democracy and capitalism, and say we’ve had that for decades in this country. What’s the reality? We’ve had completely stagnant wages. We’ve had education getting more expensive. We can’t buy a house. Why should we support the John Major brand of politics?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Have we, do you think, have we had that brand of politics across the world since 2008?

    AMOL RAJAN

    You think we haven’t had the John Major style of politics?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    The record would suggest not.

    AMOL RAJAN

    But the coalition, which was staffed by many people who once worked for you, I think they would say that they wanted very much to…..

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    The coalition, you’re right. I think the coalition were, but post coalition has been a different consequence, I think.

    AMOL RAJAN

    But you still think liberal democracy and capitalism can deliver for young people who’ve currently felt for a long time……

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    The essential thing is that the economies begin to grow. Absolutely the essential thing is that the economies begin to grow, which is why one or two of the things the new Government are doing, I think, are wrong.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Such as?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think going for capital gains tax. If you want the economy to grow, don’t start penalising the people who provide the money for it to grow. But we’re already getting reports of extremely rich people taking their money out of the country and indeed moving out of the country themselves. That’s not what we need if we want the economy to grow and we want the living standards to rise. Should the broadest shoulders bear a larger share of the present need? Yes, I don’t have a disagreement about that, but I think at this moment, to go for capital gains tax is  as unwise as providing a drunk with a case of whisky.

    AMOL RAJAN

    The Government says they need the money, need to raise £22 billion.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ve heard that dreary tale forever, I spent time as a PPS in the treasury, I was Chief Secretary of the Treasury responsible for public expenditures. I was Chancellor and I was first Lord at the Treasury. I’ve heard that dreary tale again and again and again, and I think there’s a degree of hyperbole about what is happening at the moment, and the Labour Party have got themselves hooked on one or two silly policies before they’re really ready to pursue something more sensible.

    AMOL RAJAN

    We’re talking about democracy, and you’re advocating democracy over, for instance, autocracy. Isn’t one of the other reasons why faith in democracy, perhaps in this country, has suffered because, frankly, standards in public life, ethics in public life, have a lot of people would argue been in the gutter.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think that has played a role, yes.

    AMOL RAJAN

    You introduced the Nolan principles. You introduced the Committee on Standards in Public Life. You were known as the person who wanted standards to improve. What was going through your mind when you saw the revelations about, for instance, party gate, as it’s now known. That damages trust and democracy, I can tell you.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Yes, I think we have to take standards in public life seriously. I would make some changes, I would make the powers statutory. I would give people outside Number 10 the power to institute inquiries. I would change the way inquiries were dealt with in the House of Commons. I think there’s a lot we can do to provide a much more serious examination of potential poor behaviour and actual poor behaviour.

    AMOL RAJAN

    I don’t think anyone would ever accuse you of being chairman of the Boris Johnson fan club, but do you think he damaged standards in public life?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’m not going to get into individuals. I mean, I don’t really want to spend my time looking back on what has happened. It has happened generically. I talked about Brexit, that has happened, and although I was encouraged to express why I think it was so wrong, and I still do, I don’t want a political system that continues to look back at the 80s or the 90s or the 10s. It’s yesterday, it’s gone. I want people to actually look at what the position is going to be in the future.

    When did you last hear from any party a senior politician make a lengthy, detailed speech on what we needed to do to protect our place in the world and our values and our wealth 25 years from now. What are the policies we should follow? Shouldn’t we be looking at that more often than just looking back and holding inquiries and all sorts of other things that are all backward looking?

    AMOL RAJAN

    You talked at the beginning of this interview about a new settlement. You said we need a new settlement. What are some of the elements that you would put into that new settlement? Obviously, we need an economy that’s growing, lots of people have different ideas about that.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That’s the core, once you get an economy that is growing, so much changes. I’m sorry to go back to the question of money, but I’m afraid money is what gives people security. Money is what gives people some enjoyment in life, rather than people who never have any. You mentioned Boris Johnson, one policy he absolutely got right was the question of levelling up. The trouble is it never got much beyond the slogan because of the lack of money, but it was exactly the right policy, and it was the right determination of what we should be doing, and that will be true in the future as well.

    AMOL RAJAN

    So this is a good moment to turn to, I mean, this is looking at the past, but I do it with a view to the future, is to look at the lottery. I imagine the National Lottery is one of those policies that you’re proudest of in your time in power, and the thing that’s striking about it is that the benefits were really felt a long time after you were out of power. I wonder whether or not you think that that’s an important example of how one of the problems with democracy is that you’ve got to let other people take your successes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Let me tell you how the lottery came about. I was Chief Secretary of the Treasury in the 80s, that is the cabinet minister who is responsible for negotiating public expenditure for each department. I noticed that the two things that the British public most enjoy, which is the arts, culture as one subject and sport as another, got petty cash from the government, absolute petty cash. They couldn’t compete with health or social security or defence, and so they’re always going to get petty cash. That’s what caused the lottery to be set up, because it was money that the Government didn’t have. It was outside the Government, and it went to the arts bodies or the other sports bodies. Do you know how much the lottery has now spent on good causes?

    AMOL RAJAN

    Tens of billions?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s coming up to £48 billion, and there’s hardly a part of the country that hasn’t benefited from it in some way. Providing it is efficiently run by the people in charge of it, there’s no reason and left alone by successive governments – that’s important – Government should keep their noses out of it, it’s a national lottery. It’s not a government piggy bank. Providing that, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t continue. And the difference it’s made in sport and the arts, I think, is significant. So yes, I’m very pleased to have done it, and it doesn’t bother me in the slightest that I’m way out of the way by the time the benefits become clear.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Well, I should be clear that the only reason I ask you about anything to do with your time in power is because of the lessons for the future. I was very struck by something you said to Chris Patten after winning the election in 1992, where I think you had a conversation with him, where you both agreed that the democratic elastic, as you called it, was close to snapping. And you basically, I think, knew after winning in 1992 it was very unlikely you would win again. I just wonder if you can tell us how that conversation went and how it informed your time in Government, because specifically I think there are important lessons for the coming Parliament.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ll happily do that. Chris, of course, was chairman of the party when against the expectations of the world, we won the 1992 election, a fourth successive win. But Chris lost his seat in Bath, and he came to have a drink with me in the White Room upstairs in Downing Street the next day. It was at that day that we said we thought, with a fourth successive election in a democracy, we were stretching the elastic as far as it could go, and the probability was that unless the Labour Party imploded, they would probably win the next election. I said to Chris, what would you like to do now? You have lost your seat, I can offer you three options. I will put someone in the House of Lords, and you can fight the by-election. If you’re in the Lords, I can put you in the Cabinet. The third option is you can go and govern Hong Kong. And Chris thought about it, and he said, ‘I can’t fight another by-election, it was too unpleasant in Bath that election, I can’t put my family through that again’. He was too young to go to the House of Lords he said, I will go to Hong Kong, and that is how he did.

    We did think that we were aware from the moment the 1992 Parliament started that the nature of the Conservative Party in Parliament had changed. All the old people who had served in the war, or after the war, had pretty much left then, and they were a glue that kept the party really together. We had lots more young people brought up in the more dramatic policies of the 80s who came in. We thought it was very likely that we would lose, and when things began to get very sticky, I remember a conversation with Sarah Hogg, who was head of my policy unit. Well, she said, ‘the great advantage of it being likely that we will lose’, of course, we wanted to win, and we’ve been doing all we could to win, but we weren’t making any progress really, ‘is that you can do what you think is right without worrying whether it is expedient’. We were in the Cabinet Room, but I’d never forgotten that conversation.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Did that give you some comfort when you had to do some very difficult things economically, which in particular would have hurt the very people you went into politics to help?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Yes, no-one has ever asked me that question before, but I’ll tell you exactly how I felt about it. The thing I hated most in politics was inflation. I had known from my childhood what life is like when the money runs out before the week runs out. I saw it at very close quarters, week after week after week. That is what happens under inflation for all sorts of families at any stage and we’d had huge inflation in the 70s and elsewhere. All my political lifetime, I’d watched governments try and get to grips with inflation and then back off, and then back off when it got too bad, and so it wasn’t killed. That was the reason for going into the Exchange Rate Mechanism, and that was the reason for staying in it when everybody was crying for us to come out of it.

    We thought it would kill inflation and in the end, the way we came out was a political disaster, but it wasn’t an economic disaster. We were actually looking for a way to come out without people thinking we’d gone soft on inflation, when we were overwhelmed by the markets. It was a political disaster that never went away for the rest of the Parliament, but I simply observe in retrospect that we didn’t have inflation for nearly 20 years. It really had. I mean, the international environment changed, so that was certainly a part of it, but it really did get inflation on its knees in the way no Government had done since the Second World War.

    AMOL RAJAN

    We’d had inflation in this country pretty much since the war, I’m going to say the 60s or 70s.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I grew up with it and I hated it, and I actually said that once or twice, but that was why we stuck with the policies that were hard and it was why, frustratingly for me, when I became Prime Minister, all sorts of things I’d like to do, but we were heading for a recession. The economy was in a pretty sick state on the day I became Prime Minister, and so there was no money to do those things. When I left, the money was there, but I wasn’t.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    They spent some of it wisely. They didn’t spend it exactly the way I would, but there were some of his policies that I would have approved of because maybe some were my policies before his. But I think the money was used to a significant extent, wisely, but not quite as I would have used it.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Let me ask you some final, quickish thoughts. What’s your biggest regret with your time and power?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It wasn’t long enough.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Your greatest achievement as Prime Minister?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think the way the economy was turned around, the Northern Ireland process, everybody said when we started that you’ll never get anywhere with this. When I went to tell John Smith about it, because in those days, there was a good deal more liaison than I think there is today between the leaders of the parties. I went to tell John Smith exactly what I was going to do with the process, and he smiled and looked quite right, very good. No votes in it, we’ll support you. And I think perhaps the lottery.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Your greatest hero in politics.?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    In politics, Pitt the Younger. In life, in my time, Mother Teresa, what’s hoping

    AMOL RAJAN

    I was hoping you would say Iain Macleod?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s a toss up, I mean, Iain Macleod was the greatest orator I ever heard, a man I was completely captivated by when I was a young man, his speeches were magnificent. They always included values as well as policies, but he could be quite brutal to his opponents. He had a sort of paralysis of the neck, which meant he held his head slightly on one side, and he was very bald, and he had this voice like a great bell, and it was absolutely hypnotic. I think the fact that his head was so unmoving was part of the hypnosis.

    AMOL RAJAN

    What’s your advice to someone willing to go into politics today?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Oh do. I mean, if people believe they can make a contribution to politics, I think they should, particularly young people. It ought not just to be left to people who spend 15 minutes to learn the political landscape and then go into politics. I want people to go into politics who care about the country, who would like to do something for the country. I’d certainly like more young people to do it, because we need young people to become engaged. If they get disengaged from democracy, we are in deep trouble.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Are you concerned about the calibre of people going into politics today? Do you think it’s changed in a bad way?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ve not been in the House of Commons, so it’s difficult to say. But I think the range of people going in there has changed on both sides. The Conservative Party had less people from the armed forces who used to have a good knowledge of it, and less people from business, and I think that is a loss for them. You’d be surprised to hear me say this, but with the Labour Party, I think when they moved away from the traditional working class Labour member, who lived in his community, suffered the same hardships as his community and knew it from back to front, and he was replaced by students with degrees and left wing instincts, I think that was a loss to the Labour Party and to the nature of the House of Commons.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Just a few more. When did you last cry?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Watching the Paralympics. The Paralympic swimmers was when I last cried, the bravery that they have had to live through and the work to get there, and the number of people who have had to support them so they could get there. I think it’s immensely moving that they have actually been so brave as to give such dedication to their sports that they actually got to the Olympics. I just am full of admiration.

    AMOL RAJAN

    What’s your guilty pleasure?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Lemon Drops. Lemon Drop martinis, preferably in the plural.

    AMOL RAJAN

    I don’t think I know what a lemon drop martini is.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Then your life needs to be enhanced!

    AMOL RAJAN

    Last couple. How would you like to be remembered?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Fondly.

    AMOL RAJAN

    What would you still like to achieve?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think I’d like to live long enough to see my country at ease with itself.

    AMOL RAJAN

    I am going to ask you some nostalgic questions. Now, indulge me, we’ve talked about the future, and I want to talk about this. Ken Clarke said of you on Radio Four recently, he said he was very, very fond of you, great friends, but it was always a cause of regret to him that the thing about Sir John is he just never seemed to enjoy being Prime Minister. Ken Clarke said this was because you were very, very concerned, perhaps for understandable reasons, in particular, with what the press said. I want to ask you about those two things. Did you ever enjoy being Prime Minister, and were you too concerned about the press?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    On the latter part, the answer is probably yes. Ken knows me very well, also Douglas Hurd, so I accept that criticism, probably true. All I can say is, today people need be less concerned, because the press is less powerful than it was. They, of course, now have to deal with social media, which is an infinitely worse problem for them. Did I ever enjoy being Prime Minister? Yes, I did. I enjoyed bits of it. I didn’t enjoy all of it, I didn’t enjoy the unpleasant things you have to do, the unpleasant things that come up and hit you and I don’t think any Prime Minister does. So I don’t think I was unique in that.

