The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Inflation

  • 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.

  • 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 at the Carlton Club Political Committee Dinner – 16 June 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Carlton Club Political Committee Dinner, held at the Carlton Club in London on Tuesday 16th June 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    When Tim Eggar invited me to join you this evening, I didn’t realise I would be doing so at such a surreal moment.

    Just over a week ago, we had a Cabinet reshuffle beyond parody, with an outcome beyond belief.

    Before it began, Ministers were queuing to leave the Government rather than join it. When it was complete, the Prime Minister had himself been reshuffled. The Prime Minister’s allies told us we could not have another unelected Prime Minister in this Parliament. But now we have – doubly unelected since he’s in the Lords. He may not have the title Prime Minister but, if not, it’s the only one he doesn’t have.

    If newspaper reports are to be believed, a tired and fractious Gordon Brown was sent to bed on Thursday evening, whilst the new First Minister set about finalising the Ministerial changes. Presumably the next morning, Gordon was informed he had:-

    A Chancellor of the Exchequer he tried to sack;

    A Foreign Secretary he didn’t want to keep; and

    A brand new Cabinet appointment: former social worker Tessa Jowell, whose responsibility seems to be “Caring for Gordon”. She is No. 10’s own Supernanny.

    Poor Gordon. No more late nights. No more early mornings. No more playing with the computer after lights out. No more YouTube. No more voting for TV talent shows. No more throwing things around the room. And if there’s one more tantrum – Gordon will be sent straight to the Naughty Step.

    I told you it was beyond parody. Unfortunately, with things as they are, it is not beyond belief.

    Nor is Gordon’s capacity to undermine the Office of Prime Minister. Given everything else that should be occupying his mind at the moment, is it really a good use of his time to make telephone calls checking on the progress of a talent show singer? Frankly, I’d be more impressed if he’d taken time out to check on the progress of our limbless soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    At the moment there’s a general assumption that the Conservatives will win the next election. Certainly, Labour can’t. Nor can the Lib Dems.

    But we can’t yet be confident we will get a clear majority. Winning the General Election is still unfinished business.

    When we lost – in 1997 – we had been in Government for 18 years: so long, many electors thought a fifth successive win would be bad for democracy.

    But it is ironic that the electorate turfed out the only Government in the last 50 years to leave Office with every single economic indicator improving, and elected a Party that has nearly bankrupted the Nation.

    When the economic crisis began, Gordon Brown blamed America. He stopped when Barack Obama became President. After all – it’s difficult to kick ass when you’re licking boots. So now the Prime Minister refers to the global crisis. Of course there is an international dimension, but to blame others for our mess is, at best, a half-truth. It’s a very New Labour response: political self-interest comes first. National well being trails far behind. And the unvarnished truth scarcely gets a look-in.

    The truth is starker. Even if there had been no international crisis:

    – We would still be in recession.
    – Our national and personal debt levels would still be at record highs.
    – Our banking system would still have been poorly regulated.
    – Our pension system would still have been wrecked.
    – Our education system would still need reform.
    – Our health system would still be unable to cope.
    – And our prison system would still be overflowing with prisoners who need not be there, whilst others who should be there are being released early.

    None of that can be blamed on America.

    At the wrong end of these policy failures – are innocent individuals.

    Everyone has three pillars to their security: job; pension; home. After twelve years of Labour, none of them is secure. In time, property values will recover. But, for many, the other pillars will not recover in time to help them.

    Unemployment is rising rapidly: anyone over 40 will find it hard to get another job at a comparable income. The impact on domestic life is immense.

    For those coming up to retirement, the future is bleak:

    Pensions based on the level of retirement income are dead – Gordon Brown killed them with a tax levy; and

    Pensions based on investment value have collapsed – destroyed because Gordon Brown ignored the growth of debt.

    Millions paid into a UK pension fund for nearly 40 years: now they are finding the lump sum due to them is down by one-third, with the yearly annuity down by 40%. That is not a one-year loss: it’s a loss for the rest of their lives.

    Nor can they sell their houses to make a capital gain: the collapse in property prices has closed that option.

    Savers suffer too: with interest rates at record low levels, their savings no longer earn any income.

    These are Labour’s victims: all innocent bystanders. So are the secondary victims. Many retirees help their adult children become home-owners; or pay for the education of their grandchildren. In future, fewer will be able to do so. Children and grandchildren lose out.
    Labour caused this. No-one else: they cannot put it right. No one asks the mugger to set the broken bones.

    But a Conservative Party can do so – provided we put the individual in the forefront of our policy – and our oratory.
    Labour inherited a flourishing economy: like every Labour Government before then. They will be leaving a train wreck – worse, even, than 1979. Taxpayers will be repaying Labour’s debts for the next two decades.

    Because – be in no doubt: we are not simply facing a short-term crisis. What has occurred will affect politics for years. Labour’s legacy won’t disappear with a change of Government. It can’t be glossed over or pushed aside: ahead lie decisions as serious as any taken – during peace-time – in living memory.

    We should say that: this country is crying out for someone to speak to it directly and honestly; to tell them what has happened and why; and what now must be done. With wise policy, this can be an opportunity. Out of such crises often come great changes. That is the task for David Cameron. Necessity compels us to cut our cloth according to our means. We can do that in one of two ways.

    We could simply top slice budgets, with everyone bearing an equal share of the pain. That is easy to do but – a mistake.

    Or we could prioritise. We could re-shape Government, reduce it in size, be selective about what Government does, cut out whole functions, abolish unnecessary bodies, cut quangos, end the billions wasted on consultancies, on rebranding, and on fake schemes that serve only as political window-dressing. This needs doing – and the crisis presents that opportunity.

    The screams of outrage would be shrill, but we should not shrink from a truth the public recognise: we cannot go on living in a financial never-never land.

    And there is a philosophical point here that is critical to our future.

    Of course, we must be compassionate. Heartless politics is divisive. To many, it can be frightening. But compassionate policies do not necessarily mean big government. We are over-governed. Smaller government is necessary now for financial reasons: but it is also desirable. Tories should not be defensive about it. Our aim should always be to extend liberty and choice – not to restrict it or bind it in smothering regulation.

    We should not accept that big is better. Big government restrains and confines; it weakens ambition; it cuts back on opportunity and it undermines enterprise. Often, it is anti-libertarian. For many people – unfamiliar with government and perhaps unsophisticated about it – it induces wariness, even fear, of The Man in Whitehall. “They” – Whitehall and politicians – “know best”; “are in charge”; “must be obeyed and not challenged”: this is appalling – “they” are our servants, not our masters in a free society.

    Labour’s old scare tactic – that we will cut public spending and they won’t – is back again. But that’s not the difference between us: the difference is we’re telling the Country the truth – and they are not.

    We must spend within our means or face widespread tax increases – milking the rich will not raise enough. Unless spending is concentrated on what is essential, everyone will be milked. And if we put up taxes to pay for more and more spending, we will entrench high unemployment too – because we will have crushed investment and savings. That is a message we must get across.

    None of this will be comfortable, but it’s essential Government becomes a serious business once again – and not the soap opera it has become. And it’s essential the public are told the truth – and not the puerile easy-to-spot lies with which Labour now insult our intelligence.

    In an attempt to regain the political initiative we can expect some ill-thought-out policies. One might be electing all (or most of) the House of Lords. The argument is that election confers legitimacy: true – but, sadly, it doesn’t confer talent or wisdom or experience or knowledge.

    An elected Lords would be a pale shadow of the Commons but, being elected, would challenge it. It would give more political clout to the Whips and less brain-power to the scrutiny of legislation. The plain truth is that electing the Lords is a populist gesture that would seriously weaken the way Parliament works.

