The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Labour Party

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to the John Smith Centre for Public Service – 19 February 2019

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the inaugural lecture of the John Smith Centre for Public Service, held at the University of Glasgow on Tuesday 19 February 2019.

    When Elizabeth Smith invited me to deliver this lecture I was delighted to accept.

    It seems to me to be in the best traditions of Scottish enlightenment that a Centre – whose mission is to restore faith in public service – should be housed in one of Europe’s most ancient and venerable Universities.

    So, it is – truly – a privilege to be here.

    I’m here, too, because of John Smith. John was a rare talent: the sort of tenacious politician that our country could ill afford to lose. If the fates had allowed, he would have been a Prime Minister of distinction.

    * * * * *

    Some might think it odd that I’m speaking at an event that implicitly honours the legacy of a political opponent.

    But I am proud to be doing so. Democracy – and concern for our national wellbeing – is not the preserve of any one Party or philosophy. It is our common heritage, fought for by our predecessors.

    Today, it is the safety valve through which we debate differing views: but debate doesn’t mean we must disagree on everything. Because we don’t – and we shouldn’t.

    Politics isn’t warfare: it’s about deciding what is in the best interests of the four nations of our United Kingdom.

    And the idea that politicians should talk only to their own tribe, speaking only for – or to – those who agree with them, explains much that is wrong about modern politics. It’s a bunker attitude that has to change. The public don’t like it – and the public are right.

    * * * * *

    John and I were political opponents, but never personal ones. I admired his ability and conviction – even when I disagreed with him.

    At PMQs, adrenaline propelled both of us to remarks that, perhaps, were best not made but – when the ritual was over – we withdrew occasionally to my room in the Commons to enjoy a drink – or two.

    Our conversations ranged far beyond politics – although we did muse upon whether we could swap troublesome members: a “Skinner for a Redwood” was one proposition.

    It was a joke, of course – born of the frustrations of Party Management.

    One truth about mainstream politicians is that they have more in common with each other than not. Yet they hide agreement from public view, as if consensus were a betrayal of Party philosophy – when, to most people, it seems simple commonsense.

    I am a Conservative. John was committed to Labour. As a Conservative, I prefer pragmatism to ideology; negotiation to confrontation; consensus to conflict; and public service to self-service.

    With which of these choices would John Smith have disagreed?

    Not one I think.

    * * * * *

    Ahead of us lie some crucial decisions for the four countries of our United Kingdom and our political system.

    So, this evening, I shall talk of politics and public service – and the vital role of the Civil Service in delivering policy.

    First, politics.

    At the moment, our Kingdom is not contented. Our four nations are not in harmony. Respect for politics is at a very low level. Politicians may be praised individually, but collectively the public appears to have lost trust in them.

    This is an unhappy state of affairs, helpful only to those who wish us harm, or to undermine our pragmatic system of government.

    It has many causes.

    A decade of uncertainty, at the end of which too many people are worse off than they were in 2007.

    The 24-hour news cycle, that exposes politics to more intensive – and immediate – scrutiny than ever before.

    The widespread use of social media, that enables a lie to gain traction before the truth is even sought.

    The rise of populism, fake news, and unscrupulous leaders on the fringes of democratic politics.

    And also the referendum on Europe, during which – to our national shame – truth was a casualty.

    Facts were dismissed as “Project Fear”. Fiction was treated as fact. Assertion was presented as cast-iron proof. As a result, the public was left baffled and bemused: lost between truth and falsehood.

    We now know there will be no £350 million a week to the NHS.

    In fact, the reverse: estimates of the loss due to Brexit have already risen up to £800 million a week, or £40 billion a year.

    The taxpayer will also be paying £39 billion to divorce ourselves from the EU, and unknown further amounts to pay for whole departments of staff to manage Brexit; to compensate special interest groups for lost European revenue.

    And – I strongly suspect – literally billions – billions – more to protect our economy from the lost advantage of the European market.

    In addition, the private sector is already spending huge sums to relocate people, offices and technology away from the UK to the Continent.

    This was always the likely outcome of Brexit, but was not believed because the “Leave” campaign convinced the public that “experts” and the “elite” were conspiring together to create “Project Fear”.

    Sadly – as each day passes – it is becoming ever more apparent that the “experts” were speaking only the truth.

    This tactic of destroying faith in expertise has helped create a greater distrust in public life.

    Once trust is broken, it is difficult to resurrect – and politics will be the loser for a very long time to come.

    In the midst of all this, a fundamental truth has been lost.

    It is that the vast majority of our politicians are diligent public representatives, who fight and vote for what their conscience believes and their philosophy dictates.

    It is precisely these people that politics needs – not the chancers and rogues who stray into politics believing “House of Cards” is political reality – and the truth is nothing more than a plaything.

    A second casualty of the referendum was Britain’s reputation for civilised debate and rational action. That has gone.

    Political conduct during the referendum wrecked our reputation for civilised debate.

    And there was nothing rational about triggering Article 50 before knowing what we wished to negotiate, or were prepared to concede to obtain it.

    The referendum also divided opinion within – and between – the political parties, and coarsened political debate. It unleashed a poison into our political system that has caused wounds to open up and flow. These will not heal easily, even if – miraculously – a consensus deal emerges.

    Opponents of Brexit were condemned as “traitors” or “saboteurs” or “wreckers”. Judges were “enemies of the people”. There is no truth, no fairness, no logic, in these charges; they were merely intended to abuse those who opposed Brexit, and to discourage others from doing the same.

    Foreigners have been made to feel so unwelcome, that many have already chosen to return home. The hostility directed at them will not be forgotten, and may grow into a distaste for our country that – one day – will rebound on us.

    The referendum was peppered, day after day, with anti-immigrant stories. At its conclusion, hostility to migrants had increased, and was made to seem acceptable. It is no coincidence that hate crimes have grown in number.

    The voice of Britain that immigrants heard – which resonated around the world – was not that of the moderate majority. To me, who grew up alongside migrants in Brixton, it sounded like the voice of bigotry.

    None of it reflected the tolerance for which our country has long been admired.

    It is not the voice of the Britain that I know and cherish.

    This tone of debate is not unique to our own country.

    Across Europe, the Far Right has been flourishing against a backcloth of low growth, high unemployment and static or falling wages.

    The “establishment” – everywhere – is seen to have failed, and fresh new voices crammed with negatives – anti-foreigner; anti-immigrant; anti-Europe; anti-elite; anti-everything – are winning support, with policy promises that can never be delivered.

    In our own country, mainstream politicians are having to fight hard for a hearing. And whether they are Conservative or Labour or Liberal Democrat, it is vital they are given one.

    As we face an uncertain future, our voters would be wise to aim for a new “Age of Reason”, and elect politicians able to rebut the extreme views of those who howl at the moon whilst promising the earth.

    Our politics needs advocates leading by explanation and example, not by stigmatising others, not by soundbite – and never by deceit.