    AMOL RAJAN

    If you could go back and relive one moment from your time in power, what would that one moment be?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war. We were in France, with people from countries who had all fought in the coalition. We were at Arromanches, with the Queen, Prince Philip, heads of Governments from all over the place, and we were watching from on high the veterans marching on the sands at Arromanches. We thought they’d march for about an hour, smart blazers and trousers, with rows of medals and berets. They came and they came and they came, and it went on and on and on. There were tens of thousands of them, infinitely more than anyone could possibly have imagined. They marched even as the tide came in and began to come over their boots and up over their ankles, they just came on marching. And they were all very elderly by definition, and it was the most remarkable sight. And you really had a glimpse of what our country is really about. I think if I had one moment to relive that would be it.

    AMOL RAJAN

    When it all became too much, the stresses, the strains, the headlines, the pressure, was there somewhere that you found refuge?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    The Oval. It’s been my spiritual home since the early 1950s and I could always go to the Oval, switch off, watch some cricket. It didn’t have to be high class cricket, it might have been a junior Surrey team or something of that sort. But there’s something for me when I go to the Oval that takes me back to my youth, when I first used to sit there with a score book, a Tizer and sandwiches. It’s just a complete change, so that was my refuge.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Well, Sir John, this is the John Major room at the Oval, and it’s impossible not to wonder what the boy from Brixton would have made of the idea of you having a room at the Oval and a portrait of yourself as Prime Minister here.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, I think he’d have been surprised.

    AMOL RAJAN

    He’d been surprised that you’ve got the same tie on after 30 years as well! But what’s the story behind this bat as well?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    This is a Jack Hobbs bat and there’s a story behind that. I had just finished Prime Minister’s Questions and one of the messengers came in to see me and said ’there’s a very elderly lady outside who says she must see you, shall I tell her to go away?’ I said, ‘no, bring her in’. She came in, and she was very elderly and very small, and she was clutching a large brown paper parcel, and she introduced herself, and she said to me, I’d like to give you this, but I would like a promise from you that you will never give it away or sell it. I wasn’t sure what it was, but she didn’t look as though she was deranged, she looked perfectly genuine. So I made that promise, and she gave it to me and I unwrapped it, and it was a Jack Hobbs bat. It’s a bat with which he scored a century in the early part of the 1900s and it had been given to this elderly lady as a little girl, and she had no-one to leave it to, and so she came to the House of Commons to give it to me. I thought, I won’t be here forever, but the bat should go back to its natural home. So it is here in this room, and here it will remain.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Given this room is your room, it’s the John Major room, do you get to choose which of the Surrey icons are along here?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I do, everyone here was personally chosen by me. This is Billy Beldham, or silver Billy Beldham as he was called, and he was a great batsman in the early nineteenth century. His main period was 1800 to 1820, but he played cricket much longer than that. The point about Billy Beldham is not just that he was a good batsman, he was the first batsman not just to swing across the line, but to play down the line on pitted and horrible pitches. People tended to hang back and swing to leg, he didn’t, he learned that it was fruitful to play forward and hit the ball in the V.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Which is a lesson he obviously passed on to his great successor, Jack Hobbs, arguably the greatest opening batsman of them all.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    He would certainly be my choice and the longevity of his career is astonishing.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Hobbs played on it well over the age of 40 didn’t he?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    He scored 197 first class hundreds and he scored 100 of them after the age of 40. Don’t forget, he lost four years to the First World War, so he scored 61,00 ofirst class runs. Nobody else is remotely near it.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Tell you what, I’ve just hit my 40s. Do you think I’m about to enter my peak period?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it’s undoubtedly so.

    AMOL RAJAN

    This is?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    This is Peter May, who when I was a boy was the finest batsman in England.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Did you watch him?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Oh, gosh, yes.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Here?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Indeed. He got me in huge trouble once. I was here watching and I was a huge admirer of Peter, he was my great hero as a boy. My father had only one possession of any value at all, that was a gold stopwatch that he’d been given at some stage during his music hall career, and I asked if I could borrow the stopwatch to time how long it took from Peter May hitting the ball on the on side, which was his great shot at the boundary. He lent it to me, and I was holding it like this to time how long it took and I pressed the button at the top, and it slipped out of my hands and crashed down on the then stone floor underneath the wooden benches, and it was an ex watch.

    AMOL RAJAN

    What did your father make of that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, I was distraught, because I knew how much it mattered to him, and I was only 12 or so, 13, perhaps. I took it home and I showed it to him like this, and he was nearly blind then but he could feel it and see it well enough. And all he said was ‘tell me all you can about this Peter May’, it was the only thing he said, no reproach, he just wanted to know why I cared so much about Peter May, why I wanted to time how long it took the ball to hit the boundary from leaving his bat.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Sounds like a wonderful father. I’ll tell you what, with that follow through, he’d be very happy and at home in the modern game, wouldn’t he?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Certainly would. He was a powerful batsman. He didn’t often hit sixes, but he could and very big sixes.

    AMOL RAJAN

    Let’s go and watch some cricket.

  • Extracts From Sir John’s Major Speech at Newcastle Cathedral – 7 February 2019

    Extracts from the speech made by Sir John Major to the North-East England Chamber of Commerce event held at Newcastle Cathedral on 7 February 2019.

    BREXIT

    Our relations with Europe have divided opinion more than any other policy in my political lifetime.

    I – more than most – can empathise with the frustrations and shortcomings of the EU: I lived with them for years.

    But there are bigger issues at stake that are being ignored, or brushed aside, or dismissed as so-called “Project Fear” when – as we are discovering – they are all too real.

    I believe Brexit is regressive. The campaigners for “Leave” promised better times, yet Brexit will deliver far worse times.

    This is not just my view.

    The Centre for European Reform estimates Brexit is already costing our public finances £320 million a week. And this, of course, excludes the “divorce bill” of £39 billion, and the growing cost across Government of managing our exit from Europe.

    In addition, almost every sector of business has warned of trouble ahead – and every independent study of every conceivable Brexit – even by our own Government – shows that once we leave, the UK will be worse off, year after year after year ……

    I can recall nothing to match this.

    It is the first time in our long history that any British Government has embraced a policy of self-harm, despite their own advisers warning that it will make our nation weaker – and our people poorer.

    And what makes this even more extraordinary is that we are a welfare state society. Those who will suffer the most are those who have the least.

    This includes the less affluent regions of our United Kingdom; those on low incomes; and our young – who overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU – but will have to live longest with the consequences of leaving it.

    Over time, the young may prove to be the biggest losers.

    In advance of Brexit, they fear for their future. Post Brexit – if they turn out to be right – they may neither forget nor forgive those responsible.

    A FAIR SOCIETY

    Over recent decades, the global economy has lifted two billion people out of absolute poverty – but, as it has done so, it has also widened the gap between “the haves” and the “have nots”.

    Britons know they live in a democratic country, but many no longer believe they are living in a fair society.

    And, in this, they are right. I entered Number 10 twenty-nine years ago with an ambition to build a country “at ease with itself”. I failed. So have all my successors.

    But, today, the need to build such a society is even greater.

    In the 1840s, Benjamin Disraeli wrote of Britons being divided into two nations: the rich and the poor.

    Over 170 years later, events have entrenched far too wide a disparity. In incomes. In opportunities. In prospects. In social investment.

    As a society, we have a moral duty to reduce inequality – not tolerate it. We must eradicate the roots of resentment.

    Yet, to cure the ills of inequality, we need money. Money is as essential to create a fair society, as medicine is to create a healthy one.

    I know of only one source of continuing wealth, and that is a healthy, growing economy. We cannot achieve that without investment to build a booming business sector.

    And, as we achieve that, we must share the proceeds of growth more evenly.

    I don’t wish to overstate this.

    The poverty of today is not the grinding poverty of yesteryear. At the height of our Empire, millions of Britons struggled to eat. But relative poverty – the invisible poverty that often bypasses social safety nets – is still a potent issue.

    It cannot be right that – in the fifth or sixth richest nation in the world – food banks have become essential in the lives of so many people.

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

    We see poverty as a social evil which, of course, it is. It destroys lives. But I would argue that it is far more than that – it is an economic evil, too.

    It wastes talent. It thwarts ambition. It lowers national output. It cuts competitiveness. It creates dependency. It leaves families in despair, and communities in decline.

    The case against poverty is unanswerable. Ending it may be expensive but – in the long-term – it may be more costly not to do so.

    Poverty isn’t only about money. About empty pockets.

    Even in the Britain of today, the lifespan of the poorest in some of our great cities is 20 years shorter than that of the comfortably well-off.

    Is that acceptable? Of course not – and every part of the political spectrum – Left, Right and Centre – should have an equal ambition to end it.

    The good news is that progress is being made. A record number of people are now in work.

    The counterpoint – as the Resolution Foundation has reported – is that over 70% of the new jobs are self-employment, or zero hours contracts, or agency worker contracts. These tend to be low paid without any security of employment.

    The minimum wage – which, wrongly, I once opposed believing it would destroy jobs – is rising faster than inflation, which remains modest.

    Taxes have been cut on low incomes.

    We should welcome these modest advances even as we work towards a high productivity/high wage economy – which is surely the Holy Grail of employment.

    This can be achieved – but is more likely to be so if Government and the market work together. The Government, alone, is insufficient. So is the market. But, together, they can be a formidable force for good.

    I have focused on fairness – and inequality – because the lack of it is eating away at our social fabric, and that cannot be allowed to continue.

    We British have a conscience and – as our country becomes richer – relative poverty: of income, of resources, of opportunity, of equity, becomes even less acceptable.

    To minimise these disparities – and to end them where possible – will boost national health and wealth, and also ease hardship and exclusion. All of this is essential if we are to become a contented nation.

    INVESTMENT IN THE NORTH

    The Left of politics must accept the role of the market. And the Right must accept that the State is a player, not a bystander, in building up our business strength.

    The private sector, alone, cannot deliver the level of capital investment our nation needs. Public Sector investment is crucial and – large though that contribution is – it has halved as a share of total investment over the past forty years: this is too great a fall.

    Outside London, only the South East and East Anglia are net contributors to the Exchequer. That cannot be in our national interest.

    What is in our national interest is to promote the regions and sell their advantages – which is why public investment is so vital, and policies such as the Northern Powerhouse are so important.

    Consider the attractions of the North: it has more space and less congestion. Fewer hours are lost in the daily commute which, in any event, is less expensive. Land and buildings are cheaper – as is housing. All this helps minimise labour costs.

    And, to add to its attraction, the towns and cities of the North are within easy reach of some of our most beautiful countryside.

    A new body, Transport for the North, has been set up to improve transport links between the main cities of the region and – between 2015 and 2020 – a total of £13 billion has been allocated to improve them.

    If we are truly to lift up our regions we have to create more wealth within them.

    That requires an up-to-date infrastructure that improves production, and encourages business to invest. With interest rates at their present historic low, there has never been a more cost-effective environment in which to do so.

    Of course, there are always arguments against too much Government spending. Today, it is the size of the fiscal deficit. Tomorrow, it could be the cost of borrowing. There is always a reason for inaction.

    But, sometimes, Government has to be bold – and I believe that time is now.

    To those who disagree, I simply ask: “If not now, when?”.

    And, I ask, too: what will be the long-term economic and social cost of allowing the present disparity of investment and opportunity to continue? I can tell you – it will be far too high.

    Some will argue we should be cautious. I would argue there is a distinction between caution and inertia.

    Is there an element of risk? Of course. Is it manageable? I believe so: it is essential we inject some hope and optimism into our future.

    Without that – hope will remain the missing ingredient in the lives of too many people.

    Why do I choose this moment to press so hard for this?

    Because – next month – we are due to leave the known benefits of the European Union, and head into an unknown post-Brexit future. As Japan – with its large UK investments, including in the North East – has already made clear, this will attract less foreign investment and may imperil existing investments.

    So the case for action is compelling – and immediate.

    In recent decades – through no fault of its own – the North-East has lost shipyards, coal mines and glass manufacturing.

    Analysis by the Department for Exiting the EU has forecast that – under the most extreme “no-deal” post-Brexit scenarios – the North-East economy could contract by up to 16%.

    No Government could – or would – stand by and watch that happen – but even the fear of it suggests that measures to protect the North-East must be put in place – and quickly.

    Business isn’t just a matter of profits and dividends. It’s a crucial part of any community. No business: no jobs. No jobs: real personal hardship and emotional despair.

    So, helping business to succeed is not only economically essential, it is politically – and morally – the right thing to do.

    THE WAY AHEAD

    I would like to see a Secretary of State being given specific responsibility for the Regions, with far-reaching powers.

    He or she should work closely with regional Mayors and all areas of local government to co-ordinate their activities; to fight for more investment; more effective connectivity; and to create an environment attractive to investors – both from within the UK and overseas.

    But improving infrastructure, although essential, is insufficient on its own.

    I would like to endorse – and add to – the excellent report by the Northern Powerhouse Partnership on “Educating the North”.

    Any increase in business activity will need a workforce with academic and technical skills. Education and training is not only the route to higher incomes, it is the engine-room of our collective futures.

    By education, I mean not only academic education, but vocational and technical education which is, socially, still undervalued.

    We need to act on the reality – which is that the man or woman in overalls often has skills more valuable to our national wellbeing than many of those in suits.

    Such skills include technology, engineering, electrics, plumbing, bricklaying, carpentry and roofing. The age of robotics may destroy many jobs, but will not destroy these.

    And if we are to lose immigrant skills – which, mistakenly in my view, appears to be the public will – then developing our own skilled workforce becomes a matter of economic life and death.

    A whole-hearted approach to re-skilling our nation requires a full reform of our school curricula, more technical colleges, and a continuing expansion of non-academic education. It also requires high-quality apprenticeships, and more post-school training.