    Out would go Field-Marshals, Cabinet Secretaries, former senior Ministers, Captains of Industry, Church Leaders and Academics.

    Out would go men and women of proven ability and achievement.

    In would come a new would-be professional political class who couldn’t get elected to the Commons.

    It would be a poor bargain for good government: akin to polluting vintage port with tap water. But very New Labour.

    Over twelve years, New Labour have debased 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 thread of evidence; affronted civil liberties in an over-reaction to the terrorist threat; and made a mockery of the criminal justice system.

    In our country we have always valued personal privacy: it’s why we cherish the secret ballot and the right to silence. In cliché terms, an Englishman’s home has always been his castle. No longer. New Labour have ushered in what the Information Commissioner calls “a surveillance society”. In the atmosphere of fear-mongering, all this has passed relatively unchallenged. It is time it was.

    Nor is there a case for the National Identity Register to hold the DNA of innocent people never charged with an offence. And it cannot be acceptable that our homes or cars can be bugged, our letters and emails intercepted and opened – without the sanction of the High Court. All this is legal under legislation introduced by Labour and passed by its supine backbenchers.

    For too long we have been drifting with our eyes closed towards a siege society with too much of our nation becoming clients of Government spending or Government contracts or Government subsidy. This is alien to our instincts and our history and our national self-interest.

    Change is essential or decline is certain.

    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. Larkin was right: “Most things are not meant”, but his poem was even more prescient. It is entitled: “Going, Going”. Let us hope it is not long before they are gone.

  • Sir John Major’s Article on Gordon Brown – 7 May 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on Gordon Brown, published in the Daily Telegraph on 7th May 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    In recent days, there have been many comparisons drawn between the present plight of the Labour Government and the final months of its Conservative predecessor. Similarities there may be – but the differences are striking.

    The Conservatives were in their 18th year of government: Labour is in its 12th. The Conservatives had no majority, and were at the mercy of a handful of rebels: Labour still enjoys a large majority. Conservative divisions were over policy – notably Europe – in which the dissenters believed they must prevail for the national interest: Labour has no such excuse. And – crucially – the Tory economy was well on track to full vigour: Labour’s is in the mire.

    In the mid-1990s, I was acutely aware the Tories were likely to lose the election. Indeed, on the morrow of the 1992 election victory, Chris Patten and I speculated on the unlikelihood of a fifth win: it was, we thought, stretching the democratic elastic just too far.

    Throughout the 1992-97 parliament, we tried to do what we believed was right for the country, although much of our programme was controversial – especially in our own party. We persevered with policies we believed would curb inflation and bring long-term economic benefit. So they did, but at the expense of our electoral prospects.

    Labour, by contrast, has retreated to tactics I believe they will live to regret. Too often, in the face of public hostility, they cite the last Conservative government as a precedent, the not-so-subliminal message being: “They’re worse than us.”

    It is not convincing. Take the roasting they received for mishandling the Gurkhas: Labour’s defence was that the Conservative government “had never done anything about it”. Nor had earlier Labour governments, and for the same reason: it had not been an issue. And if it had been an issue, why was there not a peep from Labour about it in the 1990s? Opposition days in Parliament are not a New Labour invention.

    After 12 years in office, excuses such as this are bordering on the desperate.

    Why do they do it? Habit, of course, for fact has never got in the way of New Labour fiction – it has been in their DNA since the mid-1990s.

    But now it seems they have lost all touch with reality: in their minds, what they say is truth, even if the facts don’t support it. Such delusion is dangerous – especially for a government.

    And it is continual. Since the Prime Minister can no longer defend Labour policies, he attacks a fictional Tory past at almost every Prime Minister’s Questions. To Mr Brown, the Tories are the enemy, therefore any criticism – however wrong or distorted – is permissible. Let us take one of his familiar attacks on David Cameron, flawed from beginning to end. According to Mr Brown, Mr Cameron was adviser to Norman Lamont when he raised interest rates to 15 per cent, and created three million unemployed. This is ludicrous. The belief that a 26-year-old political adviser would have been responsible for a Conservative government’s economic policies is fanciful. And – in any event – how does Mr Brown know what advice Mr Cameron offered his minister? He may well have advised against the government’s policies and been over-ruled.

    But Mr Brown doesn’t care: he simply wants to smear Mr Cameron for events over which he knows he had no control. The premise of his argument is also incorrect: interest rates were not raised to 15 per cent by Norman Lamont in the 1990s, but by Nigel Lawson in the 1980s.

    As chancellor, Norman reduced them from 14 per cent to 6 per cent.

    The Prime Minister is wrong about unemployment, too. First, a pedantic point: it did not reach three million under the Conservative government, but peaked well below. Furthermore, it was rising sharply long before Norman Lamont became chancellor, and David Cameron his adviser. Mr Brown knows all this, yet persists with charges that are fundamentally unworthy.

    And he is not alone. Other ministers continue to claim that Labour inherited three million unemployed whereas, in 1997, the claimant count was 1.6 million and falling rapidly.

    But Labour has not won three elections by allowing truth to get in the way of a good smear. The uncomfortable reality for Labour is that, however unpopular the last Conservative administration may have been, it was the only government in the last 50 years to leave office with every single economic indicator improving.

    In 1996-7, the economy had been growing for five years, and borrowing – now the nation’s nemesis – was £22 billion (although one of Labour’s “recalculations” upped it to £35 billion).

    Even so, the estimate for the current year is a staggering £175 billion. Similarly, total debt has doubled, and the taxpayer will be funding Labour’s debt mountain for many years to come.

    That the Conservatives bequeathed such a buoyant economy is not a truth universally acknowledged, for – in order to claim credit for the economy – Labour has peddled “disinformation” about its inheritance from the day it took office. The truth – apparent to independent economists – is that the years of prosperity under Labour were based on Conservative supply side changes (in the 1980s) and Tory destruction of inflation (in the 1990s).

    Did Labour build on that legacy? No. Instead, they squandered it, and will leave the country near bankrupt as a result. This slide from riches to rags inspires another Labour deception: that our present woes are entirely due to the financial crisis that began in America. Of course, there is an international dimension, but Labour’s alibi is – at best – a half-truth. Even if there had been no international crisis, the UK would still be in recession; our debts would still be at record levels; our pension system would still be wrecked; our education system would still need reform; our health system would still be unable to cope; and our prison system would still be overflowing with inmates who should not be there, while others who should are being released early.

    The Prime Minister hopes to win the next election but, in his heart, he must recognise his party is likely to lose. I offer him one piece of genuinely well-meant advice: fight the next election on policies, not personalities; on fact, not fiction; on substance, not spin. The people of this country deserve such a campaign, so that they can make an informed choice.

    It may not win Labour the next election, but Gordon Brown will leave office a more contented man.

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Good morning.

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    Because there’s been too much borrowing?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes.

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    And then another kind of boom in the 20s.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well it’s curious.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I mean I’m talking about personal debt.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    So?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    So? This is economically disastrous.

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you think ministers are scaring people too much?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well there are.

    ANDREW MARR:

    At least Gordon Brown is saying something.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you’d help the housing market.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    So we’re in a different position?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    So you’d accept it as an analysis?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    OK.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It will get the lifeblood of industry flowing to industry.

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you.

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    Welcome Sir John.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Good morning Andrew.

    ANDREW MARR:

    How bad is it going to get in your judgment?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

    So the circumstances are different from the nineteen nineties.

