|
====================================================================================
NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND
NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING
AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS,
THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY
====================================================================================
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE:
10.06.01
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Who
will be leading the Tory Party in a couple of months from now and what
direction will it take? I'll be talking to the man who wrote the last manifesto.
Has he torn it up and does he want to start all over again? I'll be asking
David Trimble if he's going to resign now that the Ulster Unionists have
been given such a hammering at the polls. And after another landslide,
will we soon be voting on the euro? That's after the news read by George
Alagiah.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: After his second landslide,
is Tony Blair now ready to risk everything and go for broke with a referendum
soon on the euro?
And the Ulster Unionists
were dealt a big blow at the election? I'll be asking David Trimble what
it means for him and the future of the peace process.
But first ... the
state of the Conservative Party. The immediate question is who will be
the new leader. The candidates are still mostly keeping their heads down
but they'll soon be surfacing. And when they do they'll have to persuade
the party that they know where to take it over the next four or five years.
Clearly there has to be a new direction. But how radical must it be? How
many of the old policies have to be thrown overboard? How radical can they
afford to be without losing the support of their core supporters? I'll
be talking to the man who wrote their last manifesto, David Willetts, after
this report from Terry Dignan.
TERRY DIGNAN: Has there ever been a darker
hour in the history of the Conservative Party? Few here in Smith Square,
home to the party's HQ, can recall anything quite as calamitous. The search
has begun - both for an explanation of what went wrong - and for someone
to lead the party into a bright new dawn. But it means revisiting the potentially
divisive issues of Europe, taxation and the party's ability to adapt to
the modern world.
Two devastating election defeats have left the Conservative Party uncertain
about its future. Many of its MPs feel radical changes are needed. But
they can't agree on what direction the party should take. To unlock the
reasons behind the latest landslide defeat, some Conservatives say where
better to start than at Central Office where the party's campaign was planned
and put into operation.
MICHAEL HESELTINE: The strategy was to choose a
number of issues which enabled the Party to be labelled as right-wing,
hard-nosed, unsympathetic.
JOHN MAPLES MP: If we continue to be obsessed
with issues that concern us and don't concern the floating voters and we
do so in terms which appear to them to be extreme we won't win elections,
we won't gain their votes.
LAURENCE ROBERTSON MP: We really do need to be very careful
that we don't exclude the concerns of our great core support, which we've
enjoyed for so many years, I think it is important that we keep our traditional
values in the Conservative Party.
DIGNAN: The prospect of a leadership
contest is concentrating the minds of Conservative MPs on the kind of party
they want to represent. No longer will William Hague sit at a desk trying
to balance the concerns of floating voters against the party's traditional
values. He has done the decent thing.
The favourite to take over is Michael Portillo. Thinking it over, Ann
Widdecombe. A strong contender would be Iain Duncan Smith. David Davis
is being encouraged to stand. From the pro-European wing of the party,
there's Kenneth Clarke, of course. Others who are said to be tempted are
John Redwood and Andrew Lansley. In a series of ballots, Conservative MPs
will whittle down the contestants to just two - they'll go forward to the
next round, when party members will make the final choice as to who should
lead them.
But the path to power involves a detour into the past of Michael Portillo.
He has been on a personal quest for a new political credo. Gone is the
uncaring dogmatist. In his place a more tolerant Portillo, a Conservative
who values cultural and sexual diversity - and who wants to appeal beyond
the Tory core vote.
TIM YEO MP: Any leader who's going to be
successful must be prepared to take on in a much more inclusive way, the
kind of dialogue which people in the centre, the floating voters, want
to engage in and it does mean not just pleasing the readers of the Daily
Mail and the Daily Telegraph.
ALAN DUNCAN MP: I think the way for us to step
into the middle ground which the likes of Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine
quite reasonably say we need to occupy, is to look at the social agenda
more than anything else and I think the future of the Conservative Party
lies in euro-sceptic, social liberalism, but I'd put the stress on the
social liberalism.
DIGNAN: But this search for a new
kind of Conservatism fails to inspire some on the right of the party. They
fear it leads nowhere. A better guide to success for them would be a renewed
debate about how to achieve less Government and lower taxation.