    Ministers know this, and are acting on it. But we have no time for a long-term roll-out, we need a skills revolution – and we need it now.

    The cry of “Action this Day” is as important in an economic war as it is in a military campaign. Our country will not succeed – cannot succeed – without the skills that investors need.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on the Financial Situation – 9 October 2011

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments on the financial situation, made in an interview on 9th October 2011.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the economy was in a serious state].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it’s pretty serious, but I think if you can reach a conclusion to the Eurozone crisis you’ll change the level of confidence and I think that will make a material difference. But at the moment you have the Eurozone pretty flat as an economy, you have American flat, you have the Chinese economy slowing and we don’t know how much it will slow, and you have the British economy teetering between no growth and tiny growth, so plainly it’s serious. And it is a different sort of recession from before because of the debt overhang.

    So yes, I do think it’s very serious.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the Bank of England Governor was right in saying the recession was worse than in the 1930s].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think he’s looking at the scale of debt, if you actually look at the United Kingdom as an example, in 1997 – to pick a date at random – we had a national debt of about 350 billion, by 2010 it was 900 billion and on unchanged policies by 2014 it would be 1.4 trillion. So you begin to see the scale of the problem, and the fact it is absolutely unavoidable that you make changes in order to bring down that level of debt, because that overhang could be with us otherwise for generations.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if everyone would have to work harder and cut back].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Certainly for a while, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. There’s no point in pretending that the situation is suddenly going to magically come good with a bit of growth. I’m afraid we need a good deal more than that. And we’re going to have to restructure a great deal of what has happened, not least in the Eurozone which is crucial to us because we are not part of the Euro because, as you rightly say, I opted out in the Maastricht Treaty, but the Eurozone is 40% of our exports and the rest of the European Union as a whole is 50% of it, so their health is crucial to our health.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the Germans would transfer more money in].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it’s very unlikely, and the Germans have expressly been told that they won’t move towards a transfer union which is essentially what is being talked about.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the Eurozone would fracture].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it’s extremely unlikely that the European Union will fracture with nations dropping off the edge.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if Greece would default].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s conceivable.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if Greece would default within the Eurozone].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think that is exactly what will happen and should happen. But I think that it is unlikely that the Eurozone will toss out a member, it’s conceivable that it could happen, but it would certainly be against their wishes.

    I think by far the most likely proposition, firstly you have to look at the short-term problem and then the longer-term problem. In the short-term the banks needs to be recapitalised and Greece needs to default. The sooner that happens and Greece defaults, the sooner you remove something, the overhang in the markets.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked what would happen if Greece defaulted].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    What would happen is that if Greece defaulted and couldn’t pay its debts, all the Greek bonds that are held in other banking systems across Western Europe would suddenly have no value. You could, as a knock-on effect, create a banking crisis in Western Europe and French and German banks have most of the bonds. That would be absolutely catastrophic if that happened. So the Greeks mustn’t default until the Western European banks are in a position to absorb any losses that there might be without creating a banking crisis.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if banks would be given money to fund this loss].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think the way they may do it, I think there are two things that they could do, the first thing I think they could do is turn the European structural facility from a structural facility into a bank, give it a banking licence, let it leverage.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if this would mean a new European Central Bank].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, it would be quite separate from the European Central Bank, let it borrow money as banks normally can from the European Central Bank and either buy up the Greek bonds to remove the danger, the contagion from the Western banks, or use the resources to recapitalise the banks so they can bear the losses.

    That seems to me to be the first thing that has to happen, and then it would be thoroughly desirable, in my view, to get the Greek default out of the way. It’s a terrible overhang in the market, it’s partly priced-in, let’s get it done and then we can move on to the longer term.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked why he didn’t join the Euro].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There were three arguments, the first was that if you had a monetary union without a fiscal union it’s like a two-legged dog.

    The second argument, at Maastricht we produced some safeguards – although I opted out at Maastricht, we produced some safeguards – one of them was that no European nation would have a fiscal deficit of more than 3%, and the second was that before the Euro was formed the economies of those nations going into the Eurozone should converge, and by that piece of jargon we meant that they should operate at broadly the same level of efficiency. That didn’t happen.

    In the late 90s the French and Germans began to worry whether the Eurozone would ever happen, so they went into the Euro without the convergence. That was the tragic mistake, it shouldn’t have happened.

    Thirdly, when the Germans and the French went beyond the 3% deficit, the Commission took no action against them and everybody else did too, so you got this burgeoning level of debt that began to spread everywhere.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the Euro would change].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It will have to change, I think it will have to change.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked about the flapping of white coats].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, the flapping of white coats was on a quite separate matter – and I don’t withdraw the remark. The substance of the argument is exactly the same as I advanced at Maastricht.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked whether the Euro-sceptics had been right].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    They were partially right, but only partially right, and I will come to the situation as I saw it. The need for fiscal union is something we foresaw at Maastricht, which is why we opted out at Maastricht, that was right and is right.

    What is now I think going to happen, albeit in a crab-wise fashion, I think the Eurozone members will have to move towards a fiscal union. I don’t think they will suddenly say they are going into full-scale fiscal union, it would need a treaty and all sorts of other things.

    What I think they will do is produce legislation within the European Union that makes the control of fiscal deficits, the harmonisation of tax and matters like that, much more controlled from the centre. So they will be moving towards a federal state within the Eurozone and they will be moving to it out of failure and not out of success, that is the point.

    It then gets to the position where you have an inner-core within the Eurozone that is operating much more deeply and closely together than the rest of the European Union. And if you remember in the 1990s, Douglas Hurd and I, we called it variable geometry, and we saw a much looser European Union in which people opted in instead of opting out, and it wasn’t such a tremendously prescriptive union which everybody had to be a part of.

    That is the direction over the next decade, slowly, in which I think we will be going.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if there would be a referendum on a new treaty].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There won’t necessarily have to be a treaty in this country for fiscal union. In terms of fiscal union it is conceivable that there will be a treaty just among the members of the Eurozone, so don’t overlook that possibility.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if the referendum could be about a federal Europe that Britain wasn’t a member of].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think that is conceivable. There are a dozen different ways in which this could unwind and frankly nobody can be certain which way it will go at the present time.

    But it is possible that there will be a fiscal union amongst the Eurozone members, they would have their own treaty. But at some stage there will be another treaty because if there’s fiscal union in Europe, it changes our relationship with Europe. That is the fundamental point.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if powers should be transferred].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think it gives an opportunity for two things, firstly, it gives us an option to negotiate for the looser form of Europe that I would like to have seen in the 1990s and we got no traction when Douglas Hurd and I argued for that then. I think it presents that opportunity. And secondly, I think there are some areas that are worth looking at, and this isn’t anti-Europeanism or Euro-scepticism. There are some areas which it would be worthwhile to repatriate.

    Fishing is one. There are elements of employment law, it used to be in the Social Chapter and has now spread, you will recall that I opted out of that in 1992 because I saw it as a job destroying mechanism. Now it has changed but the things like the working time directive, which I think is a very foolish piece of legislation, we could look at repatriating part of it.

    Clearly, financial services is another area. There has been a lot of talk about the financial transactions tax, I don’t think that will happen, for a range of complex reasons, but even so, financial services are crucial to the well-being of the British nation, it is what drove our growth – over-drove it as it happened – over the last twenty years or so.

    We really don’t want a whole series of restrictive notions damaging our financial structure in this country.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked if this was a new opportunity for Britain].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Europe changed fundamentally when the Europeans ignored the safeguards in the Maastricht Treaty and proceeded to an unsafe Eurozone, which they did in 1999 without any bark of protest from the United Kingdom. That changed it, that changed everything, because the Eurozone was no longer going to be a stable instrument, we were going to be outside it, but it could have been stable and it wasn’t. And that was a significant change and now I think there is an opportunity.

    I don’t see this as a Euro-sceptic attack on Europe, I see that with 27 nations within the European Union it has to change. It cannot be the same as with 15 nations or with 6.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked whether quantitative easing was right].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It isn’t George who has just quantatively eased as it happens, it’s the Governor of the Bank of England, and I think the Governor is right to do so.

    When you consider how much of our economy is driven by exports and you then see what is happening to our markets overseas, I think the Bank of England are right to quantatively ease. I think he is right. But more valuable might be the proposals put forward by the Chancellor himself to direct money specifically to parts of industry.

    QUESTION:

    [Sir John was asked about Liam Fox and what the Prime Minister should do].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s extremely difficult to handle these, either natural justice requires that you have to wait a long time and you’re then said to be incapable of making decisions if you operate under natural justice. Or you move too speedily and you’re said to be ruthless, so I don’t know what the situation is, the Prime Minister has asked for the facts to have a first look on Monday, and I think that is right.

    From the Prime Minister’s perspective he has to balance natural justice and the truth, rather than the gossip, the rumour and things that may be true, but I’ve no idea whether they are or not.

    QUESTION:

    [Thank you].

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you, my pleasure.

  • Sir John Major’s Ditchley Annual Lecture Speech (Ditchley Foundation) – 9 July 2011

    The text of Sir John Major’s Ditchley Annual Lecture speech, made at Ditchley Park in Oxfordshire, on Saturday 9th July 2011.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    First, let me add my welcome to Jeremy and Anne Greenstock and John and Penny Holmes.

    Jeremy and Anne have been great servants of Ditchley; John and Penny are already showing they will be. We are lucky to have them.

    When John invited me to speak to you today, I was very reluctant to accept. I was dismayed that, once again – with impeccably bad timing – the Ditchley Lecture clashes with a Test Match. I also recalled some outstanding Lectures at Ditchley over recent years. I nearly said – No.
    I didn’t, because there are things to be said, questions to be asked – and ideas to be floated – that can more easily be done by a former politician than a current one. And where better than Ditchley – for so long a home for rational thought and considered debate? An oasis of calm in a world of frenzy.

    Every time I come here I am reminded of our debt to David Wills – and now, Lady Wills and Catherine.

    I just want to say to Eva and Catherine: we owe you more than we can repay.

    In preparing for today, I took to heart GH Hardy’s observation that one ought never to waste time stating a majority opinion. I will try and follow that advice.

    Accepted opinion is often wrong. Even more often, out of date. And, frequently, complacent.

    Let me say at the outset that nothing I say should be taken as a trial balloon for anyone else. I speak for myself alone and – reluctantly but possibly – will offend political friend and foe alike. Nevertheless, I shall set out what I believe Western Governments must do to secure our well-being, in a world that is moving faster than we are.

    This world is digitalising, urbanising and ageing. It is also migrating. The age of the single language, single culture state is over. Medicine, science and technology are carrying us where we have never been before. Social networks can elect Presidents and foment revolution. Global markets have outstripped the control of nation states.

    The world of 20 years ago, let alone 50, has long since vanished. In every field of human endeavour – and nearly every aspect of life – yesterday’s certainties are today’s imponderables and tomorrow’s dilemmas.

    The future raises uncomfortable questions, and even more uncomfortable answers. Some challenges are domestic, others can be resolved only by collective action. And, even if they are faced, and even if there are successful outcomes – and these are two big “ifs” – they will merely head off future problems.

    Pain now for gain later has never been an easy sell for politicians and, in a social climate that expects instant gratification, it becomes even harder. It was easier being a politician yesterday than today. And it is easier today than it will be tomorrow.

    The core question is: what must our Governments do to ensure our future prosperity? Must we change our policies, our expectations, our tribal politics – or all of these? It simply defies logic that the whole world can turn upside down, while we meander on in the same old way.

    At stake is our material well-being – and our status in the world – in 20, 40, and 50 years’ time.

    Some may say the battle is lost – that this will be China’s – and Asia’s – Century. I don’t believe that is pre-ordained. China, in particular, has many problems. The Communist philosophy is discredited. Her Government is not elected. Its only legitimacy is growth.

    In China and Asia, we are already seeing that rising living standards will bring greater demands – for social welfare, pension and much else besides – that will eat away at their present competitiveness.

    So this economic triumph of the East isn’t assured, but we do know they will be formidable competitors. So how are we placed to respond?

    Our present position, to put it mildly, is uncomfortable. It is axiomatic that every generation has an obligation to pass on to its successor something better than they themselves inherited. In recent times, we have failed.

    We have spent tomorrow’s money on yesterday’s gratification, and there is something immoral in that. And we have presided over a systemic financial collapse that has forced the prudent to bail out the reckless. There is something unjust in that.

    This is a sharp reminder that our democracy doesn’t guarantee efficiency. The democratic checks and balances we so cherish can become roadblocks. The tyranny of the electoral cycle can push politicians to short-term decisions.

    Equality replaces quality. Sound-bites stand in for home truths. It feels odd to point up the short-comings of democracy, when it has achieved so much – but if we don’t recognise them, we can’t correct them.

    Democracy has entrenched an enviable liberty of thought and action and presided over a quality of life our forebears could not have imagined. We are safer and, until now, richer. It has had a civilising influence. We have learned that decent people come in all colours. We abhor racism and bigotry. We have developed good human instincts of care and compassion.

    In due time, electors can vote Governments out and mostly they depart peacefully into Opposition. No wonder it is widely admired and copied. It has served us well but, on its own, democracy will not secure our place in tomorrow’s world.

    ECONOMY

    The financial crisis has highlighted a reality the West can no longer ignore: our days of easy economic supremacy are over.