    At the moment there is much talk of a new Party in politics.

    You will all be familiar with the famous line of Yeats:

    “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;”

    Well, in our ancient democracy, the centre of our politics has held – and been an example to the wider world. Our duty is to ensure that it continues to do so – and to be so.

    In this era of “fake news” and populism – that is a momentous challenge.

    When I refer to “the Centre”, I don’t mean some amorphous new Party of “moderates” and “centrists”.

    Even if such a Party were elected, what would unfold when it fell out of favour? For all Governments are mortal.

    With mainstream opinion sidelined, the country’s only choice would be between the extremes of Left or Right. That would be an awful outcome. Our electorate needs a choice between Parties that are demonstrably rational, realistic – and sane.

    So, when I speak of “the Centre”, I mean that our three main national Parties – Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat – must each retain a mainstream majority of their own.

    I hesitate now before saying what I believe I must…..

    Currently, both the Conservative and Labour Parties are being manipulated by fringe opinion. The rationale for extremists joining mainstream Parties is logical: from within them, they can influence policy; from without, they very rarely can.

    At the moment, there are people who – for now – may have their boots within the Conservative or Labour Parties – but not in their minds, nor their hearts.

    The Conservative Party membership appears to be “hollowing out” traditional Conservatives, while former UKIP members strengthen the anti-European Right of the Party.

    In Parliament, the European Research Group has become a Party within a Party, with its own whips, its own funding and its own priorities. Some of its more extreme members have little or no affinity to moderate, pragmatic and tolerant Conservatism.

    The ERG does not represent a majority view but – with a minority Government – as now – can determine policy simply by being intransigent: which is precisely what it is doing.

    Some – who can fairly be called zealots – seem incapable of looking beyond the one issue of Europe. It’s not just that it dominates their thinking – it seems to obsess them.

    The Labour Party has a different dilemma, but with a similar outcome.

    It has enjoyed a vast growth in membership that has captured many constituency organisations; their National Conference; important Party positions; and has left control of policy at the mercy of a passionate, active, far-Left base rather than the centre-Left.

    Yesterday, seven moderate MPs left the Labour Party. I admire their courage and their conviction. But I hope they have not cut themselves adrift forever. Labour needs moderate MPs, and the country needs a moderate Labour Party.

    Complacent voices dismiss the chances of fringe opinion gaining control of the political agenda. Britain is too pragmatic, they say. Too stable.

    Our political system is too mature. I hope they are right.

    But, in the recent past, much that once seemed impossible has come to pass. The election of Donald Trump, the growth of the Far Right in Poland, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Germany, France …..

    Complacent voices expected none of that – nor did many predict Brexit. They regarded UKIP as a joke, an outlet for frustration, and a harmless home for anti-immigration sentiment. It proved to be far more than that.

    In the referendum I voted to remain: we lost. But I have not changed my view that the fall-out from Brexit will be long and painful.

    It will not end on 29 March.

    The result divided our four nations. It will weaken our overseas influence; undermine our economic prospects; and impoverish those who have the least.

    Many people seem to be relaxed about Brexit. I am not.

    I cannot rid myself of fears that we are about to move from a position of power and influence around the world, to one of relative isolation and weakness.

    Also, as a Briton, I find it painful to come to terms with the possibility that, within my lifetime, I could – I repeat could – see the break-up of the UK. I hope I am wrong, but the agonies of Brexit have the capacity to do just that.

    Some argue that a break-up won’t happen, because economic logic is against it. But sentiment and emotion is a potent mix: economic logic was against Brexit – yet look where we are now …..

    I am not suggesting it is pre-determined that Scotland and Northern Ireland will leave the UK: it is not.

    But I am suggesting that leaving the EU will make an independent Scotland and united Ireland more likely than if we remained in the EU.

    In 2015, Scotland voted to stay in the UK – and in Europe. Yet English and Welsh votes are now taking Scotland out of Europe against their will. Scotland cannot apply to re-join unless they gain independence. The incentive to try again is clear.

    As for Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein are already calling for a new Border Poll on a united Ireland. This call will become more compelling if there is a “hard” border, with all the risks of a return to violence.

    I don’t believe a Border Poll would succeed in the near future – but, within a few years, who can be sure?

    It is astonishing to me that English Unionists are so avid to leave the European Union, that they are willing to put at risk our far more historic union with Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    * * * * *

    As of this moment, the world’s economy is dominated by the three great economic powers – America, China and the European Union.

    As the UK leaves the EU, and the European economy stutters, that trio may shrink to a duo.

    That is not in our national interest – nor in that of our Continental neighbours.

    I don’t wish to see Europe – the cradle of democracy – as a subordinate power to President Xi’s autocratic China, or Mr Trump’s dysfunctional America.

    I worry, too, about Britain’s diplomacy. For generations, it has been super-charged by our close alliance with America and Europe. But we are now leaving Europe – at exactly the moment the US is moving away from us … to the Far East.

    “Punching above our weight” – as Douglas Hurd once put it – may no longer be so easy.

    It may be good old British grit to hail Britain for “going it alone” but – as Churchill noted – “The only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them”.

    That applies just as much in peacetime as it does in war.

    The many challenges before us must be faced by our Governments and our Public Service. We take public service for granted. We shouldn’t.

    It’s an enormous undertaking, embracing – as it does – Parliament; the Armed Forces; the Home and Foreign Service; Local Government; the Judiciary; the Emergency Services; and so much else.

    We need them all to perform well if we are to protect the society in which we wish to live.

    But that raises a question: what sort of society do we wish to live in?

    I see no attractions in an over-mighty State, whether it is benevolent or restrictive – and it could be either. Such a State takes decisions and choices away from individuals or families. Liberty of choice is too much part of our national DNA to be happy with such a situation.

    Nor do I favour a minimalist State: the so-called “Singapore of the North” option.

    This may work for Singapore – but surely not for us. It is usually advocated by those with little or no understanding of how important public service is to the majority of our nation.

    Its virtues of low taxes, low regulation and maximum liberty of personal choice are enticing, but the price to be paid for them is too high.

    A minimalist State may be fine for the successful, the wealthy, and the self-confident – but would prove a nightmare for the majority. It is not a route our welfare state should take.

    In a Lecture like this, it is rather un-enterprising to admire the status quo – but I do.

    The second half of the 20th Century gave us a mixed economy and the welfare state. That seems to fit comfortably with our British instinct for fairness, tolerance and choice.

    We have enjoyed this for decades, and we should stick with it. We can all acknowledge the role of the Public and Private Sectors, even as we dispute precisely where the boundaries of each should lie.

    But the success of such a choice depends upon more than political willpower: the role of public service is crucial – almost no-one can be wholly independent of it. It matters to us all – and so does its efficiency.

    In our future world, in which people will change jobs – even careers – faster than ever before, and in which whole industries will rise and fall, we need the Civil Service to protect and enhance the quality of all public service.