ERIC FORTH MP: I'm not sure I quite understand
what this inclusive thing is, if it's not just words and where it leads
in policy terms, but I don't think that's the way forward at all. Can't
we have an adult, mature debate about whether or not the government is
actually the best agency to be running, well I don't know, anything at
all? I think we've got to get back into that debate and not be frightened
off by people talking about this nonsense about lifestyle or whatever
it is is now the trendy thing to discuss.
DIGNAN: But others fear the party
will never emerge from the shadows if it makes tax cuts a priority. They
argue the election result showed that voters no longer share the Conservatives
preoccupation with taxation.
MAPLES: Most peoples concerns was
improvement of public services and somehow they felt that you know tax
cuts would be at the expense of those services.
YEO: I think on the question
of taxation, people at the moment do not feel over taxed, except perhaps
on the issue of fuel tax where we are paying higher taxes than anywhere
less in Europe.
DIGNAN: Portillo's commitment to
lower taxation is now questioned on the right. That could give an opportunity
to, David Davis, who opted to chair the powerful Commons Public Accounts
Committee rather than join the Shadow Cabinet. It means he lacks a high
profile outside Parliament but his supporters are urging him to stand.
FORTH: I'm hoping that my friend
and colleague David Davis will offer himself as a potential leader of the
party. I think that he's shown in the past four years as Chairman of the
Public Accounts Committee that he's able to play a leading role in holding
the government to account in a number of different ways and has done that
I think very successfully. But he's also demonstrated that he's capable
of real thought about policy, about what we are and what we want to be
and about the way ahead.
DIGNAN: Those who want a more tolerant,
inclusive Conservative Party may face a battle in the coming weeks with
the forces of social authoritarianism, those politicians who stress the
importance of moral values. Their leading lights are regarded as Ann Widdecombe
and Shadow Defence Secretary Iain Duncan Smith. But some Conservatives
say the party has suffered enough from sounding tough.
DUNCAN: I think it has looked too
bossy and it's looked too nasty. I said to someone once you know it's all
very well you wanting us to appear to be once again the stupid party but
why make us the nasty party as well. There's no need for it.
YEO: We need to have someone
who looks friendly, who looks inclusive, who accepts a whole variety of
different lifestyles, doesn't make judgements about them, but does help
people enjoy the opportunities which exist. It needs to be a leader who
recognises that we've got to reach out more widely and therefore is not
simply going to say, I am going to talk about asylum seekers or the length
of prison sentences.
DIGNAN: Cue Ann Widdecombe. As
Shadow Home Secretary her tough line on asylum and law and order wowed
the party conference. But she also has strong views on marriage, abortion
and homosexuality. A little bit too strong for some of her fellow Conservative
MPs and for the euro-sceptics among them, there's another problem.
BILL CASH MP: Nobody really knows quite
where Ann Widdecombe stands on the European issue and I don't think myself
that however much she may be able to do a good job on the party conference
platform, that that would be in itself enough. I don't really see her as
a credible leader of the Conservative Party.
DIGNAN: Iain Duncan Smith's views
on Europe are less of a mystery. He's said to be sympathetic to toughening
the party's line on the single currency. Which means he could appeal to
a large section of the party, including those who believe in traditional
Conservative values on other issues.
ROBERTSON: I think the Conservative Party
does have to re-establish itself as a Conservative, as a Tory Party and
that means belief in the nation state. It means belief in the family as
a cornerstone of society and it means belief in the sound economy.
CASH: I think Iain Duncan
Smith does have incredible credibility, precisely because particularly
on the European issue, he was not associated with for example signing up
to the Maastricht Treaty.
ANDREW ROSINDELL MP: No Conservative government
that believes in the nation can ever give away control of its currency
and abolish the pound and I think we have to be clear about that, it is
a matter of principle. It's not an option for a few years and then we'll
think again later, if we keep the pound we keep our independence. So this
must be a permanent policy for the Conservative Party.
DIGNAN: There are signs of even
further restlessness over Europe. Although some are alarmed at the prospect
of re opening internal party divisions, there are those who want to find
a way to disentangle the United Kingdom from what is described as a European
federal state.
ROSINDELL: It's not a question
of just being in the existing arrangements, we have to have new arrangements
that suit Britain - the existing arrangements don't.