    The drift is undeniable. The West has lost its competitive edge against China, India, Indonesia and Brazil as well as many smaller countries, notably in Asia and Latin America. Financial firepower is moving from West to East. Thirty five years ago, the fifteen core countries of the EU accounted for broadly 36% of global GDP, and Asia only 16%. Projections suggest that, in twenty years’ time, that will almost precisely have reversed. As we stutter, the rest of the world grows.

    America has, largely, held decline at bay: but, even so, her share of global GDP has fallen from 26% to 23%. Economically, in one lifetime, the world will have turned on its head.

    It’s easy to see why. Where ambition confronts complacency, ambition wins. In countries that are one generation away from poverty I see a passion and drive for success that sweeps away barriers. Even if we are aware of the tidal wave of competition that is coming, we have not prepared for it. We are falling behind and at risk of falling further.

    We shouldn’t deceive ourselves this is simply the fall-out from the financial crisis. It is a long-term trend.

    Some see no danger. They argue that the West can be sanguine about Eastern competitiveness because our quality of life is so far ahead.

    Such people should get out more. Let me cast an unforgiving eye on that complacency: the UK first.

    In terms of GDP, the UK is the sixth most wealthy country in the world. But our national Balance Sheet carries many liabilities. Our physical infrastructure is old. Our health service is creaking. Whilst the best of our education – especially higher education – is world-class, some of it is unforgivably awful.

    We are up to our ears in debt. The Exchequer is empty. The Gold is gone. The post-dated cheques are accumulating interest. We are over-taxed. We have an under-class: poorly educated, poorly housed and unmotivated.

    We are no longer an Empire, nor will be ever again. Today, we are a shrinking military power. By choice, and with majority public approval, we are semi-detached members of the EU. And even America – for so long our closest ally who generally sees the world as we do – is turning her face to the East, as self-interest determines she must.

    There is absolutely nothing here to be complacent about.

    America faces many similar problems – most obviously debt, which was 40% of GDP in 2008, 69% in 2011, and is projected to be 85% by the end of the decade – and rising. Yet only about one-half of the population pays federal income taxes.

    The risk remains of the US Treasury defaulting on its debt as it runs up against the legal limit it can borrow. I daresay a compromise will be reached, but this flirting with brinkmanship is dangerous. The collapse of Lehman Brothers was catastrophic. A Treasury default could be as bad. I hope those playing political games realise that the effect of their actions could spread far beyond America.

    In the foremost free market economy in the world, average household debt comfortably exceeds average annual income. And a rising proportion of that income now comes from the State.

    About 45 million Americans now receive food stamps: the modern equivalent of bread lines. Medical costs threaten to spiral out of control.

    Huge housing debts held by Banks are not written off: if they were, there would be lower profits, and lower bonuses. Total mortgage debt has quadrupled in 20 years. Today, there are two million mortgages not being paid.

    And so the merry-go-round continues: Banks are still lending 95% mortgages on a falling market at a multiple of income: admittedly now – they say – only to more credit worthy customers. No one should assume the financial crisis cannot be repeated: it certainly can. But, if it is, it will be unforgiveable.

    EUROPE

    As for Europe – the word is engraved on my heart. Northern Europe is healthy but Southern Europe is sunk in debt and uncompetitive. The EU as a whole is divided on how to handle budget deficits, the crisis in the Eurozone, control of the Central Bank, nuclear policy, as well as how to react to Libya, Afghanistan and the Arab/Israeli conflict.

    Twenty years ago, led by France and Germany, a confident EU was paving the way for the Euro. The assumption in the European Council was that, before the Euro could be launched, the economies of nations wishing to be part of it would converge: by that piece of jargon, we meant operate at broadly the same level of efficiency.

    But that didn’t happen. It was politics – not economics – that launched the Euro in the late 1990s. Sterling did not join because, in 1992, I had opted out of the Euro at Maastricht. I didn’t do that out of sentimentality for the Pound – nor to placate sceptic opinion. If I’d wished to do that – with my Party or the Press – my life would have been much more comfortable. I didn’t. It wasn’t – because I thought then, and argued then, that the concept had flaws.

    Today, Germany – with its powerhouse economy – is locked within the same currency, at the same exchange rate, as the weaker economies of the Southern European States.

    In a sensible world, the Southern States would devalue but – of course – they can’t and so, to become competitive and stay in the Eurozone, they must devalue internally. Unemployment will rise, wages must fall, and so must living standards.

    This threatens Greece, Portugal, and – possibly Spain and Ireland – with many years of austerity. As we see in Greece, the scale of that austerity may not be acceptable in a liberal democracy. Meanwhile, others power ahead.

    It is not immediately clear how Europe will resolve this dilemma. But the present position is unsustainable. Either the EU becomes effectively a Union of transfer payments to offset regional disparities (as happens in Canada), or it creates a mechanism to shrink the Eurozone. Nothing else makes long-term sense.

    Germany and France will not permit – cannot afford to permit – a reprise of the present crisis. In Germany, in particular, it is causing immense political agony. When the President of the ECB proposed a European Ministry of Finance with power to intervene in national economic policies, he caused commotion. But something will have to be done. Somehow, binding rules will be imposed on debtors.

    Despite Eurozone members insisting they will not surrender fiscal sovereignty, it is not hard to look ahead and imagine a Eurozone with fiscal – as well as economic – union, in practice if not in name. I don’t like this – it was a prime reason for not joining the Euro – but, if it happens, it may have the effect of pushing the UK further away from the mainstream of the EU.

    The UK is often accused of being half-hearted over its commitment to Europe. Continental politicians bemoan our caution. “If only the UK took up its responsibilities” … it is a familiar theme, and we will hear more of it.

    Let me respond. I am not anti-European. I am not a sceptic in the accepted sense. I never have been. I see the nobility of intent in binding together nations that fought one another over many centuries.

    I see the economic advantages of the single market, and the political advantages of extending democracy to nations that were locked in the Soviet embrace. But I am wary of many European policies. If they are flawed, or unworkable, or alien to our instincts, our Government has a duty to question them.

    Where we can work together, let us do so. That is sensible. But the Union cannot succeed if nations are – sullenly and resentfully – bound into policies they believe are damaging to their national interest. Far better to plan for a multi-speed Union, with nations opting-in to policy rather than opting-out. In a 27 Nation Union, I believe we will come to that, although it is far from the ambitions of some of our partners.

    If the UK is semi-detached, that is only, in part, because of British scepticism: it is also because the EU has chosen, time and again, to go in a direction they know Britain cannot follow. Every recent Prime Minister has ended up less European than he – or she – began.

    As to the future – it is difficult to see where Europe is going. Some would like to break away entirely from the EU. In a world in which many policies need collective action, that would be folly. If we are drifting apart, there is cause to beware: it is time to take stock.

    GOVERNMENT/POLITICAL SYSTEM

    In the search for future well-being that is true of our political system as well. At the moment, neither American nor British politics is in a state of grace. It has become too inward-looking. Too short-term. Our systems embrace politicians, and carry them off to a world the rest of us don’t inhabit. It’s time to bring them back. And focus them on the far distance as well as tomorrow.

    There is a fault line in our national policy-making processes:

    When do politicians have time to think?

    There is time to do, based on advice.

    There are policies to advocate, based on conviction.

    There are people to placate, based on necessity.

    But, in Government, too often, senior politicians are fire-fighting yesterday’s problems instead of thinking how to fore-stall tomorrow’s.

    Would it not be better to carve out sufficient time so that – routinely – they can frame policies to safeguard our future in 20/50 years from now?

    And – if they did think and plan far ahead – it would give them time to explain, to cajole and to carry electorates with them in controversial policy. That’s never easy – as we see today.

    To help bring this about, we should encourage governments to devolve more and do less: in some areas, we are ludicrously over-governed. The nanny state may be well-meaning, but it is also stifling.

    I am one-quarter American, so I hope I might be forgiven for speaking bluntly. At the moment, the American political system is dysfunctional.

    It is easier to stop good policy than to pass it. Bi-partisan co-operation is grudging and limited. Moreover, it is getting worse as re-warding of congress and district boundaries makes seats safer for Republicans or Democrats: the inevitable effect is fewer “middle of the road” candidates being elected. The first loser is compromise. The ultimate loser is sensible, non-ideological policy.

    The power of special interest lobbies is excessive. There have been 27 Bills affecting Energy over recent years where the representatives of six States, irrespective of Party affiliation, have voted for the Coal lobby position on over 80% of votes. In the Senate, this has been sufficient to block anything the industry does not favour. This is not in the national interest. It is naked self-interest. Sadly, it is not the only example (in domestic or foreign policy).

    I remember former Presidents bemoaning the introspection of Congress – my expression, not theirs – and their concern that only a minority of its Members travelled overseas to see the world for themselves. Since American foreign policy affects us all, this is lamentable.

    But it’s easy to see why. A competitive election contest in New York, or New Jersey, home to the most expensive media markets, could cost a candidate $10 million. On average, candidates must raise over $1.3 million to fight each campaign. And campaigns come every other year.
    To fight these elections, the average candidate must raise over $50,000 each and every month. No wonder they don’t travel. Such frequent elections also create obligations to donors – and lobbies. They put a premium on short-term populist policies.

    It would make for far better decision-making if elections were less frequent and there were limits on spending. This might also cut down on negative campaign advertisements, the net effect of which is simply to damage the reputation of politics.

    I claim no superiority for the British system.

    For generations, Britain has basked in the glory of our Parliamentary system. Much of the world flatters it as an example of a mature democracy, a supreme Parliament, an independent Judiciary and an impartial civil service.

    I cherish the traditions that add majesty to Parliament. Yet even I, who look at Parliament with affection, can see it must be made more efficient.

    We could begin by widening the pool of talent prepared to enter politics, by removing some of the disincentives to do so.
    I would pay MPs a fixed and generous salary, and cut out all living allowances. This is not entirely fair to Members with remote constituencies, but life is not fair – and such a system would avoid the recent scandals that have done so much harm to Parliament.

    We need, also, to attract to the Commons men and women at the top of their profession. It is one of the oddities of democracy that fundamental policy choices are made by men and women who, apart from the legitimacy of election and a native intellect, have no qualifications to make them.

    How many MPs can bring direct knowledge to how banks should be regulated? Or how hedge funds work? Or are familiar with e-money? Or nuclear energy? Or the social and medical implications of embryology?

    We would benefit from our legislators having more practical knowledge.

    Of course we can hire specialist advisers, but that can never be as effective as influential, knowledgeable voices speaking with expertise in the Chamber, in the Committees, in the tea rooms, in Party meetings.

    There is no solution to this dilemma that doesn’t cut across our traditions, and so I would do just that. Why not elect fewer Members of Parliament and appoint, on a basis pro rata to votes cast in the General Election, a similar number of Members without constituencies?

    I know the familiar arguments against this – a few years ago I would have used them myself forcibly – but, on reflection, I now believe enhancement of the talent pool is so vital it justifies the changes.

    If the Commons baulks at a further reduction in its Members then, as Douglas Hurd and I have argued before, let us appoint unelected Ministers, answerable to Parliament, but without being Members of it. Or, of course, let us do both. Douglas and I have argued also for fewer Ministers and fewer PPSs: we have far too many of each: they could be severely cut back.

    At the moment, all three major Parties are committed to an – at least partly – elected House of Lords. The Lords does need reform. It has too many inactive Members. It is too big and unwieldy. But election is the wrong reform.

    The case for election is democratic legitimacy. However, if we want an efficient legislature, the case against is far more compelling.

    An elected Upper House would cease to be a revising Chamber and would demand more powers that could only come from the Commons.

    There would be confusion and conflict. We should be reducing the number of politicians and adding to their quality. An elected Lords would add more politicians and reduce their quality. That is a bad bargain.

    Does anyone imagine that Chiefs of the General Staff, Cabinet or Permanent Secretaries, Captains of Industry, Chancellors of Universities, Professors of Medicine would stand for election?

    Of course they wouldn’t, and elected replacements could never bring such a depth of knowledge to the scrutiny of legislation. If the answer is more elected politicians, we are asking the wrong question.

    A better reform would be to improve Parliamentary procedures. Cut the number of whipped votes. And reform PMQs to discourage its vaudeville element.

    I offer only one further of many options. Parliament’s workload leads to legislation being poorly scrutinised, and often shown to be defective. In Criminal Justice alone, 68 sections and 25 schedules of 19 Acts remain unimplemented: many because they are unworkable.

    Why not subject all mainstream Bills to Select Committee scrutiny and public evidence before final drafting? If we did so, we would get better, more relevant, and more coherent, new laws.

    And must the Westminster Parliament oversee so much? I think not. It would be more efficient if it were less over-burdened.

    DEVOLUTION OF POWER

    There are options:

    Pass fewer laws – which is attractive, and to be hoped for: though I’m not holding my breath.

    But we could contract more to local government and devolve more to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. In a cautious and incremental way, the Coalition is taking action to do this. I welcome that and encourage them to go further.

    Some years ago, I opposed the creation of local Mayors. I was wrong. Mayors do put in place a dynamic and – as successive Mayors of London have shown – they can be effective megaphones for our big cities. But under present plans, Mayors will only inherit the existing powers of Council leaders: in future, I hope their remit can be widened.

    There is one caveat: their power of decision should be real, not illusory, and this implies a funding responsibility to pay for – at least the majority of – their policies. When next we look at local authority finance that should be the objective.

    Devolution can also reduce the Westminster workload. But there is some groundwork to be cleared first. The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap – unless the issue is resolved.

    The Union between England and Scotland cannot be maintained by constant aggravation in Scotland and appeasement in London. I believe it is time to confront the argument head on.