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Oh I think more than that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    More than double? Where would you put it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    But roughly?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    Actions and spending too much?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there have been so many technical changes.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s impossible?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    figures they produce. I think that is true.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Right.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    Fear is toxic and…

    ANDREW MARR:

    And it’s spreading?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    Inevitably. It always is.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    But of course it was wholly misunderstood.

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes.

    ANDREW MARR:

    It’s quite similar to what you were saying.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well indeed it isn’t.

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    Is there anything can be done about this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

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

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 16 December 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 16th December 2007.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now of course one of the big events from the past year was Tony Blair’s exit from office.

    Already the histories and political obituaries have been written, but so far his predecessor in No. 10 has been virtually silent on the New Labour years. John Major joins us now to look back over the last year. Welcome, thank you very much for coming in.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My pleasure.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s start with the economy, because some people might say it’s a sense of déjà vu, house prices under pressure, coming down again, the kind of outlook that we haven’t maybe had since the immediate days around Black Wednesday?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well that of course was exactly what I inherited when I became Prime Minister, there were some similarities with now, we were going into a recession, it was clearly going to be very deep. And it took a long time to get out of it.

    But if you recall, when we left office in 1997 I think we probably left the best economy any government has left for the last 50 years. We had had five years of consistent growth every quarter, falling interest rates, falling unemployment, increasing growth, for a long period.

    It wasn’t created by the present Labour government it was there in place when they took office. But of course they have always used Black Wednesday to mask that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I mean it has to be said that they then picked up that ball, as it were, and ran with it for a long time?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes they did, to a certain extent and the fact that they haven’t wrecked the economy is something one can give them credit for. But I think it’s now beginning to unravel in quite a serious way.

    If you look at what has happened over the last ten years, there were going to be no tax increases, specifically there were going to be no tax increases on pensions. In fact a specific tax increase on pensions has wrecked final salary pension schemes and wrecked the security of many pensioners.

    But you now see over the full ten years we have dropped significantly in competitiveness, productivity is down over those ten years. We have had a tax increase almost every month for the last ten years, on average. We’ve had 111 tax increases over that period.

    The economy is now clearly running into some significant difficulties, and there are two events, two events that are specifically related to the government policy that have caused huge problems. One of them you’ve referred to them already this morning, Northern Rock, and I’ll come back to that in a moment.

    The other of course was the then Chancellor’s decision to sell gold. He sold gold quite gratuitously, something like 395-400 tonnes of gold at an average price of, I think, about $275. The loss to the exchanges from that decision is now in excess of the loss to the exchanges on Black Wednesday, in excess of the Black Wednesday costs.

    ANDREW MARR:

    From your point of view, Golden Tuesday or whatever it was, is worse than Black Wednesday?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well in terms of the loss to the exchanges most certainly it’s a different political damage. But in terms of the loss to the exchanges it most certainly is. And I hope it will stop the Prime Minister talking about ten successful years because they haven’t been entirely successful. And that absurdity that he sometimes turns to, that he appears to blame David Cameron who was a bag carrier for Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday, as though David was at all responsible, for he wasn’t.

    The second point of course is Northern Rock. We don’t yet know what the cost of Northern Rock to the Economy will be. But it is quite likely, not certain, but quite likely that it will exceed the cost for the taxpayer of either Black Wednesday or of the sale of gold. And that runs specifically from changes to the system introduced by the then Chancellor in 1997.

    ANDREW MARR:

    The regulatory system?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The regulatory system.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Right. I wondered in the final film that Tony Blair made about looking back over, looking back in part, over his ten years, what you felt when he said maybe he’d been a little bit rough in going for you over sleaze?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I didn’t watch it, I didn’t watch the film, but I read about it. But I think there is a clear-cut distinction between what was called sleaze in the 1990s and what has happened since 1997. Lots of people misbehaved in the ’80s and in the ’90s, but they were all individuals, it was never institutional, it was never related specifically to the Conservative Party or to the Conservative Government.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You don’t think there was a culture of overseas business people putting money in, sort of behind the back of the political system?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think there was a culture. I mean I devolved responsibility for party fundraising when I became Prime Minister, so I had no direct hand in it. But, no I don’t think so. But what happened in the 1990s, there was a deliberate attempt to portray the Conservative Party as an institution, it was almost McCarthyite frankly, as though it were sleazy, and it wasn’t.

    The distinction is that sleaze has seemed to be systemic since 1997. I mean, I can see a clear pattern, you probably remember the Ecclestone affair in, I think, November 1997. We have Abrahams in November 2007, and serial offences in between those two dates. 2002, when I think they were taking money from Mr. Desmond, the Labour Party set up a committee and decided they would vet every future donor. Well it clearly wasn’t very successful vetting, from what we’ve seen subsequently.

    So I do think that they have every reason to regret what they did in the 1990s, but I must say I was sorry when the Prime Minister apologised for the fact that it had bounced back on the Labour Party. I think he should have apologised for the fact that it wasn’t true what he was saying in the 1990s. And to accuse people in the Cabinet, a Cabinet that had people like Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Malcolm Rifkind, Ken Clarke, Gill Shepherd, Virginia Bottomley, John Gummer, Peter Brooke – to accuse them of being part of a sleazy government is just unscrupulous.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Do you think that Tony Blair has presided over a corrupt government?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think it’s corrupt, no I don’t use the word corrupt, I think they have been careless. I think they have had a huge majority and they have been careless, I think that’s what it is. I don’t accuse them of corruption and I wouldn’t accuse them of corruption. I don’t think most politicians, occasionally there’s a bad apple in the barrel. We are in parliament a microcosm of the nation, there are bad applies. But I don’t think that. But I do think it was institutionally careless in the grand manner.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And why do you think that happened, simply because they thought when Tony Blair said I’m a pretty straight kind of guy, he sort of believed it therefore?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think if they were to say today, whiter than white or purer than pure, I think people would just laugh. And I think that is sad for the sake of the whole system. But there were of course a whole series of slogans then that look pretty stupid now – Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime – well we now have prisoners being let out early, gun crime up, violent crime up, total crimes up.

    It really hasn’t lived up to the billing and you could say that in the National Health Service, 24 hours to save it, well it’s a lot longer than 24 hours. And you don’t have to take my word, take Derek Wanless’s word, we are not on our way yet, to a world class health service despite huge extra taxation going into it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I imagine that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair would say we’ve all had the same problem with party funding, it’s something that’s bedevilled British politics in Margaret Thatcher’s time, in John Major’s time, and now in our time too. And there does need to be a better way of dealing with this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think a better way is more money from the taxpayer, I know there seems to be a communal view that it is a good idea from all the parties, I don’t personally agree with it. And I don’t agree with it specifically for this reason – I think, apart from the fact I don’t think it’s right for the taxpayer to pay, but let us even put that to one side, there’s another practical reason. If too much of party funding comes directly from the taxpayer a great deal of the activity at the grass roots that brings a party together, that makes a party, that keeps the politicians in touch with the grass roots, gets swept away.

    And I think politicians are remote enough already from the electorate as a whole, I wouldn’t wish to see them made even more remote, and my fear apart from the undoubted desirability of the principle, my fear would be that if party funding too much came from the centre that it would diminish grass roots activity even more, that would be a thoroughly bad development.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes. I mean you were swept out of power by Tony Blair and the Labour Party saying that you were sleazy, that your government was riddled, if not with corruption but certainly with sleaze which was the slightly politer way of saying corruption, as I recall. The old Chinese saying about if you wait long enough the bodies of your enemies float past, does it occur to you?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, just a touch. But I mean, what they did at the time was absolutely unscrupulous. I don’t think that’s what cost us the election, frankly we’d been there so long if the leader of the Conservative Party had been the Archangel Gabriel and the Cabinet had been a choir of angels, I think after 18 years we would have lost.