    The Civil Service once worked under a strict code that all mishaps, all errors, were the responsibility of their political masters.

    Of course, this was a fiction, but it was a fiction with a purpose. It recognised the separation of powers between politicians and civil servants.

    It protected civil servants who were unfamiliar with – and unequipped for – the savage cut and thrust of modern day politics.

    For many years it was an accepted and effective modus operandi, and I was saddened when Ministers began to place public blame on those who served them.

    Even when it was justified, it was unwise and unfair.

    Civil servants act under Ministerial direction and, whilst that remains the case, they deserve to be protected by those they serve.

    Civil servants are enablers. They work with Ministers to turn policy into reality. In doing so they are not merely handmaids to the mighty, but fully-fledged partners. Their role is crucial.

    Departments of State have an historic memory no Minister can match. And often, of course, the civil servant can be more experienced – perhaps even more able – than the Minister: discretion forbids my offering up examples of this …..

    The work of civil servants can be fiendishly complex.

    Consider social security reform and the delivery of social benefits. Or the work of Ambassadors representing our country – often in hostile environments. Or the Treasury, where spending misjudgements can change the lives of millions.

    This is also true of other parts of public service. It is true of our Armed Forces, who put their lives at risk for the common good. And our Emergency Services, who face the risk of injury or death on any day.

    The point is this. We need to recruit talent to every part of public service and, in return, we need to give public service the respect it deserves.
    Government – who are elected public servants – need unelected public servants to make their administration effective.

    Too often, events leave Governments – all Governments – struggling even to catch up. And yet, if we are to achieve our future national ambitions, Governments must be ahead of the game, planning for what will happen rather than being overwhelmed by what is currently happening.

    That needs efficiency across all public service.

    Some people disparage public service as a well-paid, well-pensioned sinecure. It is far from that. Public servants are participants in the battle for a better future – and their role – often unrecognised – is crucial.

    * * * * *

    Let me summarise.

    Within a few days, Members of Parliament will make decisions that will determine all our futures. I believe we have a right to expect them to vote for an outcome that best protects the future welfare and prosperity of our nation – without fear or favour, and without deference to Party allegiance.

    And, before they cast that vote, I would make this plea – to each and every Member of Parliament:

    Do not ignore the 63% who did not vote for Brexit.

    Do not ignore the businesses who have announced their intention to leave the UK.

    Do not ignore the investments that have already been pulled.

    Do not ignore the jobs that are at risk.

    Do not ignore the impact of staff shortages on the Health Service, the Caring Services, Transport, and much of the public service.

    Do not ignore the social and economic impact on the young – nor on those who have the very least.

    Do not ignore the risk of a hard border leading to violence in Northern Ireland.

    Do not ignore the risk of a break-up of the United Kingdom.

    Let me close by reading a poem which I learned as a young boy:

    For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.

    For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.

    For the want of a horse the rider was lost.

    For the want of a rider the message was lost.

    For the want of a message the battle was lost.

    For the want of a battle the war was lost.

    For the want of a war the Kingdom was lost.

    And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

    This is a classic illustration of how one small act can have unforeseen and far-reaching consequences.

    The decision Parliament takes next week can undermine or revive the reputation of representative politics.

    And from that flows so much of our whole way of life.

    The night before he died, John Smith said this: “The opportunity to serve our country – that is all we ask”. John was referring to the Labour Party. But his sentiment applies equally to all those who serve in a democracy.

    Every so often, in our long history, there has come a moment when Parliament has had to dig deep into its soul.

    Now is such a moment.

    Let us hope that the House of Commons has the wisdom and the will to exert its democratic right – and secure the best possible outcome for the nation it is so privileged to serve.

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Article on the Economy – 21 February 2010

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The central issue at the next election is – trust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Sir John Major’s 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.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1997 Conservative Party Conference – 20 October 1997

    The text of John Major’s speech to the 1997 Conservative Party Conference, held in Blackpool in October 1997.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Life has changed a little since I last spoke to you at Bournemouth: changed for you and for me. Five months ago, we lost the election. Like you, I wish events had been kinder to us but – on this occasion – it was not to be. So, today, my first task is to thank the British nation for the trust they placed in Conservative governments over 18 years.

    This year they made a different choice and as democrats we respect their decision – but as politicians we must work to change it at the first available opportunity.

    It’s no great secret how I feel about this Party. It’s the Party I grew up with, that fashioned the chances I had in life, that is full of people who share my hopes and values. To everyone who works in our constituencies in good days and bad – I’d like to say ‘thank you.’ ‘Thank you’ on behalf of our Party and ‘thank you’ for all the warmth and support you have always given to Norma and to me.

    On my first day as Prime Minister, I set out an ambition to build a ‘nation at ease with itself.’

    As I look around today, at the growing confidence of our Nation, at the glittering economic prospects, at the rising growth, the strong trading position, the low inflation, the falling unemployment, the low interest rates, the strong pound, the increasing number of young people in higher education, the rising level of savings and record personal well-being, then I sometimes wonder if we did not build better than we knew. If there is a New Britain, we built it.

    So when the Government boasts about the economy – it’s our economy. When they boast of falling unemployment – it’s our fall in unemployment.

    And – now I think about it – isn’t it odd. Those unemployment figures John Prescott said were ‘fiddled’ are now a triumph for New Labour as they march to the New Jerusalem. Or – as it’s probably now called – the People’s new, New Jerusalem.

    Our election defeat was not your defeat. Perhaps it was mine. Perhaps divided views – expressed without restraint – in the Parliamentary Party made our positions impossible. Perhaps it was the weariness of 18 years in government. Perhaps the democratic instinct of our Nation simply sensed it was time for a change. Probably it was some of all of these things.

    Rather than brood over it, we must accept our defeat as gracefully as we can; we should not waste time in pointless recrimination; we should work in the towns and the cities and the villages and begin to build for the future and the next Conservative Government.

    A few moments ago, we heard that you have endorsed William Hague’s election as Leader and the need for reform of the Party by a massive majority in a far larger vote than anyone expected.

    William is right. We need reform – but we don’t need to re-write every policy. Or change our name. Or deny our past. Or betray the philosophy that built us up. But neither can we leave things as they are.

    It’s a simple choice: reform the Party, back William Hague, re-discover the art of working together, fight every seat for every vote – or fight one another and lose elections.

    I know my choice. I’m backing William. I’m backing him because he’s an able man of talent and integrity with a tough job ahead.

    It’s difficult being the leader of a newly defeated Party. For a while, people won’t wish to listen to what we have to say. But that will pass. The tide will turn and – as the local election results are already suggesting – perhaps more speedily than anyone imagines. If anyone is fearful of our future, they should have heard Jane and Munish a few moments ago, for that is the future of the Conservative Party.

    In the meantime, we must use the time wisely. Party reform – yes. But we must also look at the things we left undone or uncompleted. Education reforms; market reforms; how to make better health care available; a fresh look at reviving local government – a big job there; more welfare reform; the people being left behind as prosperity grows.