    I opposed Devolution because I am a Unionist. I believed it would be a stepping stone to Separation.

    That danger still exists. Separatists are proud Scots who believe Scotland can govern itself: in this, they are surely right. So they point up grievances because their case thrives on discontent with the status quo. But even master magicians need props for their illusions: remove the props, and the illusion vanishes.

    The props are grievances about power retained at Westminster. The present Scotland Bill does offer more power to the Scottish Parliament.

    But why not go further? Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy?

    Why not let Scotland have wider tax-raising powers to pay for their policies and, in return, abolish the present block grant settlement, reduce Scottish representation in the Commons, and cut the legislative burden at Westminster?

    My own view on Scottish independence is very straightforward: it would be folly – bad for Scotland and bad for England – but, if Scots insist on it, England cannot – and should not – deny them.

    England is their partner in the Union, not their overlord. But Unionists have a responsibility to tell Scotland what independence entails.

    A referendum in favour of separation is only the beginning. The terms must then be negotiated and a further referendum held.

    These terms might deter many Scots. No Barnett Formula. No Block Grant. No more representation at Westminster. No automatic help with crises such as Royal Bank of Scotland. I daresay free prescriptions would end and tuition fees begin.

    And there is no certainty of membership of the EU. Scotland would have to apply, meet tough criteria, await lengthy negotiations and would find countries like Spain – concerned at losing Catalonia – might not hold out a welcome for Separatists. And, even if Scotland were admitted, they would find their voice of 5 million is lost and powerless in a Union of 500 million.

    But it must, ultimately, be their choice.

    SOCIETY

    Reforms within politics can – I believe would – improve policy-making, but it is the guts of policy that really matters. I simply observe that in considering future policy every Minister should ask one question: does this improve our long-term ability to compete and grow? If it does – good; if it doesn’t – think again.

    Growth is not just a matter of economic policy. Social policy is a part of the competitive structure – not apart from it. To grow, we need to improve our human infrastructure.

    EDUCATION

    Education and skill attainment are as crucial to economic success as cash investment. In the ancient world, Plato taught Socrates who taught Alexander.

    Rather more recently, Tony Blair famously declaimed “Education, Education, Education”. I had the same priorities but in a different order.

    Neither of us was original. Lenin first said it in 1917.

    And we were all right – except that we failed. And among the alienated and the under-educated, how much talent is lost? How many lives are wasted and unfulfilled? How high is the social and economic loss? Money has been put into education but the return on investment has been disappointing.

    It is a reproach to every Government over the last 40 years that employers routinely bemoan the numeracy and literacy of far too many school-leavers. As a Nation, we can’t afford that.

    A recent OECD survey, based on science, maths and literacy, put America – once top – at 26th, and the UK even lower: eight of the top ten performers were emerging Asian States. This isn’t some remote trend we can ignore: our children and grandchildren will be in direct competition with these young Asians.

    One reason for Asian success seems to be that they have invested heavily in teachers. Paid them well. Trained them well. And built up their prestige and social standing. As a result, they have attracted their brightest and best into the profession.

    Parents, too, have a responsibility for their child’s education. Too many opt out – none should.

    Events in California, in 1996, are suggestive. After positive discrimination had resulted in low graduation results and high drop-out rates, “Proposition 209” banned any reference to race, sex or ethnicity in University admissions.

    Students were selected purely on their Grades. Admissions from Asian Americans soared. The only explanation for this was parental influence. There is a lesson here. However good teachers may be, the role of parents remains the single most important input into any child’s life opportunity.

    If, as most of us accept, the economic future of the West lies, in part, with maintaining a technological advantage, we must produce the relevant skills. But we are just not doing so. China is producing over three times as many engineering, science and IT graduates as the United States. And over three times as many Chinese graduates at the top-most level with PhDs.

    In the UK, in the decade to 2007, there was a fall of nearly one-third in single honours chemistry courses, and 14% in physics. The West had better focus on the fact that Asian manufacture is already moving up the value chain.

    No Government is always right. Or wrong. In the UK, I applaud warmly the high ambition of Ministers in the previous Government who argued for long-term social reform. My only regret is that others, more senior and less far-sighted, sometimes over-ruled their efforts.

    “Thinking the unthinkable” was ditched. That was a pity.

    I welcomed their early ideas – as indeed I should: many of them were my ideas long before they were theirs, and – in some cases – Margaret’s before they were mine.

    That doesn’t matter. In a good cause, I welcome policy kleptomania. As someone who was opening Academy Schools 20 years ago, I was genuinely delighted when Andrew Adonis developed the policy and successfully carried it forward.

    Education is not our only social policy failure over decades. In our broadly prosperous country, there are still far too many graffiti-ridden slums, on soul-less Estates, in run-down areas, that dis-incentivise those who live there.

    There are too many neighbourhoods where unemployment has become a way of life; where an existence on social benefits seems normal.

    For too many people, self-determination has morphed into a belief in self-entitlement, where no-one is responsible for anything, and welfare is a legitimate career choice. America has problems that are similar in character.

    The Coalition is now embarked on reforms to health, education and social security that are long overdue, controversial and necessary. As Labour built on Conservative policy, now Conservatives will build on Labour’s.

    I hope everyone, irrespective of Party, who agrees with these reforms will support them publicly when Ministers face the inevitable protests that are to come. It will be a lost opportunity if they are sacrificed to our adversarial political system.

    Within the compass of my direct experience, I have tried to look forward. I have focused on what is not working well. But I am optimistic.

    The Western democracies always over-estimate what they can do in the short-term and under-estimate what they can achieve in the long-term. If we accept what needs to be done – we can do it. But – as Goethe noted – “until one is committed, there is hesitancy”. We must be committed.

    I would like to see a senior Minister, of Cabinet rank, given responsibility for “The Future”. His or her role would be to cast an independent eye on what needs to be done that is not being done; and what is being done that could be harmful in the future.

    Such a Minister would be the voice of the next generation. The conscience of the Government. The guarantor of the legacy. To do the job well, he or she should be an enormous irritant to Departmental Ministers and the Treasury but, with the backing of a committed Prime Minister, would ensure the interests of the next generation are not sacrificed on the altar of immediate consumption.

    Mr. Chairman, time is a tyrant and I have only skimmed the surface of policy for tomorrow.

    I have not touched on traditional foreign policy issues – much as I wished to: that must await another occasion. On that, and on so much else, there is a great deal to be said and – as my Grace Note – let me observe that those of us gathered here are well-placed to say it.

    CONCLUSION

    We are, or were, the Establishment – or part of it. Some still are. We are winners in the Ovarian lottery. Gathered here are intelligent, civilised men and women, skilled at diplomacy and dispassionate judgement. If the late John Osborne were to categorise us, it would not be as “Angry Young Men or Women”, but as “Mellow Old Achievers”.

    We are, many would say, the past: Neanderthals from the pre-internet age. But we have one huge advantage: we have seen the world as few others have seen it. So I want to end with a plea. It is that – in an age that glorifies youth – we should use our collective experience to help signpost a path for the future.

    We may have a shorter lease on that future than the young, but they are our young, and we have an obligation to care about their future.

    Whether British, or American, or Continental European, the task facing our respective Governments is herculean. We can stand aside, shrug our shoulders and smile benignly on their efforts, our own work done. Or we can pitch in and help them.

    That, surely, is the right thing to do.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Churchill College – The Churchill Lecture – 26 November 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech, “The Churchill Lecture”, held at Churchill College in Cambridge on Friday 26th November 2010.

    THE LIMITS OF POWER : CONSERVATIVE EXPERIENCE AND OPPORTUNITY

    This year is the 50th Anniversary of Churchill College, which was founded as a Memorial to arguably the greatest man in the history of our Islands.

    Sir Winston would be proud of this College. Proud that it focuses on science and technology. Proud that it houses the Archives of men and women who have influenced public policy. And proud that his daughter, Lady Soames – my friend, Mary – is not only with us this evening but is an Honorary Fellow of the College.

    I, too, am proud – that Churchill College has offered a permanent home to my political papers.

    Most are already here, and those that I’ve held back – personal notes, contemporary thoughts, partial diaries, even poems – will follow in due course. I hope that, taken together, these will add to knowledge, and be of use to historians. Tonight, I want to draw lessons from my own experience, and look to the future.

    I speak as a politician. Not an ideologue and not a theorist. I became a Conservative over fifty years ago, when I was barely in my teens and living in a multi-occupied, multi-racial house in Brixton. I have never regretted my choice.

    I don’t claim that every aspect of Conservatism was – or is – to my taste but, taken as a whole, I believe the philosophy offers more choice, more individual liberty, more opportunity and more hope than any other.

    Some have wondered why a boy with no money, no influence and no family background in politics should become a Conservative.

    The answer is simple. Socialism told me a benevolent State would help me – eventually. Conservatism offered a way up and out of modest circumstances. It told me there were no boundaries.

    Not everything turned out as I hoped: in politics, as in life, it rarely does. I had hoped my background would enable me to make

    Conservatism the natural choice for future generations from communities like Brixton. But events took over. When I became Prime Minister, the economy was broken and needed mending. And when it was back to full health – and the way clear to tackle the problems of under-privilege – we lost the election.

    But, even in failure, there are lessons and I shall try to set them out. Some of what I say may re-write perceived history, but the truth deserves an airing even if it up-ends myth. I shall then turn to the future.

    Let me set some context.

    Over the last 60 years, the world has changed at a pace without precedent in human history. Nothing is as it was, nor will be as it is.

    Instant, accessible and cheap electronic communication has changed the very nature of politics. Direct face-to-face contact with electors is diminishing. Public meetings are out of fashion. Mass membership of political parties is over. Door to door canvassing is falling away. More than ever before, the political message is filtered through the media or, increasingly, the internet. Even soap boxes are out of date.

    The once hallowed distinction between “news” and “views” has gone. “News” is now part of a sharply competitive entertainment industry: one might call it – “infotainment”. Editors select what is “news” and determine its prominence. They can “run” with a story, or close it down. They may – or may not – be dispassionate. None of this is new. But the scale of it is.

    Satellite coverage has multiplied the number of channels. Competition has made the media more demanding, more intrusive. Media outlets thrive on drama and sensation and – in its absence – are likely to create it.

    There’s no point in complaining about this: it’s the world in which we live. And politicians cannot simply blame others for public intolerance towards them. To be elected, they set out promises but – all too often – reality intervenes and the promise falls. Initially, the voter is merely annoyed but, where this re-occurs, they assume the promises were at best foolish, or at worst, fake. Sometimes they were. But, more often than not, it is the unforeseen event that turns an honest intention into a broken promise.

    Today, every Government is at the mercy of the global market. François Mitterrand – always more of an historian than politician – used to express alarm that the volume and velocity of financial flows were beyond the control of any Government. He was right. Sterling’s exit from the ERM taught us that seventeen years ago. Today, the Market is even more powerful.

    As the Global Market has grown, the influence of Governments has shrunk: even basic policies such as tax must conform to international norms, or investment moves away.

    The same internationalism is evident in foreign policy.

    More than ever before governments only share in the solution of common problems after negotiation in a plethora of international bodies.

    This is frustrating: and one reason why successive British Prime Ministers are less pro-European when they leave Office, than when they enter it.

    The uncomfortable truth is that the limits of power for politicians are narrower than many suppose. The modern Head of Government may wish to bestride the political stage like a colossus, but events can reduce him (or her) to no more than a cork bobbing on the waves.

    But not always. Consider: if Labour hadn’t imploded during the “Winter of Discontent”, would Margaret Thatcher have been able to enact such wide-ranging reforms in the 1980s? I doubt it. But the Trades Unions had exhausted public patience. And a lurch to the left made Labour unelectable.

    Out of this chaos, came opportunity. Margaret Thatcher saw her chance and seized it.

    Even so, she was fortunate. She had a clear cut majority in Parliament. It is far easier to be bold with troops united at your back, than dis-united at your throat. In the 1990s, the number of euro-sceptic MPs exceeded our majority, and made European policy an exhausting daily battle: this battle spilled over beyond matters European.

    That is why David Cameron was wise to agree a five-year coalition with the Liberal Democrats. It secures a Parliamentary majority, without which the unpopular policies that are now necessary could too easily be blocked.

    But, even with a working majority, Prime Ministers must bend to reality. Again, let me draw from my own experience.

    In 1989, Margaret Thatcher and I took Sterling into the Exchange Rate Mechanism. We did so to general acclaim.

    For 50 years, inflation had bedevilled the UK economy. Two Chancellors, Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson, both believers in the free market – had wished to enter the ERM. Margaret said no. As Chancellor I, too, then advocated entry. Margaret said yes.

    She did so with her eyes open. She was persuaded by reality. There was no alternative. Prices and mortgages were soaring and we had to bring them down. We entered the Mechanism to do so. This mattered to Margaret. Those for whom she most cared – the strivers and hard workers – were among those most hurt by rising prices. And because of my own life experience, it was crucial to me: I knew what life was like when the week lasted longer than the money. That is the evil of inflation.

    The ERM medicine was acutely painful, but it did drive prices down, and set us on a path to economic well-being that lasted over fifteen years. Let us not forget that Britain began many years of non-inflationary growth in April 1992 – not in May 1997.

    As we returned to growth, I wished to exit the Mechanism. It had done its work and I’d never thought of it as a stepping stone to economic and monetary union. It was time to leave. But the dilemma was how to do so without ending up with a lower exchange rate and higher inflation. This dilemma was still unresolved when the Market swept Sterling out of the ERM: an economic liberation, but a political disaster that grew to dominate the perception of all we did in Office.