NIGEL EVANS MP: The Conservative Party
at Westminster is generally of the centre right but we are a broad church
and I think that if the centre right decide that right we're going to get
somebody who is seen as being very right wing or indeed a euro-sceptic
right winger and spends most of their time trying to alienate the other
side, then we are not only just going to alienate parts of the parliamentary
party but I think we are going to alienate the country as well.
DIGNAN: Kenneth Clarke would agree.
He's been here before. He knows his support for joining the euro is shared
by only a minority of Conservative MPs - although some argue he would be
the most popular choice among the voters.
MICHAEL HESELTINE: My own clear view is that the
Party having decided how to reposition itself, should look for someone
who can win and the evidence will be very clear as to who that will be
and certainly at the moment, it is self-evidently Ken Clarke, who is streets
ahead of anybody else in terms of what the public want.
CASH: I don't believe that
Kenneth Clarke would be a credible contender for a very simple reason,
that he is clearly in favour of monetary union, he has said so.
DIGNAN: But should the new Conservative
leader at Westminster, in the cause of party unity, hold out an olive branch
to pro-Europeans like Kenneth Clarke by bringing them back into the Shadow
Cabinet - at the cost of allowing them to campaign in favour of joining
the euro in a referendum.
DAMIAN GREEN MP: It would be sensible for any leader
at anytime not to set up a single policy area as a kind of qualification
test. That any sensible party in a first past the post political system
needs to be a broad church if it wants to win elections.
EVANS: Members of the Shadow Cabinet
and the Parliamentary Party are going to have to have the freedom to be
able to speak out on issues like the single currency so that there wouldn't
be a three line whip on the Parliamentary Party on that issue, we're just
going to have to be more mature about it that's all. Ken has played an
enormous role in the Conservative Party in the past and has been missed
I have to say over this parliamentary session and I just hope that we are
able to bring forward people of Ken's calibre into the Shadow Cabinet if
he so wishes to play a part.
CASH: I hear that some
people are saying that Kenneth Clarke could come back into the Shadow Cabinet
and also campaign in favour of the euro in a referendum. These things are
mutually inconsistent and it would just be a fundamental illustration of
the ridiculous position in which the Conservative Party could get itself.
DIGNAN: The Conservative Party
has started out on a new chapter in its long life in the most dismal of
circumstances. Reminders of a glorious past serve only to reinforce the
party's central dilemma - that it is a long way from finding the policies
- or the leader - to inspire the voters it needs to win back power.
HUMPHRYS: Terry Dignan reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: David Willetts, forget about
the personalities for a moment, let's look at the policies. When Labour
were as soundly thrashed as you, not perhaps as soundly thrashed as you,
they went back to the drawing board and what they produced was a new party.
Forget about old Labour entirely, new Labour, new party. Are you going
to do that?
DAVID WILLETTS: We certainly need to have
a radical rethink. We do need to think through what the Conservative Party
stands for in the Twenty-first century. But in doing that we should be
drawing on Conservative principles, we should be sticking to our basic
beliefs, the importance of the family, the importance of our national identity,
and we can do that, and I think we can do what the party managed to do
so successfully after previous landslide defeats, after 1906, after 1945.
We should draw on the resource of the Conservative tradition to modernise
our party.
HUMPHRYS: But to look at Labour
again, the sorts of things they got rid of, and many of their members would
have said, these were absolutely core beliefs, unilateral disarmament,
Clause Four, that sort of thing went overboard. You don't have those exact
policies of course, but you have policies that you hold as dear as that.
Are some of those policies going to have to go? I'm trying to sort of test
how radical you are prepared to be.
WILLETTS: I think there will have
to be a wholesale review of our policies. I think that's very important.
But there's something even more important than that actually, which will
come before that which is that the character of Conservatism in today's
Britain, and I think it would be a mistake for us to get into lots of detail
on specific policies at this stage. What we should be thinking about is
the big picture. What is as Conservatives we believe? Winston Churchill
gave some very good advice to Rab Butler after 1945, he said the Conservative
Party should be offering a lighthouse, not a shop window, and I think that's
advice that we should heed again today and the starting point has to be
thinking through in very broad terms what we Conservatives are offering
the country, and then the specific policies will follow. I think it will
be a mistake to get into the detail of policy at this stage.
