The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Margaret Thatcher

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Doorstep Interview in Montreal – 17 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s arrival doorstep interview in Montreal on Thursday 17th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you confirm that Britain would not use a veto in the Security Council against any No Fly Zone enforcement moves that were taken up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have the opportunity of discussing this over the next two days but I certainly do not expect that there would be a resolution that we would need to veto, I think that that is most unlikely.

    QUESTION:

    What form would the resolution take, do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is still to be discussed and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing that over the weekend with President Bush.

    QUESTION:

    Are you certain yet how far you are prepared to go in committing any more military effort from Britain, whether it was to enforce the No Fly Zone or anything else?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Those are matters that we will discuss over the weekend, there are a number of complex matters that need to be brought together, I will discuss them over the weekend, I may have more to say by the end of the weekend.

    QUESTION:

    Do you accept what Mrs Thatcher is saying today that the West should accept some blame for what has happened in Yugoslavia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen what Lady Thatcher has said about that and I have no comment to make about it until I have seen the text.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regard the Bosnian question as top of the agenda with President Bush?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it must be top of many people’s agenda, there are other matters to discuss with President Bush, of course, the GATT Round is still very important and we have other matters to discuss as well. But I do not think anyone can have any doubt about the importance of what has been happening in Bosnia, many of the actions there are appalling, there is no doubt about that, but we need to look and see what can be done to bring a settlement but we need to do that in the context of maintaining the humanitarian relief that is now going through, were that to be broken there would be very serious consequences this winter.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think some of the voices on the American side are too gung-ho and do you think the British and American positions can be reconciled?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I would not describe them in that fashion and I have no doubt that we will reach an accommodation before the Security Council resolution comes round, I have no doubt at all about that, I think there is a common acknowledgement of the problem and a common will to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    To those who say something must be done, what do you say at this stage?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We all want to do something and we are doing something and the question is what we can do that is most effective. We have to bear in mind that there are many people in very great difficulty in central Bosnia who actually need those humanitarian lines to be kept open, we have to bear in mind what nature of conflict this is and consider what actions we can most take that are most successful. I am not interested in gestures, I am interested in actions that will be successful, those are the matters we have to discuss.

    QUESTION:

    Could action be taken before Mr Clinton takes over in the White House?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I cannot speculate upon that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you can make significant progress on GATT both in Ottawa later tonight and in Washington in unblocking the problems that are still facing the GATT negotiators?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are still some problems in Geneva and I think it is very important that we make progress, we will certainly discuss with the United States but of course we are now into multilateral negotiations in Geneva, it is not just a question of the Community and the United States, there are much wider interests as well.

  • PMQT – 23 April 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Blunkett : Does the Prime Minister agree that under the proposed council tax the price of protecting the rich will be that the rest of us will have to pay more? Given that the Labour party proposes to protect the interests of retired people, does the Prime Minister believe that someone who lives alone but who has an income of £50,000 or £100,000 a year and owns two properties should or should not be entitled to an automatic 25 per cent. rebate on both properties, when a couple who are struggling just to make ends meet will get no relief at all? Is that what the Prime Minister means when he talks about developing a classless society?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement, setting out the details of our new proposals immediately after Question Time. Whether people live in a large, small or medium-sized property, they will have to pay less under Conservative local government than they do under Labour.

    Mr. Hague : Will my right hon. Friend reflect today on the great respect that there is in my constituency for the way in which he kept his nerve during the local government review and was not pushed into making a premature announcement? Would not it have been wiser for his political opponents to give him the credit for that, particularly as their policies are the result of three years of hand-wringing and head-scratching before they decided to go back to where they started from?

    The Prime Minister : To be fair to the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition did precisely what I did in terms of consulting and waiting before introducing proposals for his own tax. As he wrote in April 1990 :

    “We are currently consulting widely with people in local government about our proposals. Our proposals have been planned and tested. Our aim is to get the system right rather than to announce it prematurely.”

    That is what we did and we were both correct to do so.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister think that Mr. Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors was right to say today that this awful recession

    “is a failure of Government economic management”?