    After our ejection, the myths began. We had entered at the “wrong rate” said free-market critics, forgetting we entered at the Market rate.

    Then, early Tory tea-partiers suggested that Douglas Hurd and I had “bullied” Margaret into submission. If they believed that they must have been drinking more than tea.

    It was widely asserted that this episode had “wrecked our reputation for economic competence”. At the time, such a sentiment had resonance. But critics should pause. The decision I had taken at Maastricht – to opt Sterling out of the Euro – has served Britain well. It was an economic decision based – not on sentiment for Sterling – but on the judgement that diverse economies would not converge and a crisis, one day, would follow. There can surely be no doubt now that my decision has proved to be right – politically and economically.

    As ever, facts are more potent than the words of critics or supporters. On the day I became Prime Minister, interest rates were 14%, unemployment was soaring, the economy was collapsing, inflation was 9.7% and the tax burden 36.3%. When I left Office, interest rates were 6%, unemployment was falling, the economy was growing healthily, inflation was 2.6% and the tax burden 36.6%.

    No other Government had passed on such a sound legacy. Yet few acknowledged the turnaround, or credited the Government with it.

    We Conservatives are to blame. In Government, we should have explained more and assumed less. In Opposition, after 1997, we shouldn’t have let myths take root: but we were demoralised by defeat – and did. This enabled Labour to take credit for the economy we had created, and helped keep us out of Office for thirteen years. This is a lesson that should not be forgotten.

    New Labour offers lessons, too. In 1997, they gained a huge majority from a supportive public. They could have done anything. But, after eighteen years out of Office, they were determined not to return to Opposition. The public were told what focus groups said they wished to hear. Good news was announced and re-announced. Bad news was buried. And the electorate was bribed with its own money. Emerging problems were ignored and are still with us.

    The general effect was a giant Ponzi Scheme, in which everyone was made to feel better whilst being fleeced. In its own way, it was genius.

    But it was not serious Government – and those emerging problems are now worse.

    Yet Labour’s neglect of these has left David Cameron an opportunity similar to the one Margaret Thatcher seized: once again, there is a mood of public tolerance to change.

    So let me turn to the future. Our national well-being is the work of generations: the Coalition can make progress, but the challenges are so deep they can’t be overcome in five years. Governments often over-estimate what they can do in five years, but under-estimate what can be achieved in twenty years. We need to think – and plan – long-term.

    This brings me directly to the Coalition Government.

    Many Tories and Liberals are hostile – or, at least, agnostic – to the Coalition. I approve of it. In present circumstances, it has many attractions: not least that two Parties are more likely to enjoy a tolerant electorate for policies that are painful.

    Can a Coalition Government succeed? I think so.

    Coalition, per se, is not a problem. The Conservative Party is, itself, a coalition: a broad Church that is more a way of life than an ideology. To win elections it must attract support from the Centre and, where it can, from the Centre-Left.

    If it falls into schism, it repels electors. Such internecine warfare scarred my own Premiership, and the leadership in Opposition of my three immediate successors. When the Conservative Party shrinks into itself, it shrivels into un-electability, as it did for some years after 1997.

    Can the Coalition achieve its purpose in five years? It will be hard pounding but its programme is essential to national well-being and so, if uncompleted, I hope some way can be found to prolong co-operation beyond this Parliament. It may be that a temporary alliance will turn into a mini realignment of politics: after all, in a world that is changing so comprehensively, why should politics not change, too?

    Neither Party will admit that possibility at present, not least because it would upset their core vote but – if events turn out well for the Coalition – I, for one, would not be surprised at that outcome.

    I seem to recall the Liberal Party was saved as a Parliamentary force in 1951, by the Conservatives not opposing five of its MPs: progressive co-operation is nothing new. It can be done. I am Conservative to the bone but, if it is in the interests of the Country, it may need to be done again.

    The Coalition has a daunting agenda. They must repair our national finances. Restore economic efficiency. Reconfigure foreign and European policy. Help an under-class which few wish to admit is there. Recognise that, while much of our education system is excellent, all of it is not. Reform an out-of-date welfare system, and face the myriad problems of an ageing population.

    Nor is that all. Climate change, population growth and the alleviation of poverty will demand attention. So will trouble spots in the arc of uncertainty from Syria to Pakistan. Do not be surprised if politics is in a hyperactive phase for years to come.

    Some priorities won’t wait. National well-being depends on putting the economy right. So does international influence. And the world won’t stand still while we recover.

    Governments can’t create wealth. The private sector can. To help them, the Coalition need, within this Parliament, to offer certainty in the tax and regulatory regime. Revisit employment law to create jobs. Lower taxes, and remove obstacles to growth. Tone of voice matters, too: the Government must promote success, and condemn the sour envy and resentment that so often derides it.

    There is one old truth that should not be forgotten.

    If the State is too big, the Private Sector will be too small. A smaller State – focused on what it must do and what only it can do – together with a larger private sector is the best way to national prosperity.

    Some may reject this. They like big Government. Labour policy is to regard any “cuts” as a plot to shrink the State, thus ignoring the inconvenient truth that, had they won the election, they would have been forced to a similar policy.

    A smaller State is not a devil-take-the-hindmost policy of pandering to the successful and ignoring the fragile. It is, in fact, quite the reverse.

    We are lost if the private sector doesn’t create jobs and yield tax revenue. We need tax revenue to fund good public services and pay for welfare. If the Government spends taxpayers’ money on what it need not do, it cannot spend money on what does need doing. Anyone who argues against that logic opens up a big gap between themselves and commonsense. Conservatives should not shrink from that debate.

    Nor should they shrink from any debate about how to maximise our national self-interest.

    In the recent Defence Review it was decided to extend the present life of Trident, but not yet to replace it. Few subjects so exercise Conservatives as national security but I believe this was the right decision. A bigger decision on replacement lies ahead with some unavoidable questions: what is the opportunity cost of Trident in the loss of conventional capability? In what circumstances, and upon whom, is Trident likely to be used? These are uncomfortable questions, but they must be answered before billions are committed.

    As our military power is reduced, our “soft” power – that is, diplomacy and the ability to achieve our purpose by persuasion – should be increased. David Cameron and William Hague have seized on this point and it is important they pursue it.

    As a middle-ranking nation, we must make the most of our assets. This means promoting diplomacy, and focusing it rigorously on British priorities. David Cameron’s policy of increasing trade with future economic giants is very much in our national interest. When we export more to Ireland than to China and India, something is wrong.

    Sustaining overseas aid, as the Government is doing, is a legitimate part of this policy. So is boosting education links and improving overseas broadcasting. We are lucky. We have the enviable gift of our language and culture to build on. Soft power must become an indivisible part of long-term policy, not an occasional add-on. This isn’t altruism: it is vital to our own long-term interests.

    Our diplomacy is a priceless asset. In the United Kingdom, our most important alliance is, and will remain, with the United States. We are – to echo David Cameron’s phrase – the junior partner. But our diplomatic skills are certainly no less than America’s and – with our historic experience of troubled regions – we should not hesitate to raise our profile.

    We have often led policy before. In Europe, the Single Market and enlargement were British-led initiatives. The “Safe Havens” for the Kurds policy, which saved hundreds of thousands of Kurdish lives after the first Gulf War, was born in London, created in Europe, promoted through the Commonwealth and imposed in partnership with the United States.

    We should lead more often. If we do, others may follow. We should not under-estimate our influence. And where we have reservations, we should be less ready to follow unquestioningly the lead of the United States. The good partner is not always the pliant partner: sometimes, candid criticism is the best form of friendship. Such a stance is not only more appropriate for a Sovereign and Independent nation like Britain, but we delude ourselves if we don’t recognise the inevitability of America looking more and more to the Pacific. They are realists and we must be so too. Robust British diplomacy will help and not harm the Alliance.

    There is an issue David Cameron and his successors cannot avoid: the character and reputation of Government. Parliament has had some serious setbacks in the last thirty years that have damaged its reputation.

    There are many reasons for this. One is political funding. The present system is not sustainable. When wealthy individuals make large donations – as they do to every mainstream Party – the suspicion lingers, even where it is wholly unjustified, that some of them seek undue influence over policy, or recognition in some other form. This is unhealthy for politics, and a constant headache for Party Leaders. A cap on donations will one day need to be introduced.

    Similar reservations apply to funding from special interest groups, notably Trades Unions and business corporations. Limits must be placed on these contributions and – much though I dislike the thought – if that leaves a funding gap, I would rather Parties trimmed their expenditure, or the taxpayer met it, than our political system was perceived, however unfairly, as shady.

    Greater scrutiny leads to a public awareness of shortcomings among Parliamentarians that may have gone unnoticed in earlier years.
    There have been too many instances of personal frailty in all political Parties: the most damaging are those that involve financial mis-behaviour. Cash for Questions – which occurred in the 1980s but only emerged to cripple the Government of the 1990s: and Cash for Peerages – which erupted in the last decade – were both pivotal to public alienation, as were the spicy revelations about the expenses claims of Parliamentarians in the Lords and Commons.

    Of course, the publicity in some cases was unfair, but the reality of criminal prosecutions shows that much was wrong. This dovetails into a bigger problem: alienation of the electorate. The growth of the far right, the fall in voting levels, the declining involvement in politics, and public estrangement from it, all add to the widespread feeling that Parliament is “out of touch” and politicians and public are too far apart.

    It is easy to see why. People work hard. Pay too much tax. Earn – sometimes a fraction – too much to qualify for social benefits. They fear that if immigration is too high it will cost them their jobs. Better homes seem beyond their means. They worry their children will rack up debt at University.

    These people are not selfish. Or racist. They are worried, some even frightened, by their own circumstances. Often they are economically immobile. They feel trapped. They believe no-one understands. Or cares. The Coalition can offer hope by speaking up and acting for them.

    It won’t be easy. Dis-enchantment is always greatest in difficult policy areas: immigration levels, sink estates, poor schools, taxation, the division of the welfare cake. The Coalition are addressing some of these problems: in all of them, a frankness and candour about the difficulties – and the time required to cure them – would reassure many who feel alienated from the political elite. It is never a mistake to set out long-term objectives if they give hope.

    Other objectives should be to tackle the fearsome bureaucracies that bear down on them. The Man in Whitehall or Town Hall does not know best. They are, too often, arrogant in their treatment of the citizen. We should be wary of the individual liberties they crush.

    Tackle these issues, and the Coalition may hit the political mother-lode. Far more important, they will restore faith in Parliament.

    In so many areas I welcome the ambitions of the Government. It is fashionable to be pessimistic and to sneer that Britain does not count any more.

    I profoundly disagree with such cynicism. It is not only cheap – it is wrong. In the last decade I have travelled the world and seen my own

    Country from afar. I have heard the world’s view of it. And – to that wider world – we do matter.

    We matter because of our history. Our language. Our law.

    And we matter because of what we can do – in commerce and industry, in science, in the City.

    And we matter because of what we are. Our quality as a Partner. Our reputation as an honest broker. Our generous impulse to crisis. Our culture. Our theatre. Our literature. Our tolerant instincts as a Nation.

    Sometimes, in politics, it is necessary to stand back and take stock. Now is such a moment. Our world has many complexities, but far more opportunities. If we arrange our affairs to take advantage of them, our future can be so much more promising than even the most optimistic can believe.

    For nearly seven years I was Prime Minister of this Country. I am proud of much of what we did. There are things I regret we did not do.

    But I was always proud of my Country. Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Its history. Its institutions. Its great figures like Winston Churchill, the Founder of this College. I still am: for all its shortcomings, I know of no place in which I would rather have served. And no place I would rather be.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to the Mexico Chamber of Commerce / COMCE – 13 September 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech to The Mexico Chamber of Commerce / COMCE, held at the Torre Mayor in Mexico City, on Monday 13th September 2010. The speech was entitled “UK and Mexico – Partners in a Changing World”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s always a pleasure to visit Mexico – and never more so than to represent the British Government at your Bicentennial Celebrations.

    For two countries – half a world apart – we have much in common, both in the past and – more important – in the future. We were the first European nation to recognise Mexican independence. British engineers helped Mexico’s early development and – I believe – even introduced football – soccer – to your country.

    Today, we still have much in common. We’re both democracies. We’re free-traders. We work together to solve problems of climate change and sustained development. We both wish to reform out-of-date international institutions – especially financial institutions.

    I could easily extend this list – it would be easy, and comfortable, to do so.

    Instead, I want to refer to one other aspect we have in common: the fact that neither one of us has made as much of the Mexican-British relationship as we could – and should.

    Yes, trade and investment is growing. Yes, we exchange students. Yes, the political relationship is perhaps closer than ever before. I, myself, am here today at the specific request of the Prime Minister – who could not travel here at this time. Proof positive of the UK Government’s wish to increase the personal links that we know are so important in taking our overall relationship further.

    But we could – and should – do so much more. Nor should we be inhibited by the real problems of security and drugs. Both countries are – apart from a few restrictions – open for business, and the opportunities are huge.

    Mexico is, for example, far easier to do business with than China, Brazil or Russia. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world. Mexico is the 14th, and moving up rapidly. The scope for doing so much more is self-evident.

    And it is in both our national interests to do so, as the recent economic downturn has made clear. Mexico becomes less reliant on the US; the UK returns to a traditional Latin American market it has ignored for far too long. As a result, we both widen our markets.