    We now have the luxury of time to think anew – and we should use it to build up policies that the broad mass of the British people will know are right – and feel comfortable with.

    I propose to give William Hague the unqualified support – in public and in private – that he has a right to expect from his predecessor. If I should disagree with William, I’ll do it in private, not on College Green, not on the media, not in anonymous briefings to the Press that breed suspicion and distrust. And I’m backing reform because never again must we be constitutionally powerless to deal with people whose behaviour is damaging the Party as a whole.

    The Prime Minister said last week this was ‘the giving age.’ Well, he should know. Because we’ve given him a glowing inheritance. Not just the economy – excellent though it is. We gave him the route map to the settlement in Northern Ireland that I long to see. We gave him the ‘opt out’ from a single currency that – now the information is to hand – he should use without delay and say: ‘the economic case is not yet right: we will not be joining in 1999.’ And we gave him a lottery that – even after they’ve raided it – is still helping charities, schools, village clubs, arts and sport at local level on a truly massive scale.

    It’s good to give. And we should remind people what we gave.

    I’m confident about our future: ignore the pessimists – we can beat Labour. Never forget, their swollen majority is made up from far, far fewer votes than we polled in 1992. Our history might have been different if our votes had delivered Labour’s sort of majority in 1992.

    As I end, I’d like to say something else about the Party. Remember what we are.

    Remember that our Party has served its country in government more often and longer and better than any democratic party in the whole history of western politics.

    As we’ve seen, even such a party can be beaten at the polls. But the Conservative family can only be defeated from within.

    At the end of this week, there’s one strong message that I long to hear from this Conference:

    We are the Conservative Party.

    We exist to serve a nation that is Conservative by instinct.

    We will be back.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Labour Mistruths – 24 April 1997

    The text of Mr Major’s comments on Labour mistruths, made on 24th April 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They’ve spent ages with posters saying VAT on food, they know that that isn’t remotely likely under any conceivable Government at any time in the future, they know that that isn’t true. And what they have said about the state retirement pension is absolutely scurrilous.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Union – 22 April 1997

    The text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Union, made on 22nd April 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is now very clearly exposed a sharp dividing line between the parties on Europe.

    I say no to handing more powers to Brussels in a new employment chapter, Mr Blair says yes.

    I say no to the extensions of qualified majority voting, Mr Blair says yes.

    I say no to new powers to the European Parliament, Mr Blair says yes.

    On European control of foreign policy, Mr Blair says maybe, which means yes.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Central Council in Bath – 15 March 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Central Council, held in Bath on Saturday 15th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today, I’m going to set out what I believe.

    And why you can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    We’ll win because our policies work. And Labour’s don’t.

    Because we say what we believe in. And Labour don’t.

    Because we’re proud of our record. And they’re trying to hide their past.

    That’s why Labour make such a performance of saying that they’ve changed.

    Mr Chairman, who were the leading lights of the Labour Party when the Blairs, the Cooks and the Browns joined it?

    I’ll tell you. The Kinnocks, the Benns, the Foots, the Healeys.

    Now they’re non-persons.

    They’re not talked of – except in private, where Mr Cook says Mr Foot is the best Prime Minister we never had.

    in public he supports Mr Blair – just – but in private he says something else.

    New Labour in a nutshell.

    But our real opponent is much more formidable than Labour.

    We’re fighting the argument that “it’s time for a change.”

    Economic change

    Time for a change?

    Odd, isn’t it – in 1979 Britain was near bankrupt, scorned, a great nation on the slide. Our country really did need change then.

    Why? Because in that harsh, unforgettable winter, Britain was governed by Labour.

    This spring, children born that winter will be voting for the first time.

    In their short lifetime, an old, decaying – some said dying – nation has been rejuvenated, restored, revived.

    Those young people won’t know it. Far too many others out there seem to be forgetting it.

    But Britain has changed – from being a European basket case to an international role model.

    People once talked of the British disease. Now they’re copying the British solution.

    The once sick man of Europe is setting the pace.

    So, when you hear siren voices wailing ‘It’s time for a change’ – fix them in the eyes and challenge this nonsense:

    ‘A change to what?’

    Is the nation moaning, out there “Low inflation. Who needs it? Let prices rip”?

    Are they frantic at the lowest basic rate of tax for sixty years? “I can’t bear it. Let’s put a penny on income tax again”?

    Do they despair as unemployment falls, month after month? “How boring. Why can’t we lose jobs like France and Germany”?

    Do they weep that we’re number one in Europe for inward investment? “Forget it – we don’t want foreign money here. Let’s have that Social Chapter, load costs on those companies and drive the new jobs away”?

    Mr Chairman, you know they don’t. No sensible person is asking for that.

    So, I say to the “time for a change” merchants: “Find me a better country in the world in which to live”.

    If you can – well, bye, bye, we’ll miss you.

    If you can’t, pipe down – and let us get on with the job of building the well-being of our nation to a level it has never known before.

    A Smaller, But Better State

    Mr Chairman, my Conservatism is first about helping more people realise their own private hopes and personal ambitions.

    And second about removing the avoidable fears that blight too many lives.

    Over the years Government after Government has wanted to do this.

    Now we have the prize we’ve all been seeking – the strongest, most stable economy that Britain has seen since way before the war.

    So now, we can really make progress.

    My aim is to make the state smaller, but better.

    That’s why our target is a 20 pence basic rate of tax – and for state spending to fall below 40 per cent of the nation’s wealth.

    Working two days a week for the state – surely that’s enough for all of us?

    I believe that if things can be done better in the private sector, they should be.

    But I also believe some things should always be done in the public sector.

    And if so, they must be done well.

    Over the years we’ve reined back the size of the state. Steel coal, gas, electricity, water, airways – all once leeched on the state for subsidy.

    Now they’re in the private sector, yielding taxes for schools, hospitals, police.

    It’s a remarkable record – a smaller state, lower income tax and better services.

    And there’s further to go.

    The Next Conservative Government

    Mr Chairman, in the last few days some interviewers have asked me: “It’s been a tough few years, Prime Minister. Why do you want to go on?”

    I’ll tell you.

    Because I dream of a people’s Britain, in which all the people – not only the confident and well to do – can make their own choices and mould their own lives.

    I believe that’s their right. Their right – to choose, to save, to spend, to know that they own.

    I want to see everyone have these opportunities.

    To see the have-nots become the haves.

    That’s why we started the sale of council houses.

    Why we’ve sold shares and spread savings.

    And it’s why we’re going to provide secure pensions for everyone.

    Because the Conservatism I’m talking about isn’t just for the lucky, the fortunate, the able, the self-confident.

    It’s for everyone.

    For those for whom life is a struggle.

    For those who don’t have the best education.

    Don’t have a decent home.

    Don’t live in a safe neighbourhood.

    Don’t have a job.

    I should know. I come from them. I care for them. And I long to see them have their fair share of the good things of life.