    I think what their pretty unscrupulous use of facts did, was to magnify the defeat, to turn a defeat that was always likely into a much bigger defeat. And I think that they did do very successfully but I think in a manner that scarred politics in the long term.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And turning to your party now, it strikes me that what we said about New Labour back in the mid-1990s could apply to the Conservatives now, which is terribly inexperienced. Very, very successful in the polls at the moment, beginning to look like a party that could win an overall majority at the next election, long way away and all the rest of it. But nonetheless, is that a worry, the inexperience?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think the government are pretty inexperienced, in this sense. I mean half the Cabinet were special advisors two or three years ago.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Everybody’s only been a special advisor in politics these days.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I know, it’s a great mistake to get to the top of politics that way in my judgement. But if you look back in Margaret’s time there were always three people who could have been Prime Minister. When I became Prime Minister, if I had been run over by a bus and some people rather wished for that, there were several…

    ANDREW MARR:

    Depends who was driving the bus?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There were several people who could have taken over – Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind – who may well have done a better job, maybe people thought they would have done. If Gordon Brown were run over who would be Prime Minister?

    There was one very senior member, Jack Straw, beyond that nobody with any experience whatsoever. It is the most inexperienced Cabinet that I can remember. So I don’t think the relative inexperience of the opposition is a problem. Particularly, if I may say so, because of the way David Cameron is now going abroad regularly.

    I’ve just returned from China, I was in China last week and I met some senior Chinese there and David Cameron is going there next week, and we were talking about his visit and they’re very much looking forward to seeing him. And I think these overseas trips are very important for him to do and I’m delighted he’s doing them.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One of the younger members of the Cabinet, David Miliband, I was just talking to in Basra. It is all’s well that ends well, is it finally over down there, how do you read that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I’m uncertain. I mean, if you take an audit, we went into Iraq on what turned out to be a false premise. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein I think undoubtedly is a bonus.

    Everything else looks pretty bleak to me. If you look at life within Iraq at the moment, most of the major decisions that needs to be taken haven’t yet been taken by the Iraqi government. If you look at life in Iraq, inflation is 70%, unemployment is 50%, about 3,000-3,500 Iraqis over recent months have been killed every single month.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Was it worth it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    That doesn’t look to me like a stable situation as a result of policy over the last few years. I don’t think this is going to be looked back on with any pride by the policymakers. I think the Army were given an impossible job which they did as well as it could have been done, but it was almost impossible and the outcome is bleak.

    ANDREW MARR:

    For now, John Major, thank you very much indeed.

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

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

    JOHN MAJOR:

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

    First, some background.

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

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

    The 1970s were Labour years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So – what do the figures tell us?

    They are very clear.

    The economy began growing in the First Quarter of 1992.

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

    During that five year period:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But not everything has rolled on unchanged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We will hear none of this from the Chancellor.

    He will talk of success – not tax rises.

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Commons Speech on the 2001 Budget Resolutions Debate – 12 March 2001

    The text of Mr Major’s Commons speech on the 2001 Budget Resolutions Debate, made on the 12th March 2001. This was Mr Major’s last speech in the House of Commons.

    MR JOHN MAJOR:

    Mr Major: “Education, education, education” was originally a cry from Lenin, who did not mean it. I suspect that the Secretary of State, who has just left, does mean it. He is sincere and, in his unavoidable absence, I should like to congratulate him on graciously adopting some of the: proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who is shadow Secretary of State. That behaviour is as welcome as it is unusual, and I hope that future Governments of both complexions will be inclined to follow that particularly good example.

    Turning to the Budget as a whole, I am pleased that the Chancellor has cut taxes and given back to taxpayers a small proportion of the money that he has extracted from them in the past four years. His generosity is not surprising: notwithstanding the problems of foot and mouth, a general election is pending and the public accounts show ample scope for tax reductions and, perhaps, modest expenditure increases. Yet, only a few weeks ago, when the Opposition said that, they were condemned as “irresponsible” by spokesmen from the Treasury and elsewhere. We now see how shallow those attacks were, for if the Opposition were irresponsible, why has the most prudent of Chancellors done what they recommended? In truth, my right hon. and hon. Friends were right to identify the scope for tax reduction. Not only were they right but, if the economy stays on course, there may be scope for even more tax cuts in future.

    A principal reason for that remarkable leeway is the sheer size of tax increases over the past four years. We must disentangle fact from fiction. Prior to the Budget, there had been 26 increases in personal taxation and 19 increases in taxes on business in this Parliament. That number has risen slightly although, given the Chancellor’s remarkable gift for sleight of hand, one must study the small print carefully to find out precisely how many tax increases there are. However, their sum total is enormous. The abolition of tax credits on dividends alone will cost shareholders about £6 billion in the current tax year. The reorganisation of advance corporation tax at the beginning of this Parliament has affected the quality of pension funds for millions of elderly people and cost those funds more than £5 billion during the course of this Parliament; it will do continuing damage until it is changed.

    Even after offsetting tax reductions – of which there have been some, mostly minor, examples – the Inland Revenue’s overall tax yield has risen by an astonishing one third during this Parliament. No wonder the savings ratio has fallen so badly. That is not a wicked Tory calculation; an independent survey shows the average family to be worse off than it was in 1996. The old tax-until-the pips-squeak bruiser Lord Healey must be salivating enviously at the extent of the tax rises forced through by the Chancellor.

    More people have been dragged into tax. An extra 2 million now pay tax; 28 million pay it, compared with 26 million three years ago.

    Mr. Mackinlay That is just nonsense. What about unemployment?

    Mr. Major If it is nonsense, it is Red Book nonsense. Those figures come from the Red Book. Before the hon. Gentleman mutters into his non-existent beard, he should read the Red Book and check. It is possible that the Chancellor has given us more duff facts; we are used to that. However, if they are duff, that is his responsibility, not mine.

    There are 2 million more taxpayers and 700,000 more higher-rate taxpayers than there were four years ago. In addition, mortgage interest relief at source has been scrapped, although I do not object to that particularly. However, not only has MIRAS been scrapped, but stamp duty on home purchase has been increased and national insurance contributions for middle-income earners have risen sharply. So much – on the eve of the next general election – for the promises that the Labour party made to middle England and middle-income groups throughout the United Kingdom on the eve of the last one. Those groups may also care to note that the yield from inheritance tax has soared 50 per cent. during this Parliament. The Chancellor still has no concept – I genuinely believe that he does not understand its value–of letting more of the fruits of a lifetime of work filter down to the people whom the earner most cares about: his own family and the next generation.

    It is no wonder, with such tax increases, that the ratio of tax to gross domestic product has risen 2.5 per cent. to 37.7 per cent. The Chancellor, despite all his promises, has not so much wooed middle England as assaulted it.

    Mr. Geraint Davies Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, taking tax and borrowing together as a share of GDP – given that borrowing is deferred taxation – the figure went down two points from 38.2 per cent. in 1996–97 to 36.2 per cent. in 1999–2000, and down to 34.1 per cent. in the current year? The current figure is due to the spectrum auction of mobile phone wavelengths, but for the previous period, those two points represent the equivalent of an increase of 7.3p in income tax. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman simply borrowed instead of taxing, and tried to fiddle the figures.