HUMPHRYS: What do you think it
means to be a Conservative today.
WILLETTS: To my mind it means first
of all, freedom, personal freedom, and freedom in a strong society, and
a society that is stronger if government does less. I think one of the
failures that we've got to learn from is that we presented the case for
limited government if you like in economic terms. Nowadays, I think it's
above all, it's an argument about that a good society is one in which people
don't turn to the state to do everything and if you limit the role of the
state you create more room for all the institutions and families and everything
else that gives life its meaning that stands between the individual and
the state.
HUMPHRYS: It doesn't sound very
radical. You've said exactly the same as that to me a year ago, five years
ago, fifty years ago.
WILLETTS: I think what's got to
change is that we've got to do it in a way that shows we're content, we're
comfortable with contemporary Britain. We should show that you know, we're
not harking back to some previous age, we're going to be a party that redraws
on what we see around us in Britain today, and so that for example I find
that people are very distrustful of politicians...
HUMPHRYS: ...always have been...
WILLETTS: ...I think that the vote
shows that there's more distrust of politicians than ever before. But what
we've got from the Labour government is a party that's bringing politics
into more and more nooks and crannies of our life. I think that less politics
would be a very good message, but I think also for us, we do have to tackle
the concerns that people have on, for example, Health and Education and
there we've got lessons to learn from this election as well.
HUMPHRYS: Does that mean then moving
to, trying to re-occupy the centre ground as Tim Yeo and Alan Duncan said.
WILLETTS: Well it's not a matter
of defining ourselves against the Labour Party. We should do what we Conservatives
think is right and what we Conservatives think is tackles the concerns
of the vast majority of people, mainstream people in this country. Now
it may be sometimes that involves saying things which are similar to things
that Tony Blair says, we shouldn't be embarrassed or worried if that's
the case, I think we will find that in many areas it involves that when
we are true to our beliefs we say things that are very different. And on
Health and Education for example, I think we will find, and we found it
on the doorstep during this campaign, that teachers, doctors, police officers,
are fearful of this incredible amount of political interference they have
from this government in their day-to-day decisions. If we're going to have
strong schools, strong hospitals, police forces that can get on with the
job, then they have to be trusted, instead of at the moment having to sort
of comply with every fatuous initiative launched by ministers in order
to get forty-eight hours of media coverage. So we can see the glimmerings,
but rather than get into the detail at this stage, I hope that my colleagues
will be thinking and talking over the next few months just about what they
believe as Conservatives and we should be proud of what we believe as Conservatives
and we should all be open and honest about setting it out and ...
HUMPHRYS: ...but, in a sense it's
you that's sort of hiding in the detail, because that was an answer about
detail, about telling on the doorstep that they don't like, you know police
don't like the fact they've got to do this, teachers don't like all the
forms they've got to fill in and that kind of thing. That wasn't really
what I was trying to get at, I was trying to get at much more fundamental
core stuff. And slagging off the Labour Party for the policies that have
just returned them with a landslide victory again doesn't suggest any deep
thinking does it?
WILLETTS: Well let me put it in
as broad a term as I can. The Conservative Party...
HUMPHRYS: ...without it being just
rhetoric...
WILLETTS: ...ok, I'll do my best!
The Conservative Party has been above all the party of personal freedom.
And that has meant that we have been the party of economic freedom and
through the 1980s it meant that those arguments about freedom were expressed
as above all economic arguments. And I think that one of problems is that
we've become the economics party, and people don't just want us to talk
about economics, they want us to apply that Conservative belief in freedom
across other areas of policy as well. And they want us to explain what
we believe not just in economic terms. I think that's something that's
very important. And I think secondly, and I hope you don't think this is,
this is slagging off a government, because they have just got this massive
majority, but I do think that if as Conservatives we believe in strong
institutions, the message that more and more politics and more and more
political interference is a threat to strong institutions and is not the
way to make them stronger is another powerful Conservative theme. But I
don't say that I don't personally, or any of us in the Party have got the
answers today, what I want us to have, and I believe we will have, is a
mature grown-up debate, after this second landslide defeat about what we
do and I thought where your report was wrong, if I may say so, was that
talking to all my colleagues over the past few days, very different from
'97, not a sense of people all ganging up to fight an internecine battle,
a very, I think a very different atmosphere in the party, that we have
got lessons to learn, we want to work together on it, we want to do it
in a co-operative spirit, there should be no personal abuse or personal
criticism of any individuals and not least because our activists, our party
members, those people that we wanted to have as parliamentary colleagues
and sadly haven't won their seats, will not tolerate it if any of us get
involved in those sort of personal arguments.