    Is not it clear that, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister must bear a special personal burden of guilt?

    The Prime Minister : If the difficulties that the economy faces are solely the result of domestic economic mismanagement, it is an oddity that there are recessions in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland and in many other countries.

    Mr. Kinnock : Last week’s figures from the Government showed unemployment soaring and output and productivity collapsing. Today’s figures show that imports and exports are wildly out of balance again, with imports rising twice as fast as exports. When all that is the case, is it any wonder that the Institute of Directors, like everyone else, understands very well that this is a recession hand-made in Downing street by the right hon. Gentleman?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman cares to examine the trade figures more carefully, he will find that export volumes are up on last year and import volumes are down.

    Mr. Kinnock : In so far as there is any improvement year on year in the import figures, would it have been any wonder, when the right hon. Gentleman has flattened the economy, that imports should have been falling? Instead of that, imports are rising twice as fast as exports. Why is not the Prime Minister man enough to accept his share of the blame?

    The Prime Minister : What we are flattening is inflation and interest rates ; both are falling.

    Mr. Forman : Is not it clear to my right hon. Friend and to the House that interest rates and inflation will fall in the remainder of the year and that it will be possible for economic recovery to come as a consequence? Is not it equally clear that any Government who had a policy of increasing the rates of tax on incomes, without telling the British people exactly what those rates and what that coverage would be, would be both working against the interests of recovery and not levelling with the British public?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. As he knows, inflation has fallen by nearly 3 per cent. since October and will show a further dramatic fall again next month. That has paved the way for five interest rate cuts. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this morning, the economic recovery will gather pace in the second half of the year.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister concerned that after 12 years of Conservative Government, one third of our seven-year-olds are still being sold short on the learning of their mother tongue, English? How can he explain that?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has made clear on a number of occasions the importance that we attach to the basics in the curriculum–the most important of all being English. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about such matters, perhaps he will offer us his clear and unequivocal support for testing so that we can determine precisely what is happening and improve it.

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the cost of the new council tax comes to be analysed per household, all policies should be taken into account? If a policy included the scrapping of any capping on local authority spending or the re-creation of the Greater London council, one thing is clear : it would cost every London household an absolute fortune.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will know that the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition for local government would lead to a massive and costly disruption. The Labour party proposes two upheavals : first, a return to the rates, which would mean massive bills for many people in different parts of the country ; and, secondly, ever-rising bills because Labour refuses to cap spendthrift councils.

     

    Q2. Mr. Lewis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Lewis : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Employment that there needs to be yet another job creation scheme to massage the figures before the next general election, or will he side with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wants nothing to do with it?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman would know, if he studied these matters, that we now have in place in this country the largest training programmes that we have ever had.

    Mr. Ken Hargreaves : The Prime Minister will be aware from his visit to my constituency last week how much my constituents appreciate the community charge reduction scheme. Many couples benefit to the tune of £500, while families of three benefit to the tune of £800. Does he understand the anger of my constituents at the Labour party’s action last Wednesday in trying to scrap the community charge reduction scheme?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly understand that. I think that anybody would be extremely angry indeed not only at the Labour party’s plans for that, but on examining the details of what it proposes to replace the community charge with.

     

    Q3. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jones : Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm today that, despite the desperate need to improve his electoral chances at the next election, he will not be extending his safe-haven policy to representatives of other small, distant minorities, such as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)?

    The Prime Minister : I am at the moment fully occupied with dealing with safe havens in Iraq.

    Mr. Oppenheim : Bearing in mind the widespread calls for Britain to adopt an industrial strategy, has my right hon. Friend ever met anyone who would like to go back to the days when we last had an industrial strategy, when British Airways was rated by passengers below Aeroflot, when British Steel was the world’s largest loss-maker and when British Leyland was the butt of international jokes?

    The Prime Minister : Certainly, as my hon. Friend intimates, I have never met anyone sensible who wished to return to such a process. But, of course, Opposition Members have policies remarkably like that, with the return of quangos, enterprise banks and all the nastiness of the 1970s.