    Opportunity for all: the next Conservative Government is for them, as much as for anyone else.

    We’ll make sure that those who don’t have, do have.

    People’s Pensions

    Mr Chairman, as Britain grows wealthier, we must see to it that more of what the State spends goes where the taxpayer would like it to go.

    I believe in the Welfare State – and the security and comfort it offers the British people. I’m determined it will be there for our children and grandchildren.

    But we can only guarantee its future if it remains affordable.

    We have set out recently big ideas to do just that.

    Today’s pensions, for example, rely on each younger generation being able to pay for the old.

    As more people live longer, can we be sure that would always be possible?

    It’s a giant of uncertainty that no truly caring government could ignore. A giant that the next Conservative government will begin to slay.

    We aim to build on what William Beveridge intended.

    To build up – over time – a secure pension scheme for all.

    But we’ll go one better.

    Ours won’t be a state pension – though it will have a state guarantee.

    It will be a People’s Pension, owned by everyone – personally. It will be theirs – by right.

    It will be funded by real investments – not unwritten promises and rising tax.

    It will guarantee the new generation – our children and grandchildren – not just the basic state pension, but their own personal pool of savings.

    By the time they retire, someone on average earnings should have built up £130,000 of savings. Enough to provide a pension of £175 a week.

    It’s a long-term plan – a true Conservative idea – one that will give our children a security and independence that previous generations could only dream of.

    Protecting Savings

    Often true security and peace of mind come from savings.

    People save for security. For comfort in retirement. Against a rainy day. To ensure the dignity of self-provision.

    They worry about the cost of care if they grow infirm when they are elderly.

    And they despair when their savings are eaten up to pay for care.

    This week we announced a plan to tackle this problem.

    We will lessen the worries so many people have about the cost of nursing home care.

    It’s quite simple. A partnership.

    We intend to help people who plan ahead and take out insurance against long-term care.

    In return, for every £1 they spend, we’ll disregard an extra £1.50 of their assets and protect them from being used to pay for care.

    This will mean people can protect more of their savings for themselves and their families.

    Too many people who have prudently saved still find their money stripped from them by the accident of illness in old age. This will protect them.

    It’s the second great aim for the next Conservative Government – to banish the fear of losing their lifetime’s assets to pay for care in illness.

    I believe in the cascade of wealth between the generations. So we’ll help build it up. Help protect it – and, as we can afford it, steadily reduce the burden of tax upon it.

    A Modern National Health Service

    Over the last generations we’ve seen the greatest leap forward in the health of the nation that we’ve ever known.

    People are living better and living longer.

    That’s good.

    But, as more and more people live longer and longer, the demands on our doctors and hospitals must grew.

    And that means constant investment in new science and new treatments in the National Health Service.

    If you spend all your time worrying what will happen when you lose your health, you’ve no time left to enjoy it.

    So here’s a pledge to fight the third great fear – the fear of disease.

    It’s a pledge that no other party has matched.

    A pledge for you to take to the doorsteps, to the millions of families who treasure the peace of mind the National Health Service gives.

    We will continue to improve the Health Service year on year.

    We’ll plough savings back into health care year on year.

    And the next Conservative Government will provide more money for the NHS, over and above inflation, year on year on year, for the next five years.

    It’s why prosperity matters.

    Because growing national wealth will mean better National Health.

    Our aim is to make good health more infectious than disease.

    As far as the NHS is concerned, if you’re ill we’ll make it better.

    A Guarantee of Standards

    Mr Chairman, Britain will live or die by whether British workers can think better and work faster than our competitors. The prizes of the next century will go to countries with the best educated workforce.

    That means we need the best education for every child, in every class, in every school.

    We’ve come a long way – but not far enough to meet tomorrow’s challenges or parents’ wishes.

    Parents deserve more choice. We’ll give it to them.

    No ‘ifs’. No ‘buts’. No small print or sly evasions.

    More grant-maintained schools, more specialist schools, more grammar schools.

    If that’s what they want, that is what we – and we alone – guarantee they can have.

    Choice is crucial – but it’s no use if it’s a choice between two bad schools.

    Children have only one chance at education. Many schools are good. Exam results impressive. But it’s not universal.

    I’m not prepared to stand by and see children let down by bad schools and bad councils.

    That’s why we’ve put in place our reforms. A national curriculum. Local management. Tests. Tables. And inspections. We had to fight for them all – against bitter hostility from Labour.

    Our reforms have shone a spotlight on the dark corners of the education system. Exposed failing schools and the failing education authorities that run them.

    As a result, in our Manifesto, we can now do what no previous government has ever dared to do before.

    We can offer parents a guarantee of education standards.

    Where we need to, we’ll take action to turn failing schools around.

    And where whole education authorities are failing, – and, sadly, some are – we’ll send in professional teams to sort them out.

    Councils like Islington, Hackney, Haringey – the real Labour heartlands – have failed and failed and failed.

    They have betrayed generations of children.

    Time after time tests and tables show Labour councils to be the bleakest areas of the education landscape.

    And the Leader of the Labour Party has the gall to say that education is his passion. “Education. Education. Education.”

    But what has he ever done about those deplorable Labour councils?

    Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

    Nothing – but turn the car key and drive away to another borough and another school.

    Towards a GM school that Tory policies made possible – and which his policies would destroy.

    I don’t believe children are less clever in some areas. I believe they’re let down in some areas.

    I come from local government but I have no brief for it when it fails. So I offer this warning.

    We will not follow Mr Blair and Ms Harman as – head aloof – they pass by on the other side.

    We will go into those education authorities. We will examine them. And where they are failing, we will take their powers from them – in the interests of our children.

    The Inner Cities

    Our Conservatism must be for everyone – whoever they are, wherever they live.

    We want to spread the prosperity of the suburbs into our inner cities.

    Already we’ve transformed the face of many cities.

    But we must do far, far more.

    We’re going to tackle the problem of inner city deprivation more imaginatively than any Government before.

    We’ll bring to every tenant the choice of freedom from shoddy council control – for a fresh start with a better landlord.

    We’ll build a new partnership between public and private sector.

    Where tenants agree, we’ll bring in private capital to improve their lives on a scale never seen.

    To transform housing; improve schools; fight crime.

    Dignity, security, prosperity must walk down every street in the land.

    And that must include the inner cities.

    Grown up Government: Preparing for the Future – Now

    Mr Chairman, in the first years of this century Winston Churchill and Lloyd George laid the foundations of the Welfare State.

    The wartime and post-war governments, drawing on the work of William Beveridge, brought in state provision on a huge scale. It was right for its time. And, for a long time, it has served us well.

    But now we are on the threshold of a new century. Right across the world – even in the richest nations – people are looking forward and saying that the State cannot shoulder all the burden -and for ever.

    Some things, like the free National Health Service, is a principle we must never change.

    But, I believe it is time for the third great move forward in public welfare.

    To bolster social security with personal and family security.