    Mr. Major The hon. Gentleman ought to know that his Chancellor changed the way in which the figures are quoted in the Red Book, and the actual equivalent of what he has done is an extra 10p on tax The hon. Gentleman may care to examine that matter. [Interruption.] If it is nonsense, it is the Government’s nonsense in the Government’s own figures. Those are the figures that I am using. I am glad to hear from Labour Members that they do not believe them.

    It is ironic that the Government and the Chancellor have increased taxes so much. During the last Parliament, I remember vividly the present Chancellor and his colleagues, ever ready to find a catchy slogan, repeating the slander of 22 Tory tax rises, with no acknowledgement whatever of any offsetting tax reductions. To call their attacks disingenuous would be kind. They were patently untrue, and a forerunner of the manipulation of facts that has characterised so much – not all, but so much – of what the Government have said and done in the past four years.

    The Government cannot deny that, because the figures for tax increases are now clear. The statistics cast light where the slogans cast deception. Before this Budget, the real increase in taxes over this Parliament was about 4.5 per cent. a year. Obviously, that figure is now a tiny bit lower, but not all that much. That compares with 1.8 per cent. between 1979 and 1997. I am indebted to the Institute for Fiscal Studies for pointing out that there were tax rises of 2 per cent. a year between 1979 and 1990, and of 1.3 per cent. between 1990 and 1997.

    So much for the 22 Tory tax rises, or, indeed, the unsustainable proposition – unsustainable except by malice – that the previous Government wrecked the Tory tradition of low taxation. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who rather timidly accepted that fiction in the early part of this Parliament can now feel comforted that it was not true and refute it. They need not concede, but may safely move on and reassert our traditional tax credentials. Taxes were not unduly increased, despite the pressures of a recession that began in the 1980s and cast its shadow into the 1990s – although not, from the point of view of the health of the economy, much beyond 1992.

    The Chancellor is ever ready to gloss over the excellent parts of his inheritance. He cherry-picks the bits on which he can make party political capital, and I do not blame him for that: most politicians do. However, he misses other bits. He is, after all, a very political Chancellor who wishes to be Prime Minister, and he is doing a bit of image building.

    We need more facts and less of the fiction that we so often hear. The economy has been growing steadily since 1992, before – some hon. Members may not wish to hear this next point – sterling left the exchange rate mechanism. Unemployment has also been falling since that economic recovery began, and the very welcome job growth across the country – in both the number and the variety of jobs – has been consistent throughout the previous Parliament and this one. Inflation, too, began to decline in the early 1990s and has remained low. It looks set to fluctuate only within historically narrow parameters.

    Mr. Mackinlay The Chancellor has been skilled, but I put that in perspective. Other factors have contributed, such as the ebb and flow of the economy, and I accept, to an extent, that employment growth was under way during the right hon. Gentleman’s stewardship. I have intervened only because of his breathtaking assertion that people are somehow worse off than in 1996, which defies both belief and the litmus test of what one sees and feels. There was extensive unemployment, particularly among poor and unskilled people, during the period to which he refers, and although I do not apportion credit or blame in respect of employment, people are now in jobs. Demonstrably, they are better off.

    Mr. Major Demonstrably, the people in jobs are better off. That is undeniably so, but I was referring to the scale of tax increases. If the hon. Gentleman reads some of the independent research, he will see precisely why I made that comment.

    As it happens, I was about to give credit to the Chancellor. The economy is in good shape and he can take a great deal of satisfaction from that. I shall not be mealy-mouthed: he can take a good bit of credit for it as well. Were he to be similarly candid, he too would offer credit to his predecessors, because he has built on what they did and on a trend that was established five years before he went to the Exchequer.

    For example, some hon. Members, but perhaps not all, believe that an economic miracle began on 2 May 1997. Let us take a date at random – 1 May 1997. Growth was set to be 3.5 per cent. for the next year. Inflation was 2.6 per cent. and stable. Unemployment was falling rapidly and, although still high, was down to just over 1.5 million. The fiscal deficit was falling sharply – a point that the Chancellor invariably overlooks because it embarrasses his campaign to discredit his predecessors. The trend of a falling fiscal deficit was clear, and it was falling sharply. The right hon. Gentleman can take credit for not wrecking the trend, but he cannot take credit for beginning it, for it preceded him by four years.

    I thoroughly welcome the fact that economic management has reached a maturity whereby the two major parties do not feel it necessary to reverse all the actions of their predecessor. That is beneficial to the British economy, and it will remain so for as long as that is the case. I may be wrong, but I think that the Chancellor took that too far in his first two years by adopting the previous Government’s expenditure plans in toto. I can tell the House, and I hope that it is not a great shock, that we certainly would not have done that. We would have increased them in the two public expenditure rounds that followed, as we had in every public expenditure round since 1979.

    Stakhanovite is one word; masochistic is another, which might perhaps describe more plainly the Chancellor’s disposition. He has been an economic masochist over public spending. We hear a huge amount about public spending, and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was at it as well this afternoon, but despite the hype about the unprecedented sums for health and education, the fact is that the Chancellor has raised taxes by far more than he has increased expenditure. The public have not noticed because one skill that the right hon. Gentleman has perfected is that of counting, and that includes the capacity to double count, overcount and miscount, which he has done repeatedly.

    Again, I am indebted to the Institute for Fiscal Studies: total Government spending in this Parliament has risen at 1.2 per cent. a year in real terms. That is not only less than tax increases, but less than economic growth. It compares with public spending of 2.6 per cent. in the previous Parliament, which is a point that Liberal spokesmen have often made, although they are not often nice about the Conservative party. I am glad to see a nod of agreement, rather than a shake of the head, from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), because that is undoubtedly the case.

    I concede that much of that expenditure was not discretionary: it resulted from the unavoidable impact of the recession. However, it puts in a better context that hoary old myth about Tory cuts, which the Prime Minister is trying to recycle with his current spate of posters about potential future Tory cuts. Either he is ill-informed or scaremongering – probably the latter.

    The Government’s publicity on cuts is familiar: it is an echo from the past. It was an odd experience in the last Parliament to be taunted by the Labour party over so-called cuts while hostile monetarists attacked us for spending far too much money.

    Mr. Willis Nothing has changed.

    Mr. Major The Rt Hon. Gentleman may be right. The health of the economy in 1997 and subsequently suggests that we may have got that balance about right.

    During this Parliament, the Chancellor has benefited from the supply side reforms of the 1980s and the disinflation brought about by the policies of the 1990s. When he chants his mantra of boom and bust – I lost count of the number of times that he and the Prime Minister uttered such drivel last week – he should remember that the last unsustainable boom was well over a decade ago. That has not stopped the Prime Minister depicting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor as Mr. Boom and Mr. Bust. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury sniggers, but that is the politics of sneer and jeer. Neither of my right hon. Friends were policy makers at the time of the last boom, and one of them had barely been in the House of Commons.

    There is a boom and bust today: a boom in tax raising and a bust in the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. Perhaps the Chancellor and the Prime Minister should concentrate on that boom and bust.

    Mr. Geraint Davies Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Major I shall make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a redistributive Chancellor. He tries to hide that fact, but it is evident, and from his perspective he should not hide it. He aims to redistribute to the less well-off, but in general he redistributes to the Inland Revenue. Even his well-intentioned schemes are not wholly successful. I do not disagree with all of them. Bits of what the Chancellor has done have been good social justice, and if I had been in government with the economy that he now has, I would certainly have taken some of the measures that he has taken, and I am not remotely shy about saying so. However, some of those schemes have not been successful.

    The Chancellor abolished the married couples allowance last year, and this year – after a helpful 12-month gap for the Treasury and the Inland Revenue – he has introduced a children’s tax credit to replace it. However, many people will not receive that credit, because it is means-tested and millions will lose either some or all of it on the means-tested taper.