     

    Q4. Mr. O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. O’Brien : Now that the Prime Minister and the Government have recognised the unfairness of the payment of 20 per cent. of the poll tax by the poorest people in the country, why does not he act now and abolish the 20 per cent. payment? Why is he planning to continue the misery and suffering of thousands of poorer families for a further two years?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman would be better employed asking his own leader why he should wish to abandon the community charge reduction scheme.

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is surprising to hear the Leader of the Opposition praying in his support the chairman of British Petroleum, who spoke against the Government today, bearing in mind the fact that much of the inflation has been caused by petrol companies putting up prices more than they should and paying themselves more than they should? What lead is that and what example is that for the Leader of the Opposition to give to the rest of the country?

    The Prime Minister : The statement by the chairman of British Petroleum was certainly odd in that respect, although he did make the very wise statement that pay settlements are often too high, that the labour market remains riddled with imperfections and that while it remains so riddled it is prevented from working properly.

     

    Q5. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Martlew : The Prime Minister, when being interviewed last week by Brian Walden on television, said that some of the principles of the poll tax need to be enshrined. Does the Prime Minister still stick with that statement, or is he going to change his mind again?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has just invented a new definition of impatience. He need wait but a matter of minutes and he will know.

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no Government under his leadership will ever introduce a national minimum wage? Will he confirm that such a policy would destroy jobs and massively increase unemployment, as well as wipe out the system of apprenticeships?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly confirm all those matters. The estimate of the Department of Employment officials is that a minimum wage would cost between 750,000 and 1 million jobs.

     

    Q6. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Winnick : As the original poll tax was the beloved flagship of the Prime Minister’s predecessor, is it surprising that some of the more ardent supporters of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) believe that the Government are betraying the true faith of Thatcherism again today? Is not it understandable that the right hon. Lady is pretty cross about the record of the Government since she left office?

    The Prime Minister : I have never seen the hon. Gentleman as someone who could adequately reflect the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

    Mr. Sayeed : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that parts of the country such as Bristol would benefit from being unitary authorities and that the Government have no intention of following the Labour party lead and imposing regional authorities, which would mean just another tier of local government?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will also cover such matters in his statement shortly.

     

    Q7. Ms. Armstrong : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Ms. Armstrong : Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has a real problem in his Cabinet–a truant ? What action is he prepared to take about the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who, during his period in the Department, has spent less than one working day in state schools ?

    The Prime Minister : When the hon. Lady sees the full range of proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has prepared for education she, like everyone else, will be bound to applaud them.

     

    Q8. Mrs. Currie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Currie : Does the Prime Minister agree that the most significant aspect of local government finance is how much is raised and what the money is spent on? Does my right hon. Friend have a view on the proposal of the leader of Derbyshire county council and of some Members of the House that there should be no controls on council spending ? Does he agree that that would lead to huge increases in bills under such councils ?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There have to be controls over levels of local authority expenditure, for two reasons–first, to protect community charge payers and ratepayers and, secondly, in the interests of the wider economy.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Becoming Prime Minister – 6 January 1991