    To build alongside State provision growing private wealth.

    To replace the insecurity of dependence for many with the security of independence for all.

    I have laid some of those ideas before you today.

    This is a bold vision – a grand ambition. It is what I have always longed to do.

    When it’s accomplished – and the next generations have the savings and security that we are preparing for them – then I believe people will look back and say: “How lucky we are that governments then looked forward – not twenty minutes or twenty days, but twenty, forty, sixty years.”

    Mr Chairman, government is a grown-up business.

    It’s not about clutching for the advantage of the hour.

    It’s about working for the advantage of future generations some of us may never even know.

    And to do that, whatever may be the short-term reaction – from the unthinking, the uncomprehending, the sheer opportunist.

    Doing the right thing, at the right time, for the ends we know to be right.

    Labour

    Our record is in the book, our policies are on the table, our principles are clear.

    So when people go into the polling booth, and put a cross in the box beside the Conservative candidate, they’ll know what it stands for.

    You can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    But before they mark that X, I’d like them to think carefully – very carefully indeed.

    That X will decide the fate of Britain for the next five years.

    But they could mark X somewhere else.

    X for the unknown quantity.

    An X that might stand for … well, just about anything.

    Imagine waking up the morning if the X files stacked up for Labour.

    It would be like waking up on an aeroplane that’s taxiing for take-off. What would the new captain say?

    “Welcome on board. Before we take-off, I’d just like you to welcome your crew.

    You probably remember the last crew from the same training school crash-landed. So did the one before. Indeed, everyone before. But don’t worry, we’re new.

    In fact, we’re so new none of us have flown before, except on a television simulator.

    During the flight, our bar steward, John Prescott, will be coming through the cabin, offering a selection of goods, all of which cost more tax.

    I can’t tell you yet what altitude we’re flying at. Or what speed. Or what direction. But I’m hoping a focus group will tell me shortly.

    Our destination – is unknown. But I can tell you the flight time will be about five years.

    In the meantime, please ensure your seat-belt is securely fastened.”

    Please ensure your seat-belt is securely fastened. That’s surely true. You would certainly need it.

    Imagine.

    Trade union bosses licking their lips, their lunch boxes packed with their sandwiches and pay demands.

    Businessmen reassessing their options, thinking how many they’d have to sack once Labour signed the Social Chapter.

    Currency markets holding their breath, remembering how the last Labour government bankrupted Britain.

    Scottish Nationalists preparing to say ‘Whatever Mr Blair offers, it’s not enough’.

    And the European Federalists, rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a Britain that will never be isolated in Europe, no matter what they proposed.

    If Mr Blair ever walked in through the most famous door in the world, half the hopes of Britain would disappear out the back.

    It’s taken 18 years of sound government and sheer hard work by the British people to get us here.

    We must not throw it away. Throw it away with the wrong economic policy.

    No, Mr Chairman.

    It’s not time for a change.

    And it would not be safe to change.

    Not safe to change economic management.

    Not safe to adopt reckless and opportunistic commitments to constitutional change.

    Not safe to toe the line in Europe and wreck our competitiveness.

    I’ll tell you what it is time for.

    It’s time for the clear-headed.

    Time for the far-sighted.

    Time for the experienced.

    Time to be sure.

    It’s time for us.

    That’s why we’ll win.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Party Rally – 22 February 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Party Rally, held in Birmingham on Saturday 22nd February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    I am delighted to be here in Birmingham today.

    Birmingham is one of the great industrial cities of the world. It’s a superb shop window for the United Kingdom.

    Each year, the G7 group of industrial nations meets to discuss policy. In recent years, they’ve been joined by Russia. Next year, the United Kingdom will hold the presidency of the G7 taking over from the United States.

    I’ve decided that Britain will host next year’s G7 summit here in Birmingham. The great economic nations of the world will meet in one of the great industrial cities of the world.

    Between now and then, we must achieve something never done before – a fifth successive election victory.

    The question we’ll face is simple: “After 18 years, why 5 more?”

    Well the answer to that is easy: it’s because on all the main issues we’re right and – as usual – Labour is wrong.

    After the election the government will inherit the soundest economy Britain has known for generations.

    We built it and I intend we shall inherit it.

    The longest consistent fall in unemployment since Ted Heath was Prime Minister. The longest period of low inflation since Mr Churchill was Prime Minister. The lowest basic rate of income tax since Mr Baldwin was Prime Minister. The lowest level of strikes since – well, since Mr Gladstone was Prime Minister. Britain is becoming the economic success story of Europe.

    That’s a fact. You can’t hide it.

    These days Britain’s economic success is so obvious – even Labour daren’t deny it.

    So they claim it would be safe with them.

    Well, you have to admire their nerve; they opposed our spending plans, tax changes, privatisations, deregulation – they opposed every single policy that has delivered success.

    And then they claim they can carry forward the success of these policies.

    They also claim they can be trusted with the unity of Britain when their priority is to break it up into smaller parts.

    And they say they can be trusted on Europe, when their policy is to copy its mistakes.

    On three main election battlegrounds – the economy, Europe, the Constitution – Labour are wrong, wrong and wrong again.

    The Foot-in-the-Door Salesmen

    To understand what New Labour is all about, you need to put yourselves in Labour’s shoes. When you’ve been wrong all your life what do you do?

    Imagine the PR men’s advice.

    “Ditch your past. Don’t say what you’d do. Just say what you’re against. Avoid details. Dream up gimmicks for headlines. Copy Tory language. And – above all – don’t forget to smile”.

    New Labour is one great marketing scam. They only say what they are told the customer would like to hear. The exact characteristic of the foot-in-the-door salesman.

    Nothing is quite what it seems. It depends on who they’re speaking to.

    They are for grammar schools in the Wirral, but against them at the Party Conference. They are for lower taxes in The Times. But in favour of more spending in The Guardian. They are tough on crime in The Daily Mail. But soft on crime in the House of Commons. Put it altogether, and what do you get?

    The world’s first:

    Federalist – Nationalist,

    Unilateralist – Militarist,

    tax-cutting, more spending,

    grammar school loving, grammar school hating,

    socialist, non-socialist party.

    There’s an old story of a seasoned politician who was once asked what time it was by a voter.

    “What time would you like it to be?” he replied. That, in a nutshell, is New Labour policy.

    If it would win a vote, please a newspaper editor, satisfy a pressure group, Labour would say anything.

    If it would win two votes, they’d believe anything.

    And if it would win three votes, they’d do anything.

    They’re prepared to disregard the views of a lifetime in the briefing of a lunchtime.

    As day succeeds day, the fraud that is New Labour becomes more transparent.

    You can’t take at face value a word that Labour say. That’s why they’re so dangerous.

    The Labour Leader claims he and his Party have changed.

    Well the oratory has changed.

    But have Labour really changed?

    New Labour runs Liverpool – the council with the highest Council Tax. No change there.

    New Labour runs Sheffield – the council with the largest number of empty homes. No change there.