    The organisation of that tax credit is a shambles. As it is based on the highest-earning member of the household, it throws up huge and unacceptable anomalies. If one parent works and earns £42,000 a year, no payment of the child tax credit is made, whereas if both parents are at work, with no one at home with the child, and earn £35,000 each, the full credit is payable. As a means of social justice, attacking poverty and helping low-income families with children, this scheme is nonsense on stilts. If the Chancellor were serious, he would have examined those problems and sought to correct them before introducing the tax credit in its present form.

    The minimum income guarantee is the Chancellor’s safety net against poverty, but it is so complex that more than one third of eligible pensioners do not claim it. The form is so complex and absurd that a large percentage of graduates might not claim it.

    The 10p band extension is right in principle. I do not disapprove of minimising tax on lower income groups. However, the proposal is so niggardly and mean as to be almost pointless. The maximum gain from the Chancellor’s measures in the Budget is 75p a week – that figure should strike a chord with Labour Members. Given pensioners’ response to that amount previously, surely he should have done it differently.

    Many of the main effects of all economic management, by every Chancellor of the Exchequer, become apparent some years after the announcement of the original tax and spending decisions. This Chancellor was lucky. He was lucky in his predecessors – lucky, notably, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lamont made the painful and unpopular decisions that contributed so much to the subsequent benign situation of which the present Chancellor has made such use in this Parliament. And – unless my memory is failing – I seem to recall that they made those decisions in the teeth of unrelenting opposition, not least from the present Chancellor and the Prime Minister.

    I will not be in the House to see the Chancellor’s legacy at first hand, but much of it is now predetermined. He inherited an economy of falling unemployment and low inflation, and he has maintained it. That was well done; but under his stewardship also, taxes have risen too much. The tax system has become far more complex. Manufacturing industry has declined further. Regulations have soared. Increases in business taxes are undermining competitiveness, and so in due course will the social charter, whose economic folly is not yet fully apparent but will become so. It is, in truth, a mixed record – some good, some bad – for this luckiest and most fortunate of modern Chancellors of the Exchequer.

    I cannot be certain, but this may well be the last occasion on which I shall speak in the House. Let me say that it has been a privilege beyond measure to be here, in this mother of Parliaments. I hope that the next generation of hon. Members, whichever of our great parties they may represent, will feel as I did when I first came to the House; I hope that they will feel that way in future, and I hope that we shall be able to end the miserable political climate of spin and counterspin that has grown up in recent years.

    We need to separate fact from fiction, substance from soundbite, information from innuendo. The public – the electorate – the people who sent us here – deserve more than to be spoon-fed a cocktail of headline-grabbing feel-good stories. They deserve the truth, unvarnished sometimes, but the truth, and every Member of this House, whether Minister or Back Bencher, has the obligation – the duty – to provide it.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South) I hope that that was not the last speech that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will make in the Chamber. We can agree with some of what he says from time to time and disagree with other things he says, but we must all recognise that he has made interesting contributions to the House over the years – and, indeed, ended up being Prime Minister as a result. I hope that we shall hear from him one last time: he may say things that Labour Members do not like sometimes, but that is the nature of politics and the nature of debate.

  • Mr Major’s Contribution to the Queen’s Speech Debate in the House of Commons – 13 December 2000

    The text of Mr Major’s contribution to the Queen’s Speech debate, held in the House of Commons on Wednesday 13th December 2000.

    MR JOHN MAJOR:

    Mr Major: If I had any doubts about whether this was the last Queen’s Speech debate in which I would have the privilege of speaking before leaving the House at the next election, the Chancellor has removed them over the past 40 minutes or so. The Government have been generous in allowing six days to debate a Gracious Speech with so little in it. I now know that that was because they wanted to debate the Opposition’s alleged programme rather than their own policies. As we come to the end of this Parliament, the Queen’s Speech, which we should have been debating, is more of a shop window than a programme for action. It contains a small number of measures, most of which every hon. Member knows will not be enacted in this Parliament.

    The Government took office with a large majority and an enormous amount of public goodwill. They faced a depleted Opposition who had suffered a painful election defeat. Given all that, it is extraordinary how little of real worth has been achieved in those remarkable circumstances. In addition to all that–I will return to this later–the Chancellor inherited an economy that was in better shape than that inherited by any incoming Chancellor for a long time. In similar, although not identical, circumstances, between 1945 and 1950 Mr. Attlee did so much more with his majority. We may not agree with what he did, but he made remarkable changes, out of any comparison with what has been achieved in this Parliament. The same can be said of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher between 1979 and 1983 and perhaps even more so between 1983 and 1987. Although I voted positively against the Labour Government with great will, even I could see that there were attractive aspects to some of what they said they would do. They were going to think the unthinkable, but they have scarcely thought at all. The Minister who was going to think the unthinkable was soon out-thought and out of Government as well.

    The Government’s fondest boast is their management of the economy. With all the regularity of a man who has convinced himself and is seeking to convince everyone else, the Chancellor tells us that he has avoided boom and bust–and thus far he has–and has remained faithful to prudence. Prudence has become famous. In fact, in his last Budget he rather strayed from prudence and I suspect that, far from straying, he will be downright unfaithful to prudence when he delivers his new Budget and tells us of his plans to bribe the electorate with their own money. Poor old prudence has served her time adequately but is about to be ditched in favour of a hussy who is willing to distribute her assets in every conceivable direction.

    To preserve the tattered reputation of prudence, and perhaps the Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman has hinted at targeting tax cuts. We will have none of the crudeness of giving everybody their money back. He has said that they will be targeted, and I bet they will. They will be targeted on every voter who might be persuaded to put the Chancellor back into the Exchequer. As the Chancellor is keen to put matters on the record, let it be recorded that even he smiled at the prospect of what he might do.

    I find it ironic, although perhaps not amusing, that if we believe what is said, the economy is to be at the centre of the Government’s re-election campaign. That is disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst. Despite the earlier difficulties to which he alludes so frequently, the Chancellor knows that in 1997, he inherited a growing economy with low inflation, falling unemployment and a rapidly declining fiscal deficit.

    The Government can claim accurately that, thus far, they have not yet wrecked that economy, although cause and effect in economics is often lengthy and the substantial tax increases that the Chancellor has levied will threaten our competitiveness, as will the Government’s agreement to some of the anti-competitive measures from the European Union and their tendency to advocate regulation. It is difficult to get rid of regulation. I do not complain about some aspects of regulation. I acknowledge that we had great difficulty in getting rid of it, too.

    Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little progress.

    The Chancellor, of course, knows all that. He does not openly admit it, but he is not foolish; he knows all that. That is why he talks regularly–he talked about it again today–of his economic achievements: so as to fix in the public mind the fact that he, and he alone, may be responsible for the benign economic circumstances that currently exist. That is why boom and bust in the 1980s–he almost invariably says the 1980s, although seeing me sitting here he added the early part of the 1990s–features so much in his vocabulary. However, even the Chancellor at his most slippery, and that–I mean it as a compliment, for he is a politician–is very slippery indeed, knows that the economy has been benign and growing for eight years, which is an almost unprecedented post-war record. When in opposition, he and his colleagues opposed many of the measures that brought that about. He now advocates many of those measures as prudent for the present and the future.
    Perhaps I might remind the Chancellor, as it seems to have slipped his and the Prime Minister’s mind, that it was the Conservative party that created the economy that he inherited in 1997. Masters of spin he and his colleagues may be, but attempting to air brush out of history economic growth from the early 1990s onwards is pushing their talent for obfuscation just a touch too far.