    The text of Mr Major’s comments on becoming Prime Minister, made in an interview on 6th January 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when he heard that Margaret Thatcher was resigning].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I heard it very late on the evening before she told Cabinet the next day, and as you know I was at home recovering from a wisdom tooth operation and I was telephoned and told late in the evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he shed a tear when she resigned].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I was very sorry, yes, I mean she has had a remarkable record. I think there’s no doubt whatsoever that when historians come to write the history of the last 10 or 11 years she is a dominating figure. And if you look back through the span of years from the turn of the century there are two or three figures who have actually dominated British politics at one time or another and Margaret Thatcher is amongst those, so it was a very sad day, I think, yes.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if all the back seat driver talk was untrue].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was also out of context.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he had consulted Margaret Thatcher and whether he would listen to her advice].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We always had a very good relationship when she was Prime Minister as indeed did most of her members of her government with her. I think that is the case and I see no reason for that friendly relationship not to continue in the future, yes. She is a repository of great experience and from time to time I would be very silly if I didn’t, if I didn’t tap into that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had asked her advice yet].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’ve spoken to her, I’ve spoken to her on a number of occasions, I don’t know that I’ve consulted her in terms that you mean, certainly not. But we’ve certainly spoken on a number of occasions, yes.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if she could have won on a second ballot in the leadership election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know, she’s a very remarkable politician. I certainly wouldn’t have ruled it out.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he instinctively knew he wouldn’t her second Margaret Thatcher’s nomination in the second round].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I didn’t instinctively make up my mind about that. The final decision to do that wasn’t really taken until the following morning around 11am, one hour before nominations closed. There was no decision as to whether I would stand until that time. And it wasn’t until one hour before the nominations closed that I actually had a nominator and a seconder. So the decision was taken at a very late stage. I of course was Mrs Thatcher’s seconder and I expected to second her and to support her and to try and encourage colleagues to vote for her on the second ballot and I would have done that with a will.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Council (II) – 15 December 1990

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Council, made in Rome on Saturday 15th December 1990.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what achievements had come out of the summit].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several things that please us very much.

    Clearly, the determination to reach a conclusion in the GATT Round is very important; the very strong support indeed for the Security Council Resolutions on Kuwait is equally important; the fact that the Community have made a move in lifting the investment ban on South Africa is very welcome indeed – I think it will encourage the changes in South Africa that all of us wish to see; and, of course, there are also the Conclusions on the implementation of Community legislation – that is very important. We tend to operate and legislate what the Community agrees; others perhaps have been slower and I hope they will now catch up.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would get a better reception in Europe than Margaret Thatcher].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mrs Thatcher has had a tremendous record in the Community over the last ten years and a large number of the initiatives the Community have followed are initiatives that she instituted. Of course, from time to time one runs into difficulties and I have no doubt I will but I do not think one should draw the comparison that you do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether Britain’s view on Europe was still very different from the other 11 member states].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think many people actually misjudge the practical changes that many of our partners in Europe actually think will come about. What we have agreed to do is to put a menu of options into the intergovernmental conference so that we can discuss them in detail. The European Council is not the place to do that, so we need to look at all these matters in detail; what they mean, how they would work, what their implications would be and that is the correct way to proceed if you want to have sensible changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the European Community. We have agreed to do that and I think that is the right way to proceed.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Council (I) – 15 December 1990

    The text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Council, made in Rome on Saturday 15th December 1990.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had been surprised by the progress of the European Council].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think I am surprised by it. I think it was a very constructive European Council and I am very pleased about that, but I am not surprised about it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought that he had been treated differently because he was new to the job].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly did not notice that from time to time. Some of the discussions were extremely constructive but not necessarily easy.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he would consider a single currency in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our policy on that is wholly clear. We have set out a practical approach towards economic and monetary union through the medium of a parallel currency, a European currency that we would call the ‘hard Ecu’.

    We have always made it clear, not just now but from the very inception of this policy, that if people want it, if businesses want it and if governments want it, that could evolve to a single currency but that is the only safe economic way to a single currency; that was, is and will remain our position.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether that was different to Margaret Thatcher, who said no to membership].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is out of context, with great respect. Mrs Thatcher agreed with the policy on the hard Ecu, was very much involved with its formation and was wholly behind it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be a change in style towards Europe now that he was Prime Minister].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is substance that matters. I do not understand all this froth and puffle about style. What matters is the substance of policy; what is presented in the British interest; what is agreed in the British interest. That, at the end of the day, is what matters and that is what we are in the business to achieve – the best possible outcome for Britain and for Europe. That is exactly the view that Mrs Thatcher took, it is exactly the view I shall take.

  • QEII Conference Centre Speech – 4 December 1990

    The text of Mr Major’s speech given by the Prime Minister at the presentation meeting of the new leader. The speech was given at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre at Westminster, Tuesday 4th December 1990.

    THE PRIME MINISTER

    Mr Chairman, when I joined the Conservative Party 30 years ago, I scarcely imagined this moment. That it has happened is a tribute above all to our Party and to the changes we have seen in the last decade.