    And, of course, New Labour runs Islington, the council with the worst education results in England. No change there.

    Mr Blair says – and I quote, “I don’t think the character of any party becomes clear until you’re in power”.

    Let’s take his word for it. In all these councils New Labour are in power.

    And what do we see?

    New Labour – same old story.

    One thing is clear, locally or nationally, you can’t trust Labour with Britain’s future.

    Why Five More Years

    But why does Britain need five more years of Conservative Government?

    Not just to protect what we’ve achieved but because there’s much to be done.

    In the 80s and early 90s we curbed inflation, extended private ownership, began to reform our schools and hospitals, toughened up the law.

    We should be confident and proud of what we’ve done.

    In the Tory years, the quality of life has been transformed.

    No other Party would have attempted it – let alone achieved it.

    But the Conservative reforms aren’t over – not by a long chalk.

    Now we must carry them forward.

    What is it people are still concerned about?

    Where are the areas that still need reform?

    They’re the areas where the state still has too much control.

    Where the consumer is swamped by bureaucracy and the individual is forgotten.

    Education

    Take education.

    I believe parents have a simple wish: to know that when they send their children to school, that school – paid for by their taxes – will give their children a decent education.

    They should be able to count on that.

    After years of reform, our Manifesto will give them a Guarantee of Standards. The first pillar will be tests.

    In the next Parliament we’ll test children at 7, 11 and 14.

    We’ll publish the results so that parents can see how their children are progressing, and teachers can discover how much their pupils have learnt.

    And we’ll change the way tests are marked, so children get scores out of 100. I think you’ll agree that’s common sense.

    It’s also common sense that every child is different.

    So we will go on creating a range of schools, breaking up the drab slab of a solely comprehensive system.

    More grant-maintained schools.

    More specialist schools.

    And, yes, more grammar schools.

    If that’s what parents like, that’s what parents will get. Labour can’t bear any of this.

    They wriggle, they writhe. They twist, they turn.

    Never mind watching their lips – watch the agony on their faces as they perform their lingual gymnastics, trying to hide their hatred for choice and their dislike of diversity.

    Grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, assisted places – we Conservatives believe in extending choice, not opposing it. It’s the basis of our philosophy.

    And how Labour detest it.

    But choice is meaningless unless it’s a choice of good schools.

    A choice of bad schools is no choice at all and, tragically, in some Labour education authorities, that’s all you get.

    We can already take over schools that are failing their children, but sometimes the problem isn’t just with the school – it’s with the education authority itself.

    So where education authorities are failing, we’ll create new powers to take them over to drive up standards.

    Labour will say, “But you have had 18 years to sort out education. Why has it taken so long?”

    That’s rich, coming from them. Who’s opposed all our reforms? Labour. And here’s a fact for the doorstep.

    The twenty education authorities with the worst education results are, without exception, traditional Labour authorities.

    It’s their attitudes and their schools that have been failing our children.

    So, after the election, I intend to ask the Government’s watchdog on standards – OFSTED – to examine, in turn, every single one of those failing education authorities.

    We’ll improve them if we can, and replace them if we can’t.

    We’re going to join the parents’ revolt against Labour education.

    And if you don’t think there’s a revolt around ask them in Islington.

    43 per cent of Islington’s parents agree.

    They send their children to secondary schools outside the borough.

    Some of them are rather well known parents.

    43 per cent.

    Parents running from councils like Islington.

    Socialist-run councils – with Socialists running away from them, as fast as they can.

    The People versus the Planners

    That’s socialists for you.

    Well-intentioned, but in love with controlling things.

    But just look at our inner cities, choked by the dead hand of socialist planning.

    We’ve brought in private investment and enterprise. And that public-private partnership is transforming what were once no-go areas for jobs and business.

    But the toughest challenge still remains: large housing estates, soulless blocks where the only sense of community was snuffed out long ago, that have become deserts of despair.

    Parties of every colour built them, thinking they were the right way ahead.

    But they’ve become places where poor education, drugs, crime have created a vicious downward spiral.

    Where people live dependent on the state, but are let down by local councils who own their homes.

    Where the worst poverty is poverty of hope.

    These estates are concrete proof that the old way – of hoping the state and councils can provide for all our needs – has failed.

    These people deserve the chance to rebuild their communities and their lives.

    Ours is a fresh approach, giving tenants the opportunity to vote to transfer their homes to new landlords.

    This is People Power – giving people the chance to control their own lives.

    To create a new community.

    It isn’t just bricks and mortar that matter. It’s training and jobs, raising education standards, tackling crime.

    It’s the community itself.

    Our commitment is to transform the worst estates across the whole of the country and the lives of those who live on them.

    We won’t solve it in a year – or even a Parliament.

    But it can be done and will be done – by the next Conservative Government.

    Just this week, we announced that tenants on 40 housing estates stand to benefit from millions of pounds to help the private sector transform 22,000 homes.

    22,000 homes.

    22,000 families.

    I bet you didn’t read about that in your newspapers.

    It probably didn’t merit a headline in some.

    But that’s the reality of life in Conservative Britain.

    As Britain grows stronger, more and more people are beginning to feel the warmth of prosperity touch their lives, whoever they are, wherever they live.

    That’s why Labour have to knock it.

    A week doesn’t pass without them kicking their favourite political football – the National Health Service.

    Just look at the service they attack.

    More patients being treated than ever before.

    Shorter waiting times.

    Better treatment.

    Why is our health service such a success?

    Not just because we’re spending more on it, though we are.

    But because we’re giving the money to the hospitals and doctors themselves who know best how to use it.

    Under Labour, bureaucracy would come back at the stroke of a pen.

    They’d strip hospitals and family doctors of their freedoms and smother them with new layers of bureaucracy.

    Our modern health service would be thrown into turmoil as Labour pushed it back to its bad old ways.

    That’s not the way we should go.

    We’re going to give more freedom to doctors and nurses. They’ll be able to offer more care in surgeries and nearer home.

    And – where they want to – create a new generation of cottage hospitals, so patients can be treated by professionals they know in their own community.

    And the same applies to our social services.

    We’re going to end the politically correct regulations, which stopped couples who want to adopt children from doing so.

    Regulations like this might sound petty. But to a couple who long to raise a family they can, quite literally, stand in the way of making a lifetime’s dreams come true. That’s the heart of the matter.

    Politically correct beliefs that prevent this don’t fit into the British way of life.

    The Constitution

    Britain’s progress – our prosperity, widening choice, opportunity – depends on one thing: stability.

    Labour’s plans for Britain would rip up our nation’s fabric up by the roots. “The most radical” constitutional change our country has ever seen, they boast.

    A tax raising parliament in Scotland.

    An assembly in Wales.

    A splattering of regional assemblies across England.

    And a referendum on changing the voting system to PR.

    Why in the name of sanity do they want to start cutting up this country of ours? Why risk Britain’s success?