    In a global market, this could happen spontaneously. But we should not leave it to chance. That is why I am delighted that both our Governments are keen to promote greater mutual trade and investment, and I want to commend our Ambassador, Judith McGregor, and the British Embassy, Pro-Mexico, COMCE and the UKTI, for the work they are already doing in this endeavour, not least with our “Think Britain” and “Mexico Matters” initiatives.

    Why is it so important that we act now? Because the world is re-shaping rapidly.

    Today, change is brutally swift. The leaders with whom I once worked are now part of history, although I still see many of them, including your former President, Ernesto Zedillo – a good friend whom I cherish.

    Another was Boris Yeltsin. Alas, no longer with us. Market economics were a mystery to Boris. Once asked him to tell me “State of Russia” in one word. “Good”, when asked in two words, “Not good”. Today we’re passing through a “not good” phase.

    Let me look around the world in which Mexico and the UK must compete: The East, which was not highly indebted, is moving forward swiftly. The West, which was – is not.

    A recovery of sorts has been stimulated – but it has left many Western Governments drenched in debt. What does that mean for the years ahead?

    Some of this is becoming clear.

    America first – since she is crucial to Mexico. The recession ended last autumn, but growth is still weak – and much of it driven by artificial stimuli that will soon be gone. So there is a risk – unlikely, but a risk – that the up-turn will stall – or even fade away.

    The UK and the EU are in a similar position, with one important difference which I will come to later.

    The UK has a new Government – a novel coalition of Conservative and Liberal-Democrats. It is unknown political territory but it does know what needs to be done – and has the Parliamentary majority to do it.

    Economically, the UK – like other nations – is in a difficult situation, and hard decisions will have to be taken in order to stimulate our long-term recovery.

    The new Government is already taking these tough decisions, and has made it clear that we see the emerging markets as playing a key role in that recovery.

    Thanks to the UK opt out from the Euro, we do so against a more positive backdrop than our European partners, who have the additional dimension of Greece – and Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland – all facing debt crises, but who cannot stimulate their economy by devaluing their currency because they are in the Euro. The pain of the recession for them is being felt in slow growth, unemployment and business failures. Some have forecast Greece will leave the Euro or, more dramatically, the Euro will break up. I very much doubt that.

    A bail-out package for Greece has been agreed. Personally, I’m not convinced it will prevent a default or a restructuring – but it buys time for other euro debtors to begin to put their finances in order. Nor will Greece leave the Euro – inside its situation is dire: outside it would be catastrophic.

    As for the Euro, too much political credibility has been invested for it to be abandoned. I don’t say this as a euro-enthusiast.

    In 1991, as Prime Minister, I refused to commit Sterling to the Euro-zone because I did not see how monetary union could work without economic convergence: and I did not believe Greece or Portugal or Italy would match the economic efficiencies of Germany. Nor have they.

    It is due to that 1991 opt-out that the UK is now in a much stronger position for recovery than the Euro-zone.

    Elsewhere, there is a brighter picture. Although the collapse in Western demand hit the Eastern economies, the larger countries – China, India, Indonesia – were not highly leveraged, and have emerged in good order.

    Latin America has changed dramatically for the better over the last two decades. It is now a Continent of increasingly stable democracies. It is not deeply in debt. Its economic fundamentals are stronger much of the developed world: its foreign exchange reserves are at an all-time high.

    Its collective GDP is – to within a whisker – the same as China, and three and a half times that of India. Latin America is in a good position to bounce back from the economic crisis.

    In the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf, some countries were barely affected by the financial turmoil: indeed, most grew around 5% despite the steep drop in the oil price.

    What can we expect as we look forward?

    In the West – more regulation and control. Higher taxes to cut deficits and – in due course – higher interest rates to fund them. Public spending will fall.

    So will private spending, as the impact of high unemployment – and record levels of personal debt – encourage the consumer to save more and spend less. All of this suggests a muted recovery.

    Over recent years, the world has looked enviously at the energy-rich countries – especially in the Gulf – and the spending power of their Sovereign Wealth Funds.

    When oil fell to US$40, OPEC cut output to sustain the price. It has since risen to US$70-80 for two reasons:

    – rising demand as growth returns; and
    – a growth in investment in oil as an asset. In the medium-term, it is more likely to rise further than fall. This is also crucial to Mexico.

    What risks lie ahead?

    Of course, the risk of a double-dip into recession, but that is very unlikely, although growth may slow.

    A greater risk is protection, which is always a danger at times of high unemployment.

    Mini protections – hidden protections – exist almost everywhere. A recent study identified 192 Protectionist measures in OECD countries, with a further 148 in the pipeline: fortunately, many are not obvious or inflammatory. It is gratifying to see that Mexico – under the leadership of President Calderon – continues to promote Free Trade and fight against protectionism in all its forms.

    If protection gets out of hand it is dangerous. It risks retaliation: it was, after all, what caused the problems of 1929/30 to become the prolonged slump of the 1930s as world trade fell by two-thirds. The dangers of protection should always be in our mind.

    It is easy (and fashionable) to be gloomy about the mature Western economies and to look too much to China and the East. We shouldn’t overdo this: the West may not be able to compete on labour costs but while they continue to lead the technological revolution they will remain the key economic players.

    I am here to celebrate the bicentenary of Mexico, but let me touch on some of the areas where there are great shared opportunities for us over the next 200 years:

    Consider science: the first integrated circuit – invented by Jack Kilby in America in 1958 – proved to be the fore-runner of silicon chips containing – literally – billions of microscopic circuit elements. Nothing in the 20th century has so accelerated change; it led to the computer revolution; to the Digital Age. Without that circuit there would be no Silicon Valley; no Internet; no laptop; no Google; no iPods; no Blackberrys, no PlayStations – and none of the hundreds of millions of jobs they have created.

    As science changes how we live, medical science is changing the quality and length of our lives. A hundred years ago, no-one knew of blood groups, hormones or barbiturates. Since then, medicine has given birth to whole new industries. New technologies are delivering better drugs, healthy food, new pesticides, the control of pollution, and advances in forensic medicine.

    Scientists are now examining how to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research so they can target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine – for example – chemotherapy with only minimal side-effects.

    Such science is leading a revolution in medical care: advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for sufferers of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon be possible to replace heart muscle cells.

    A few years ago, all this would have seemed like Black Magic. Soon, fantasy will become reality, with commercial prospects that are simply staggering.

    One continuing headache will be energy supply and energy security.

    We know that coal, oil and gas are going to dominate energy supply for decades to come – irrespective of any advances in solar energy, advanced bio-fuels, fusion and other renewables.

    Since this is so, we need to develop carbon capture and store the carbon residue where it is safe – probably for centuries. This R&D challenge is daunting – and so is the cost – but energy security is a policy no-one dare ignore.

    So is the risk of climate change. Because hard-to-ignore science tells us the risks of global warming are real. Most scientists expect global warming of between two to five degrees. This sounds small – but isn’t: in the depth of the last ice age, the temperature fall was – five degrees.
    Energy security is not the only long-term challenge. In the last fifty years, world population has grown from less than 3 billion to over 6.5 billion. At the birth of Christ, world population was – probably – 300 million. By 1900 – 19 Centuries later – it had grown by something over one billion. We now grow by nearly one billion every decade.

    World population is projected to reach 8 or even 9 billion by 2050. This is like absorbing two more nations the size of China. It offers social threats and economic opportunities.

    We live in a fast-moving, ever-changing, uncertain world, with many risks and challenges ahead – yet there are so many opportunities.

    Over two decades, China and the US have developed a huge inter-locking economic relationship. Japan and China are beginning to repair old scars. Latin America has become a Continent of Democracies. And – until the recession – Africa was growing faster than at any time in our lifetimes. Europe has moved the free market eastwards and southwards.

    In a preface to some famous essays, an English philosopher flatteringly observed to his patron that “You have planted things that are likely to last”.

    As have the UK and Mexico, by working closely together in:

    – Pursuing a global deal on climate change;
    – Fighting protectionism and promoting free trade;
    – Creating a low-carbon global economy.

    But we could do so much more and – by doing so – we will forge a closer, more meaningful relationship between our two nations – for the next 200 years and beyond.

  • Article on the Economy under a Labour Government – 4 April 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on the economy under Labour, published by The Sunday Mail on 4th April 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    On 7th May 1999, Gordon Brown announced that he was planning to sell off 400 tonnes of our natural stock of gold. The British economy was still in good health and required no cash injection, yet he threw away over a half a century’s worth of the country’s inheritance – at the very bottom of the market.

    This catastrophic decision – unilaterally made by Gordon Brown – has lost Britain £6.6 billion – double the cost of Black Wednesday. In fact, to put Black Wednesday in context – the Exchequer now borrows almost £3.3 billion every week, simply to cover Labour’s debts.

    Gordon Brown was warned about the gold sales. Senior Treasury officials cautioned him against it. Investment banks told him the price was too low and would rise. Yet he chose to ignore them all, and claimed he was acting “on the technical advice of the Bank of England”. We now see from documents released under FOI that the Bank of England was, in fact, reluctant to back his proposal, but a key passage still remains blacked out. What is it that the Prime Minister wishes to hide?

    The sale of gold is just one of many decisions that illustrates how the Blair/Brown years have wrecked the golden economic inheritance that the last Conservative Government bequeathed them. Alas, there are plenty more.

    In 1997, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown abolished the Dividend Tax Credit paid to pension funds and companies. It has been estimated that this reckless action may have cost pension funds up to £150 billion.

    Indeed, Tony Blair’s own former pensions advisor stated that Gordon Brown “knowingly destroyed what was once one of the great pension systems in the world and he did it deliberately”. It was economic and social vandalism on a seismic scale.

    The Prime Minister consistently argues that Britain’s deficit has been the result of a global financial storm that started in America, and that spending grew because he did not want to “do nothing” during the recession. This is sophistry beyond the point of deception.

    A huge structural deficit – or government overspending that is with us year on year – has been built up by Gordon Brown since he stopped following the Conservative Government’s spending plans in 2001. As soon as he began to take his own decisions, the decline towards today’s economic train wreck began. Gordon Brown alone built this deficit. He alone is responsible for it. The British people will pay for it.

    And what of “boom and bust”? For years we had to endure the Blair/Brown mantra that they would abolish what they called “Tory boom and bust”. The British people have now discovered the reality. Labour has certainly abolished the boom, and has created an almighty bust. The Blair/Brown “boom” was a fake, built on a mountain of consumer and corporate debt, and the bust has been the longest and deepest – as Alistair Darling himself has admitted – for 60 years.

    Labour’s wild exaggeration about the cost of Black Wednesday was the beginning of a long history of bending statistics to distort truth and rational argument.

    Much of what the Prime Minister himself says is worthy of satire. Last summer, he tried to carry on the pretence that public spending would be increased over the next few years. He claimed repeatedly that expenditure would grow. This was patently absurd. Thankfully, David Cameron managed to change the terms of debate and won the argument that cuts are needed to get our record borrowing under control.
    But some of what the Prime Minister tries to claim is downright deception.

    When his sleight of hand was discovered over the abolition of the 10p tax band in 2007, he dismissed claims that this would hurt the poorest in society, saying “no one would lose out”. But the Institute for Fiscal Studies disagreed. Their own estimate was that 5.3 million families would suffer as a result of this policy.

    Most shamefully, the Prime Minister has deployed the same statistical chicanery on our Armed Forces. In October 2007 – in a cynically-timed visit – he flew to Iraq and told our troops that 1,000 of them would “home by Christmas”. In fact, the troops were just moved around the Gulf region, with an increase of over 500 personnel at sea, and an overall increase of 380 supporting operations in Iraq. Between September and December 2007, there was a reduction of only 430 troops in Iraq.

    Errors of fact in party political dispute can be excused, and even forgiven. But errors of fact affecting our Armed Forces in the field – and their families here at home who live in daily fear for the safety of their loved ones – can neither be excused nor forgiven. If any Prime Minister gives his word to service men and women – especially when they are engaged in active combat – this must be honoured to the letter. They deserve, and should expect, nothing less.

    And yet the deceptions continue: in the past few weeks alone, the Prime Minister has misled the public not once, not twice, but three times. First, he misled the Chilcot Inquiry, then the House of Commons, over defence spending, stating that spending had risen every year, when in fact it fell. Even his apology was disingenuous. He asserted that spending fell in “one or two” years, yet in fact it fell in four years since 1997.
    The Prime Minister then claimed 300,000 businesses had received “cash flow help” from the Government in the recession. Yet he must have known that the actual Government figure is only 160,000.

    Finally, by mingling two entirely separate sets of statistics, the Prime Minister claimed immigration is falling when, in fact, it is rising.
    Such a catalogue of errors is either incompetence or deception. Neither is acceptable nor worthy of the Office of Prime Minister.
    Gordon Brown’s personal decision to sell our gold at rock bottom prices – and for no good reason – cost Britain the equivalent of two Black Wednesdays. He has destroyed pensions. He has wrecked the economy. He has doubled the national debt and will do so again. Most regrettably of all, after thirteen years of this Labour Government, the word of the Prime Minister can no longer be trusted.

    When New Labour came to power it was hailed as a new dawn. But the sun is now setting. In May 1997, they inherited what Tony Blair’s own economic adviser termed a “better [economy] than that of any [incoming Government] in living memory”. They had the trust and goodwill of the British people. They have squandered it all.

    “A future fair for all” is Labour’s slogan in this election year. But having been let down so badly by this Labour Government in the past, how on earth can the British people believe they will be any better off with them in the future?