    We owe so much of that to the will and determination of one woman. And I am glad beyond measure that she is here today so that we can tell her so.

    Margaret Thatcher has been a remarkable Prime Minister. There can be no doubt that history will record her as one of the great figures of our century – in Britain, and far beyond. The principles she fought for are right. They are shared by millions of people in this country. And we will build on them in the future.

    There was one simple precondition for those triumphant years.

    It is that we won three successive elections. Of course we did so partly because we were led by Margaret Thatcher. Partly because we touched the public instinct. And partly because you have made the Conservative Party the most formidable electoral fighting force in modern politics.

    But there was one other ingredient. We won those elections because we were united – in our principles, in our actions, and in a common cause.

    Margaret Thatcher knows that success for our Party depends on unity. That is why in her last speech in the Commons as Prime Minister – an unforgettable occasion for those of us who were there – she urged us all to work for a fourth election victory. So the message for the whole Party from the Branches to the Constituencies, from the backbenches to the Cabinet Room is this: there must be no backbiting, no recriminations, no post-mortems. There is too much at stake. We have an election to win.

    If there are any who doubt that judgement, let them ask themselves this question – what do the Labour Party want – and need? They want – and need – us to fight one another. So we must never forget that we have only one fight – and that fight is with them.

    Mr Chairman, people ask what I stand for.

    Let me tell you.

    First and foremost, I loathe inflation. To me inflation is not an abstract concept. It means the destruction of competitiveness for industry and commerce. It brings the destruction of peace of mind for people who see prices rising beyond their capacity to pay. It is economically destructive and socially divisive.

    So the centre piece of our policy must be an intolerance of inflation and a determination to beat it.

    Mr Chairman, what are our hopes?

    Again, let me tell you mine.

    It is to build a truly open society.

    Open because we believe that every man and woman should be able to go as far as their talent, ambition and effort take them. There should be no artificial barrier of background, religion or race. A society of opportunity where people can better themselves and their families by their own efforts. A Britain that puts people in control of their own lives, to exercise their own choices in their own time, in their own way.

    And yes, amidst the inevitable competitive thrust of life, it should be a compassionate society. Genuinely compassionate – because some people do need a special helping hand to help them enjoy a full life of choice and independence. And we should never forget that small changes in the lives of private people are every bit as important to them as dramatic changes in the lives of public people. And a classless society: not in the grey sense of drab uniformity – but in the sense that we remove the artificial barriers to choice and achievement.

    We should not underestimate what has already been achieved.

    But there is still more to be done.

    For there are still too many corners of Britain in which the effects of our Conservative reforms are yet to be felt.

    It is for this reason that I want the 1990s to become a Decade of Opportunity.

    Let there be no doubt that in spreading opportunity we must continue to encourage wealth creation.

    Continue to keep taxes low on families and on business.

    And continue to reduce regulation and promote enterprise.

    And, of course, we must continue to enlarge the private sector wherever we can. But where services do remain in public hands we will not hesitate to apply private sector skills to ensure that they are more efficient and deliver the high quality that people deserve and demand.

    When I came into the Party we had set ourselves the goal of a property-owning democracy.

    We wanted people to own their own homes.

    Now two thirds of families do.

    In the 1980s we worked for the capital owning democracy – more building society accounts, more shares, more personal pensions.

    And millions of families have gained from the actions we took.

    Now in the 1990s we must work to extend savings further.

    For two reasons: one economic and one social.

    The economic reason is that as a nation we will need those savings in the 1990s to finance the investment necessary to keep our companies competitive.

    And I don’t want those savings to be imported; I want those savings to be British.

    The social reason is that we want more people to have savings behind them. Because money set aside gives them and their families a greater sense of security and a wider freedom of choice.

    Those who talk of the selfish society misjudge a country in which more time is volunteered and more money is given in help to others than anywhere in Europe.

    For what do you see if you go to a local charity, the Citizens Advice Bureau, or the Red Cross?

    Half your constituency executive: that’s what you see!