    Devolution is the ransom Labour would pay to buy off the voices of separation. But it wouldn’t buy them off – it would just build up their appetite.

    Then there’s PR. That’s the price they’d pay for the support of the Liberal Democrats. Why else does Mr Blair want a referendum on PR? He says he’s against PR and against referendums.

    The constitution, the Union, British history – they are all pawns to New Labour.

    No price is too high.

    Nothing too sacred.

    Labour are after votes – at any price.

    “What’s the point of history? What relevance has that to the future” they say. “New Labour, no history”.

    Well, Mr Chairman – let’s make New Labour old history.

    We treasure the stability and security of our Constitution.

    Careful reform that builds for tomorrow – yes. Reckless change – no.

    The Labour leader hasn’t the first idea how his plans would work. He’s like a weak contestant on Mastermind.

    “Name?” “Tony Blair.”

    “Occupation?” “Demolition specialist.”

    “Subject?” “British Constitution.”

    Would Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster be able to vote on matters affecting England, but not Scotland?

    “Pass.”

    If someone from Birmingham was employed by a Scottish company, would they pay the tartan tax?

    “Pass.”

    Why should Scotland get a tax-raising parliament, but Wales only an assembly. What have the Scottish done to deserve such a fate? Why not trust the Welsh?

    “Pass.”

    Would regional assemblies duplicate the power of local government and Westminster?

    “Pass.”

    And so it goes on, and so on, and so on.

    “At the end of that round, Mr Blair, you were asked twenty questions – and you passed on them all”.

    Labour haven’t begun to think through the implications of their plans. And yet this would be their priority for government.

    The last Labour Government fell, tied up in knots of devolution.

    It was a complete failure. That’s where Old Labour stopped. And this is where New Labour would begin.

    That’s not a route map for Britain’s tomorrow. It’s a masterplan for disaster. And it’s deadly.

    Europe

    And if devolution wasn’t enough, there’s Europe.

    Here Labour would damage both our economy and our constitution.

    They want us to follow the European way of doing things – the European Social Model.

    It’s that old-fashioned approach: you pretend governments can protect jobs by imposing regulations and burdens on business.

    All Labour have done is dress it up in new words: stakeholding. Social justice, social partnership.

    New words to try to camouflage reality.

    But they can’t.

    Over 4 million Germans, over 3 million French and about 3 million Italians know that. They’re all unemployed.

    That’s over 10 million people in Europe without a stake in a job.

    Where’s the social justice in that?

    They have a message that Labour should listen to.

    “Give us our jobs back.”

    And unless we want to lose jobs in the same way, Britons should listen too.

    Labour tells us we shouldn’t be isolated in Europe.

    Translated, that means “You may be getting back to work in Britain, but really you should be joining your European colleagues on the dole”.

    By signing the Social Chapter and inflicting a minimum wage, Labour would conscript British youngsters into the growing army of the European unemployed.

    That’s the message: if you want to get people into jobs don’t give one to a Labour MP.

    And that’s only part of the picture.

    Labour wish to undermine our veto and hand more power to the European Union.

    They’re prepared to ransack the Westminster Parliament of its power.

    Some would go to Edinburgh; some to Cardiff; some to the regions; and some to Europe. Parliament could keep what’s left.

    A United Kingdom reduced to regions, each competing one against another, with no one voice, no common cause, no national purpose.

    A Europe of the Regions, the Europe so beloved of Robin Cook.

    This surely cannot be the future for us.

    To consign it to the long list of failed, discredited policies New Labour, Old Labour, any old Labour have to their name.

    We don’t take this position because focus groups say so. Nor out of party political advantage.

    We do so because we believe what Labour is proposing threatens this United Kingdom of ours with change on an unprecedented scale.

    Peroration

    We should be more confident as a nation about what we’ve done, what we are, what we stand for.

    If I had one wish, it would be that we could see ourselves as others see us.

    As one of the most secure democracies in the world. An outstanding success story. A nation enjoying a renaissance in enterprise.

    Behind us lie 18 years of building the foundations for rising prosperity.

    When we came to power in 1979, Britain was derided as the sick man of Europe. Today we are admired as the success story of Europe.

    The spirit of hope is around and growing by the day.

    We must build on that and broaden the smile across the face of Britain. We have a tale to tell that cannot be denied.

    Let’s not put it at risk.

    The polling booth is not a casino. Not a place to gamble with Britain’s future. It’s the opportunity to secure our future.

    An opportunity we Conservatives have created, and only we can build on.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 24 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, held on Friday 24th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he thought of the comments made by Leon Brittan].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out a policy of negotiating and deciding. That has been our policy for a long time and Leon Brittan has supported that policy. I didn’t ask him but I understand he did so again this morning. What we have been focusing on in the last few days is the economic criteria as to when and whether it might be safe to consider this properly. We have reached the judgement it is highly unlikely that the condition will be right for Europe itself – whether or not we are in it – to go ahead on 1st January 1999. The Cabinet reached that conclusion yesterday and self-evidently, if it isn’t right, we are not going to go ahead on that particular date. That is perfectly clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was surprised that this policy hadn’t won over the Euro-sceptics in his party].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You make an assertion that I don’t intend to comment upon. We have set out our policy for a long time. Our policy is in the national interest. We have set out a national interest policy and set it out very clearly so there is no misunderstanding. We have now looked at what the economic conditions are across Europe and reached a judgement on whether it is likely to be safe for our European partners or anyone to go ahead with the single currency on 1st January 1999. And upon the available evidence to us at present, we think it is unlikely, very unlikely, that they could safely proceed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if forty Euro-sceptics could defect after the General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is completely off-beam – a story that has emerged from time to time, usually without any names and one that has usually been denied in the past. It seems to have re-emerged, it’s completely off-beam. As far as I’m aware there is nothing to justify it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Tony Blair’s Amsterdam speech].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t read the details of everything the leader of the Labour Party plans to say but from what I know of what he plans to say, for example, after-school clubs for children, they have been our policy for some time. We have devoted many tens of million of pounds to them. I visited one very recently. They are a very good idea. They are our policy. I am afraid this is another example of the jackdaw tendency of the Labour Party, but if we leave a good policy lying around they will certainly scoop it up, shine it brightly and claim it as a brand new policy for themselves. But it isn’t. It is our policy, but I strongly suspect he has a watered down version of it. Beyond that, I understand what is in his speech will involve a good deal of expenditure and exclude private sector involvement which we would seek to include, so I expect there is not a good deal in the speech except for some copycat policies of ours.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the return of Alan Clark].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Alan Clark is an original. Everyone in the House of Commons knows he is an original. And he will being a dash of colour. It’s not just the question of the dash of colour and the originality of Alan Clark. There’s a very shrewd, clever, intelligent politician returning to the House of Commons and of course I welcome that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would give Alan Clark a Governmental role].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I’m not going to carry out my next Government reshuffle now, but I’m delighted you acknowledge there is going to be one.