    Liz Blackman (Erewash): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Major: Let me make a little progress. I shall then give way to the hon. Lady.

    I remind the Chancellor of where we were on 1 May 1997, as opposed to the fiction of where we were. Interest rates were at 6 per cent. GDP growth was at 3.5 per cent. Inflation was at 2.6 per cent. and unemployment was on a very sharp downward track. Thank goodness it has remained on that downward track since then. The Chancellor can take some credit for that. Over the first 18 months, the impact of what had been done before kept it on a downward track. In the past 18 months, he can take some personal credit for that.

    The tax burden in 1997–we heard about the 22 Tory tax rises time and again–was only marginally above that of 1990 and substantially below that which applies now. I shall not bandy figures about. There are various ways in which one can calculate them, but, whichever way one calculates them, the tax increases between 1997 and today are larger in total than the tax increases between 1990 and 1997. The talk of 22 tax increases was entirely bogus, for it utterly neglected the parallel tax reductions, which made a substantial difference to the net position.

    Perhaps the Leader of the House, who will wind up the six-day debate, will tell us–I do not know the figure and I have not yet managed to obtain it–how many tax rises have been introduced since 1997. If she is in a frank mood, and I hope that she is–I greatly admire her leadership; she is a fine Leader of the House–perhaps she can add to her reputation by telling us how many of the tax increases since 1997 were announced by the Chancellor in the House in the Budget, as opposed to being slipped out in a post-Budget press release from the Treasury. I would thank her for that and welcome it.

    Several hon. Members rose–

    Mr. Major: I think that the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) was first.

    Liz Blackman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, on record to the Select Committee on the Treasury, the Governor of the Bank of England clearly stated that interest rates should have risen well before the Government came into office in 1997, but for political reasons that did not happen? Does he recall that, in 1998, in the teeth of the Asian crisis, the Opposition forecast recession? It was the good management of the Government that steered the economy on a fair course.

    Mr. Major: I have a feeling that the state of the world economy, notwithstanding the enormously good activities at Millbank, stretches a little further than the direct responsibilities of the Chancellor. I may be mistaken about that. It may be that Mr. Greenspan has very little to do with the American economy, that the American economy has very little to do with us and that the European economy does not affect us in the slightest, but I ask the hon. Lady to consider that it is just possible that world events interfere even with the activities of a Chancellor who inherits a benign economy.

    I come a little closer to the tax point. I have said before and I repeat: we did put up taxes. We put up taxes in a recession to help to protect individuals and our national accounts from the economic downturn. I seem to recall that, at the time, the Chancellor and his colleagues demanded that the then Government did precisely that to protect people who were vulnerable in their constituencies. It was right. It was very painful. Conservative Governments do not like to put up taxes. They do not wish to. They did not intend to, but the social requirement of protecting people in that recession was necessary.

    That is in some contrast to what has happened since the 1997 election. Since then, the Government, first, have increased taxes by more than we did and, secondly, have increased them in a benign economic climate rather than in a recession. That is a sharply different proposition.

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with his usual eloquence and charm. He referred earlier to the trend in unemployment continuing on a downward path. There was another trend: the trend in projected taxation, which his Chancellor had announced and was printed in the Red Book. That showed taxation continuing to rise after the general election as a proportion of GDP–it was slightly above the present Government’s projection–to close the very deficit that the Government have closed in that way.

    Mr. Major: I give the hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer that the Chancellor would give him. If I had said to the Chancellor that the Red Book projections show taxation rising in future, he would have said, “These are stylised projections based on unchanged policies.” Of course, they change with each successive Budget. That is why I referred to the tax burden as it is now, not as it is projected by the Chancellor in future. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for his kind words and for letting me make that particular point.

    Is there scope for tax reductions now? The Chancellor clearly thinks not and had much pre-election fun rehearsing his hustings speeches in village halls throughout the country, but there is clearly scope for tax reduction to reverse the Chancellor’s raiding of the net personal incomes of millions over the past three years.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor, is searching for savings throughout Whitehall. Good luck to him. It is an extremely good thing for him to look for, but, although it is wise always to see where prudent savings could be made, he could justify his proposed tax cuts simply by saying that he is reversing just a part of the sheer scale of the economically damaging increases that the Chancellor has piled upon the electorate in the past three years.

    Some time ago, I heard the Prime Minister–not my favourite programme, Members can understand, but I listen to him from time to time–praising our low-tax economy. Unfortunately, I must have missed the bit where he praised his predecessors for creating it, and the bit where he repented his Government’s smash-and-grab raids on people’s pockets. The plain truth is that the Chancellor, a very agreeable man, has had his hands in the public’s pockets more often than the public have had their hands in their own pockets.

    In 1997, taxes in the UK broadly, because one can calculate it in different ways, were 6 per cent. below those of our main European competitors. That gap, important for our competitiveness, has shrunk to 2 per cent. and may shrink further because Germany, France and Italy are all embarking on programmes to cut their taxes.

    That is potentially important for our competitiveness, our inward investment and for our jobs, on a day when, sadly, many jobs have been lost at Luton. Tax cutting is not simply a matter of putting more money into the pockets of those who have some money already. In my judgment, and I dare say that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, the weight of tax reductions should be at the lower end of the scale.

    It is not greed that demands tax. To a certain extent there is an economic justification for tax reductions, quite apart from the fact that we are not giving people something, but simply taking less of their money away from them.

    The Chancellor’s move over the past three years from fiscal Scrooge to fiscal Micawber is by no means his only policy change. Once upon a time, as I recall, he was proud to be represented as being in favour of quite early entry to the euro. I understand from his aides, that now, to judge from briefings against the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary, he is not in favour. Of course, those briefings could be personal rather than policy–one never knows with the Cabinet–

    Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman knows about that.

    Mr. Major: Indeed I do, and that is exactly why I say it. However, it is nearly Christmas, so let us make the generous assumption that it is policy that activates the Chancellor and not a wish to undermine his colleagues, which is always an unattractive trait in senior politicians.
    The Chancellor now favours delay in entry to the euro. The time is not yet right. One might perhaps characterise his position as wait and see. I think that he is right about that. When they were in opposition, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor roundly condemned that policy, but in government they have warmly embraced it. Indeed, wait and see appears now to have become a rather venerable old gent much loved by nearly all political parties.

    The Government wait and see. The Opposition wait and see–albeit for a rather longer time. Entry into the euro rightly provokes great debate. Unfortunately, for many years it has been inadequate debate. Some hon. Members see a new currency as a child of Beelzebub while others regard it as a benign inevitability. It is, in fact, neither. Personally, I disagree with both the “go in now” brigade and the “go in never” brigade. We should measure United Kingdom political and economic interests, which are not yet clear–the Chancellor is right about that–and make a decision only when they are. It could take some time. After the election I shall not be in the House to be told that I am wrong, but I do not believe that any Government will enter the euro in the next Parliament and in my view nor should they. I would actively oppose premature entry.

    Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): What is the difference between the policy that the right hon. Gentleman has just outlined for entry to the euro and the established policy of the present Government?

    Mr. Major: The established policy of the present Government is very familiar to me for it was mine long before it was theirs, so it is hardly surprising if I have a certain degree of affection for waiting to see whether it is the right policy before deciding upon it. A more accurate question might have been to invite the Chancellor to explain why, two years after the euro came into being, he still adopts the policy that he criticised so harshly when I sat on the Government Front Bench three years before the euro.

    Mr. Miller: He is not listening.

    Mr. Major: Of course he is not listening; he does not want to hear this and that is perfectly all right.