    The challenge to us now is to remain the radical Party.

    Spreading the privileges once available to the few so they can be enjoyed by the many.

    We are committed to schools where all children have a quality education. We have brought in open enrolment, given financial control to the schools, encouraged more involvement by parents, and introduced a national curriculum. Now we want to ensure that the best people are attracted into the teaching profession and that teachers command respect for the job they do.

    We offer no sudden solutions or miracle cures.

    But where we find that things are not quite right, we will listen, and we will make the changes that are necessary.

    And that is precisely why we have put in hand a further review of the Community Charge.

    The Government that never reviewed policies, never made any.

    Mr Chairman, in this country 32 million people are under the age of 40.

    If we are to build for them we must look to the kind of world we would like to see in 25 years time and begin building it.

    The European Community remains central to our place in Europe and the wider world.

    The Channel Tunnel, connected this last week re-emphasises yet again that we are part of Europe.

    I believe it is in our national self-interest to help build and shape the European Community as it evolves.

    We must be in there, arguing, persuading and, yes, fighting for our interests and our vision of Europe.

    Just like our partners.

    But being a good European does not mean accepting every proposal from the Community.

    The more committed we are to our role in Europe, the more we must ensure that the Community is constructed on the principles we care about: liberalism in economics, democracy in politics, evolution in constitutional questions, and cooperation in foreign policy.

    So we will set out to work with our Community partners in building such a Europe. And do so with enthusiasm.

    But we will not be deterred either from saying what we believe to be wrong – or pressing what we believe to be right – by the cry that we are insufficiently European.

    Politely but firmly we shall say what we think.

    And our partners will respect us for it.

    Mr Chairman, there is one dark cloud that hangs over us.

    In recent months we have seen the invasion and systematic destruction of Kuwait.

    And now the United Nations Security Council has taken a momentous decision. It authorises use of all necessary means – and that includes force – if Iraq does not withdraw by the middle of January.

    No-one should doubt our objective.

    We want to see a peaceful solution in the Gulf.

    That is our preferred outcome.

    So we fully support President Bush when he says that he is prepared to travel the extra mile to achieve such a solution.

    So are we.

    But there can be no question of negotiations, concessions, partial solutions or linkage to other issues.

    The whole international community has made it clear that Iraq has to withdraw from Kuwait totally and unconditionally.

    The legitimate government has to be restored.

    And of course, all the hostages have to be released and sent home to their families – where they belong.

    If Saddam Hussein does that, he need have no fear of attack. It is in his hands.

    But for the international community, a vital principle is at stake. It is not only the restoration of the rightful government of Kuwait, important though that is. It is that if we want a safe world in future, Iraq’s aggression must be reversed.

    Mr Chairman, everyone’s political belief stems from his personal experience.

    My Conservatism comes from what I saw, what I felt and what I did, as well as what I read.

    It shaped what I want to do.

    To me, Conservatism is not a creed. It is essentially the common sense view of life from a tolerant perspective. And let me give you two cast-iron pledges today. As long as I am privileged to lead our Party it will never become an exclusive club.

    Conservatism will remain a word for economic progress, social mobility and for the individual dignity that is the natural right of every citizen. Ours must be a Conservatism which touches every instinct and enters every home.

    It will never be a word for “nothing left to do”.

  • Mr Major’s Statement in Support of Margaret Thatcher – 16 November 1990

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement in support of the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in the Conservative Party leadership election. The statement was released by Conservative Central Office on Friday 16 November 1990, reference 696/90.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I am sorry that a leadership election is taking place. I do believe it is an unnecessary distraction when the task that faces us is to implement the Party’s present policies in Government and prepare future policy for the next General Election and beyond.

    Margaret Thatcher is one of this country’s most successful peace time Prime Ministers and is a political leader of authority who commands respect throughout the world. At home, her leadership has brought about immense changes and has helped to transform our economy.
    Margaret Thatcher’s qualities of clarity, purpose and vigour have secured the Conservative Party victory at the polls on three successive occasions and are needed by the Party today. We should all unite and support her.