    Labour has had long enough to prove it is a Party fit to govern and has comprehensively failed that test. Time has finally run out for them and I hope that, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister will call the Election for which the country has been crying out for so long, and which he can no longer avoid.

  • Article on the Economy – 21 February 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on the economy, published by The Sunday Mail on Sunday 21st February 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The central issue at the next election is – trust.

    “Things can only get better” trilled Labour in 1997. How wrong they were. The British electorate trusted Labour to inherit the most stable and competitive economy in Europe, and to invest wisely for the future. Yet over thirteen wasted years, our public finances have been squandered, and our economy is in a dire state. The damage they have done is so extensive it is hard to quantify.

    The total British national debt has more than doubled. Our annual debt has soared to levels never before seen in our history. We are unlikely – ever – to be able to reduce our overall debt to the low level of where the last Conservative Government left it in 1997.

    The last decade under Blair/Brown has been the worst for growth since the 1930s. Manufacturing is declining at a record rate. The City is wounded, with bits of it scarcely out of intensive care. The Stock Market has slumped. Our competitive advantage has been lost. The UK was the last but one nation in the G20 to come out of recession – and even then at only 0.1%. True to form, this Labour Government, like every single one of its predecessors, has wrecked the British economy and bequeathed a crisis.

    But the issue of trust is much wider than policy failures. The Labour Government is not candid – either with itself or the electorate. Even its statistics mislead. The debt to which they admit excludes large sums they have kept off the balance sheet. The unemployment figures only represent one-half of men and women of working age who are not gainfully employed. Labour continue to blame all our economic woes on the worldwide recession – another smokescreen. Of course the global situation was a contributing factor, but it was the UK Government that destroyed pensions; failed to regulate the Banks; and turned a blind eye to a mountain of national and personal debt.

    I do not believe most people yet realise how serious this debt is: the Labour Government are having to borrow £500 million-a-day. In the time it has taken to read this article, they will have borrowed another £3.5 million – more than most people could even dream of earning in several lifetimes. And yet it is these very people – the taxpayers – who will have to repay this debt and, while they do so, suffer the impact of cuts in services. Every one of us faces a decade of stringency because of Labour’s folly and mismanagement.

    Nor have Labour produced a fairer society with the money they have spent. The gap between rich and poor has widened, sink estates have worsened, social mobility has fallen and failing schools cripple the prospects of too many children. This is not fairness. It is failure.

    Try as they might, Labour cannot defend their record in Government, so their policy is to resort to their old trick of attacking their opponents with a barrage of fantasy claims, and what Churchill termed “terminological inexactitudes”. As they do, they widen still further the growing wedge between a disbelieving public and our political system.

    Why do they say what they know to be untrue? The Prime Minister tried to draw a (wholly false) distinction between Tory “austerity” and Labour “aspiration”. Alistair Darling up-ended that fiction. Austerity is unavoidable whoever forms the next Government. Labour know this, yet the Prime Minister offers false optimism, when what the electorate deserves is a stark and truthful assessment of the facts. For in time – after the election – the bleak truth will be all too apparent, and trust in politicians – and politics – will have been further eroded.

    The Prime Minister feeds the public with a diet of nonsense, telling us that tackling the deficit is his priority, whilst promising increased expenditure for popular services. The disconnect between the Prime Minister’s fantasy and the real world becomes ever wider. And yet he continues to make claims that are easily contradicted by the evidence. How can trust possibly be maintained? And how have we come to this?

    My own view is that – since the advent of New Labour – a once principled Labour Party has lost its political conscience and moral compass. From 1994 onwards, they existed only to win elections. Nothing mattered other than peddling back to the electorate what their polling had told them the electorate wished to hear. To win successive elections, they unleashed a private sector boom and public profligacy which the Treasury could not afford. And, as taxpayers basked in a false prosperity, a culture of deceit took root. People up and down the UK now see – and feel – the result of this reckless policy.

    Nor was this strategy restricted to economic and social policy. The findings of the Chilcott Inquiry may yet show us that public presentation and private reality were in conflict, even in matters of War: we shall see. However, it is certain that few soldiers (or their families) will forget that our Servicemen and women were sent to Afghanistan with the promise that “not a shot would be fired”. Such careless policy costs lives: already, alas, more than were lost in the Falklands conflict. This is emphatically not trustworthy Government.

    “Oh well”, people say as they shrug their apathetic shoulders, “that’s politics”. No, it is not. No-one should accept the way Labour massage facts to suit their purpose. Politics isn’t a game to be played out with a nod, a wink and a soundbite – it’s deadly serious and affects the lives of each and every one of us. I concede readily that when the Tories were in Government we got some things wrong, but we never lost sight of what was right, even when facing electoral defeat. And we never mortgaged the nation’s future to buy the nation’s votes.

    Deceiving the electorate should be a capital crime politically and yet, under Labour, the public has become inured to it. They should be outraged. When Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as Prime Minister, he promised to end the black arts of spin. This is yet another empty pledge from Labour, for Gordon Brown continues to preside over a swollen army of practitioners, whose role is to mislead the very people who are paying their salaries: the British taxpayer.

    But deception is not limited to these back-room figures. “Only 3,000 people will benefit from the Tory proposals on Inheritance Tax”, claimed one Cabinet Minister, whereas the true figure is 4 million. Another senior Labour figure claims the Tories will only cut tax for the rich. Such fatuous untruths are not accidental. They are a sub-text of Labour’s class war: the purpose is to promote envy, from which they hope to benefit electorally.

    Labour’s theme is that all Tories are “toffs”, who know nothing about ordinary people. What inverted snobbery this is – and what a grotesque travesty of the truth. I wonder how many readers of this article who vote Tory live a carefree and leisurely life?

    How many have not faced problems with bills, mortgages and family crises? Of course they have – we all have – Tories or not. As a Tory, I look back to my own “privileged” upbringing – full of all the luxuries offered in a multi-occupied, multi-racial house in Brixton. Labour’s class-based politics, setting citizen against citizen in order to win votes, can never bring social cohesion on the streets of Britain. It is a contemptible piece of politics.

    Another Labour claim is that “experienced” Gordon Brown is better equipped to clear up the mess (albeit one which he created), than the “callow” Tories. “The test of a Government”, stated the Prime Minister at his Party Conference, “is the quality of its judgement”. Quite so – but this hardly helps Labour’s case:

    Was it good judgement – or even legally right – to go to war in Iraq; or to move into Afghanistan with no clear military objective; or to under-equip our troops in both wars?

    Was it good judgement to lead the UK into record debt? Or to remove the safeguards that were in place pre-May 1997, which could have minimised the damage caused by the global crisis? Or to sell our Gold reserves at the very bottom of the market for no good purpose?

    Was it good judgement to reverse Conservative policies on health and education when they came into Government, only to re-introduce them, in re-packaged form, a few years later?

    Was it good judgement to force through 24-hour drinking, which has led to more anti-social behaviour and inner city crime? Or to pile so much paper-work on the police, that they spend more time form-filling and less in protecting our neighbourhoods?

    If judgement is the test, this Labour Government has failed spectacularly.

    “Things can only get better”, yet – over thirteen years – “New” Labour have undermined Parliament; taken us to war on a false premise; embellished that error by linking Iraq to the 9/11 attack on New York for which there is not a shred of evidence; affronted civil liberties in an over-reaction to the terrorist threat; brought the independence of the Civil Service into question; and made a mockery of the criminal justice system.

    The poet Philip Larkin once wrote: “Most things are not meant.” Labour did not mean to damage our national wellbeing, but they have. They did not mean to damage our personal liberty, but they have. They did not mean to undermine Parliament, but they have.

    Larkin was right, most things are not meant, but his poem was even more prescient than you may think. It is entitled: “Going, Going”. Let us hope – for all our sakes – it is not long before this Labour Government is finally gone gone.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on the Economy – 5 July 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments on the economy, made in an interview on 5th July 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    [Sir John was asked how deep the recession is].

    I think it’s as deep as I can ever remember. If you look at the contraction in the economy which is close to 5% on a year on year basis and then look at the size of the deficit, which is 175 billion or thereabouts on best estimates, about 12% of GDP, that’s a territory we have never before been in in peace-time, so this is about as bad as it has ever got, so I think the recovery pattern, you may get a small dead cat bounce here and there, but I think the recovery pattern will be very slow, and the pace and strength of the recovery may well depend on decisions yet to be taken about public expenditure and tax.

    [Sir John was asked about stories of severe public service cuts].

    I’m unsurprised by that story, I would be very surprised if departments up and down Whitehall and local authorities up and down the country weren’t looking at very significant reductions in expenditure at the current time. It would be remiss of them not to do so.

    I think one just has to look at the figures. If you’re talking of a public sector deficit of 12%, let us make the happy assumption that half of that may be wiped away by growth over the next few years, I think it’s questionable that it will, but on happier assumptions, it just conceivably might. You’ve still got a public sector deficit of around 90 billion, even that is over twice as high as we have ever had before, at the worst of any recession, even assuming we have that growth.

    Either we deal with that with public expenditure reductions or we deal with it in tax rises, or more likely a mixture of both. Let us assume for a moment that the Prime Minister’s plan not to cut public expenditure significantly holds steady. If that is the case, then you are then beyond a shadow of doubt facing very significant tax increases. Now difficult to be precise of how big, but I think we can begin to make a guess.

    [Sir John was asked whether taxes could only be on the rich].

    No, well of course, there’s already been an increase in the upper rate of 10% from 40% to 50%, but the rich can’t remotely provide the sort of money we’ll be needing, that’s relative petty cash of what we’ll be needing.

    So you’ve had an increase of 10p in the upper rate for the rich, I think you may well get 5 pence on the standard rate, you might well get VAT at 20%. Even if you got that, you would not begin to bridge the gap that must be bridged. So it would be significantly larger than that, on the assumption you aren’t going to make public expenditure reductions.

    So I think the debate needs now to concentrate on the reality of where we are, and it doesn’t matter who is in Government now, this mess isn’t going to change with a change of government, someone, whoever is in Government now or later, is going to have to correct the public finances. And if they don’t, if they just continue with the finances of this huge deficit, at some stage our national credit rating would collapse, if that happened, sterling would be in difficulty, if that happened you’re get soaring interest rates and all the good done in the 90s when we took a lot of pain to get inflation down would have been thrown away.

    So the situation we are now in is pretty serious and has been built up over many years. Normally in years when you have a good economic record, you begin to repay debt and you bring the deficit down. What has happened, particularly since 1999, is that even in good years with a boom, the debt has risen. Now of course the boom has gone, we have the debt, and we have the problems of recession, adding to that on a daily basis.

    [Sir John was asked if he spoke to current Conservative leaders].

    My conversations with current Conservatives is private and I have my own views, and I speak for myself and no-one else.

    I think the public really need to understand how deep this is. These silly exchanges about “Mr 10%”, and things of that sort, totally under-rate the difficulties that we are now facing. People need to understand that this is an unprecedented situation. We have never seen anything like this in your lifetime or mine.

    [Sir John was asked about whether politicians can now talk more about tax increases].

    It may well be if you talk about cuts you get punished by the electorate as you did in the past. There are two things crossing over here, there is the question of whether you can talk about cuts and the question of trust. Trust has been eroded over a long period and I think the present Government have done a great deal of damage to trust in Parliament and to trust in Government. But now, the public are going to find out in the next few years exactly how serious what is now happening will be.

    I think the party that tells them the truth, in the most explicit terms, will be the long-term gainer. Whether they will be the immediate short-term gainer in the battle of oratory between now and the General Election I can’t say, but in the medium and long term, the party that tells the public how deep the problem is and what needs to be done about it is the party that will earn the respect of the public and the trust of the public and the party that will be the long-term gainer, in my view.

    I think we have to address the reality, you have a deficit of 180 billion;

    Can you continue with that? No.

    Have you got to narrow it? Yes.

    Can that be done solely by growth? No.

    So how do you bridge the gap, and what are the implications of that?

    And there are some opportunities here. When people think of cuts, I would argue that we are a heavily over-governed nation. When you have subsidy to some parts of the country greater than that is provided in Cuba, you realise you are beginning to become a bit of a nanny state.

    There is an opportunity not just to deal with the problem, but to downside the sum total of Government, which I think we should do. And by downsize the sum total of Government, I don’t just mean reduce the number of MPs, although I think that is right. I do mean reduce the size of the Government machine, we have no need for a 120 Ministers and 60 PPSs, and you could reduce that by a third quite comfortably, and

    I’d happily explain how.

    And then when you’ve done that and down-sized Parliament in that respect, I think you downsize what Government does. You can’t forever have the Government increasing its role at the expense of private endeavour and the private sector. It is a route that ends eventually in national bankruptcy, which is where the Government are heading us.

    So I think there is a philosophical opportunity to reshape the country as you deal with the problem.

    [Sir John was asked whether this was a 1979 moment].

    I very much hope that will be the case, though in many cases the problems now are more serious than 1979. 1979 was very bad, and it was only because of the disaster of the 1970s that the reforms of the 1980s were politically possible.

    I think now, with the problems we’ve got, that there is scope for bigger and more fundamental changes in the next Parliament and beyond.

    [Sir John was asked whether David Cameron was a Margaret Thatcher politician].

    I think he’s a David Cameron politician. No-one can know what someone is like until they’re in the position. And often events make people. And I think he’s going to face some very uncomfortable decisions in the future. I think he’s done a remarkable job of changing the Conservative Party in the right direction for the last two or three years, so I have a very high opinion of him and I very much hope he can do what still needs to be done.