    Mr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman will probably defend the Chancellor, but I do not think that the Chancellor needs defending. He is big enough to look after himself.

    Mr. Miller: Just for completeness, so that we know exactly where the right hon. Gentleman stands, is he in favour of a referendum so that the people can decide?

    Mr. Major: I actually said, in government, that there should be a referendum on the euro. Once again, the present Government gave that commitment because they inherited it from me. That is my position on a referendum, but if in the next Parliament there is concurrence that there will be no decision to enter, it is painfully evident that there will be no referendum.

    The Government are allegedly preparing for entry if–and it is a big if–they judge it to be in our national interest. If that is the case, and if their position is not simply a public relations posture, they must consider some serious questions. However, they have not given us their judgment on those serious questions. I do not know the Chancellor’s view on the debate. For example, how does he think that the pound will fare in future alongside the dollar, the euro and the yen? Does he worry about the very large capital outflows from the eurozone to the dollar zone? Why does he think that it is happening? What does he think is happening within the eurozone following the birth of the new currency, albeit too early and certainly in the wrong conditions–not remotely the conditions that were agreed at Maastricht some years ago?
    It seems to me, as an observer, that the euro has accelerated structural change in continental Europe. If that is so, we need to consider whether the proposed tax reforms in Germany, accompanied by the proposed pension reforms there and the anticipated balanced budget there in about four years’ time if the Germans hit their targets, will affect us and if so how?

    We also need to consider the implication–as it is critical to the United Kingdom–of the huge growth of mergers and acquisitions in France especially, but also across Europe. If the Government are leading the debate on the euro, what do they think about all those and 50 other issues that the Chancellor and I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends could easily set out as being crucial for discussion and consideration before any rational judgment should seriously be taken to take us into a single currency?

    Some oppose it on principle and others do not. Most people probably wish to know whether it will have a benign or a malign effect on the British economy. We cannot know that without a proper debate on all those issues. I wish that we were having that debate and I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lead it

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer is better placed than any other politician to lead that debate, so what does he think? How does the Chancellor think the unification of the continental financial markets will impact on our own financial markets and what will it mean for future policy? Here is another illustration of an issue that is far beyond the often rather superficial arguments for and against the euro and one that we genuinely need to examine and consider before we make a decision. It is all relevant to our national interest. Where is the debate on all this so that we can make a rational judgment?

    We have time. As I said earlier, I do not favour entry in the next few years. I do not think that it would be wise and I would not vote for it. In fact, I would oppose entry in the next few years, but we have to consider that the world around us may be changing and we need to look at that changing world and judge what it means for us.

    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been listening with great interest to what is perhaps his valedictory speech. I congratulate him on his remarks because it is rare indeed to hear from the Opposition a considered discussion of the problem of euro entry. Perhaps he should address his remarks to those on the Opposition Front Bench and to his own party leadership because until we have a rational discussion across the Chamber and the nation that is not dictated by The Sun and the Daily Mail and their venomous anti-Europeanism, we cannot have a discussion at all.

    Mr. Major: When I hear the hon. Gentleman praising me, I feel the slide of a knife in my ribs.

    Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Is it a familiar feeling?

    Mr. Major: Of course not. It is not remotely familiar. That is a disgraceful suggestion.

    The other point that I would make in response to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is that, although I may be terribly old fashioned, I came into the Chamber today believing that the debate was to be about the Government’s programme and policies. I did not think that it would be about the Opposition’s programme, or about any distorted version of that programme that it may be convenient for the Chancellor to allege might be implemented in certain circumstances.

    The Chancellor, rather like Fanlight Fanny, looks at our programme through the wrong end of a telescope, on a very dark night, standing on a stool, and through a clouded window. Anything that the right hon. Gentleman says about our policies we may routinely assume to be the opposite of the reality. There was much evidence of that today, and the right hon. Gentleman is very good at it. He is able to say that which is not so with such conviction that he convinces himself that it is so–but it is not. The Conservative party that I joined–I look forward to campaigning for it in the next general election, in the hope and belief that it will win–bears no relation to the party painted in such lurid colours by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    I see that the Chancellor is smiling. He may well smile: he has done a good afternoon’s work, and enjoyed himself jolly well. He has not defended his own policies, but has talked about ours instead. He did not get past page 3 of the prepared speech given to him by his advisers. He was also able to use up 49 minutes, which was necessary because not too many Labour Members are waiting to speak later on.
    The Chancellor has had a really super afternoon, which he is thoroughly enjoying. He has safely moved on and ditched poor old Prudence, who was useful once but is no longer. We must continue to remind the right hon. Gentleman of Prudence, because she will yet be an embarrassment to him when, in the very near future, he comes to prepare his Budget. Prudence may be the only person in the country who will not be given a tax handout of some sort when the Chancellor addresses the House on Budget day.

    I return, briefly and finally, to the question of the euro. My prediction is not shared by many people, but I stand to be judged on it. It seems to be more likely than not that, over the next year, the euro will recover in value against the dollar, the yen and sterling. It is worth noting, in passing, that that will help sustain the price stability that was the objective demanded of the European central bank by the Maastricht treaty. The treaty was often misunderstood, but that provision was absolutely clear.

    All such issues, and the conclusions that follow from them, are material to our consideration of whether sterling should one day–although not in the near future–enter the eurozone. In a mature debate on the future of our economy and currency, all those issues would be aired.
    I was rather disappointed that the Chancellor should have aired other issues and spoken rather intolerantly about our policies, rather than address an issue that he hopes will go away in the period before and during the next election. I can tell him that it will not go away, as it is of abiding interest to far too many people for that to be possible. However, no mature debate is being held. The current Government have enjoyed a massive majority in the House of Commons for four years and, frankly, it is time that such a debate were held.

    The hon. Member for Rotherham said that this might be my valedictory speech. He may wish it to be but, unless the election is held very speedily, I promise him that it is not going to be my valediction. However, it is certainly my valedictory contribution to a debate on a Queen’s Speech. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall use the latitude that the debate allows to say something about the House of Commons and the way in which it operates these days.

    The House of Commons has always had a certain mythology about its past. I have been here for only 20-odd years, but I am in no doubt that the complexion of the House has changed in that time, to the disbenefit of democracy and of the nation at large. It is not good for the House that only a handful of enthusiasts take part even in significant debates, and that it should be so often bypassed when statements come to be made.

    Moreover, although all Governments have used guillotines, it is not good for the House when placing them at the necks of innocent pieces of legislation becomes too frequent and callous. It is not in the interests of the House of Commons that we should be able to go in the No Lobby, on a day when we happen to be here, and vote on issues that we do not understand after debates that we did not attend.

    None of what I have set out is in the interests of democracy. If we were really interested in re-establishing democracy, there are things that we could do. There are many ways to reform the House of Lords other than the way in which it has been reformed, and they should have been implemented. Standing Committees of both Houses should be used to examine treaties–such as Nice, for example, or the Maastricht treaty of many years ago–both before and after they are negotiated. Standing Committees could also be used to look at the creeping constitutional change that is undermining the House. Those matters are what we need to be looking at.

    I shall conclude with a prediction that gives me no pleasure at all but which I fear will be realised. It is that turnout at the next general election will be very sharply down, and that it will be below the level recorded in any general election for a very long time. No hon. Member ought to want that to happen, and it is not something to be proud of. If such matters were in the forefront of the Government’s mind and covered in the legislation proposed for the few weeks available before the election is called for late April or early May, perhaps the Queen’s Speech would have been better and more relevant than the one that the Chancellor nearly debated this afternoon.