HUMPHRYS: Well Terry Dignan didn't
exactly have to beat those people over the head to offer what little personal
or great deal of personal abuse if that's your view, that they offered
in that film, there was plenty of it, the knives were going in.
WILLETTS: I think that what I have..what
I think you will find is that I think it would be true that for every person
that you interviewed for that package, is that we can only do this if we
draw on all the resources of the Conservative Party, that means not just
learning the lessons of our previous historic defeats but also drawing
on the expertise and the ideas and the thinking of all the senior figures
in the party. And I think..I hope whoever is the leader, is approached
in that spirit.
HUMPHRYS: You said you mustn't
rely..you mustn't be seen as the party of economic policy. Does that mean
that you would be prepared to rethink your approach to tax and public services,
that's to say, let's say tax and spend rather than tax and public services.
You're always said, you are the party is associated with cutting taxes,
that's how you want people to see you and reducing the size of the state.
Would you be happy in future, for people to see you in another direction.
I mean is that something that you are prepared to throw - not throw overboard
but to change, to amend.
WILLETTS: Well, I would approach
it in the spirit again that we must look at what's going on around the
world and I would look first to America and secondly at Europe and in America
what I saw with George Bush, a very impressive Conservative victory is
here was a guy, who for example had a policy on education vouchers but
he didn't say, in the rather lazy way that we've got used to it, I'm going
to introduce education vouchers, I'm going to have limited government,
I'm going to have school choice, he presented his policy in terms of the
need to raise educational standards in the most depraved parts of America.
In other words, he presented something that drew on ideas that were if
you like, right-wing, but he presented it, and I think quite rightly, as
it was above all resting on a commitment to offer a better education for
poorer Americans.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but as you say
that was seen as a right-wing - that was a right-wing policy.
WILLETTS: But what he did, was
it didn't say just oh, it has to be limited government and let's now apply
this, sort of across the board. He said, what is the best device, what
is the best means of raising educational standards in America and what
he tackled it on, he didn't get bogged down in the mechanisms, in the hows,
in the means, in all those technocratic questions. He began by people knowing
that he was committed to a high quality education for all Americans and
our starting point in education, to take that specific example, is therefore
we are committed to a high quality education for everybody in this country.
HUMPHRYS: Well of course you are,
you would be daft if you weren't.
WILLETTS: Yeah, but our problem
has been that as we've got preoccupied with means, we've forgotten that
we first of all have to establish credibility on that.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but you know what
politics is about, politics is about means, I mean it's all very well for
politicians to say, yes we want better education for everyone, but of course
you would say that. Then, they say well how are you going to do it Mr Willetts
and you can either say, we will tax people more, spend more on schools,
or you can say we will tax them less and have some sort of voucher system
- profound difference.
WILLETTS: But on tax, I think we..the
policies that we had for lower taxes, for pensioners, for families, for
savers, were on the doorstep when you explain them, but people hadn't registered
what they were and they didn't understand why we were offering them.
HUMPHRYS: So it's just about explaining
your policies more, not having new policies. I thought this was going to
be root and branch stuff.
WILLETTS: It does have to be root
and branch and I'm not..my personal view, for what it's worth, is that
we will have to have a review of every policy, stage by stage. But what
I'm saying...
HUMPHRYS: ..but in the same context.
WILLETTS: ..I don't think that
that is..I think it would be wrong for the party to get into the detail
of policy at this stage. What I think the party should instead be doing
is something much more broad brush than that and as I said, I was going
to go on to say, to talk about the lessons we can learn from Europe. I
mean Europe, we've still got the position where on the welfare state, something
that interests me a lot, Britain is to the left of continental Social Democrats,
let alone Christian Democrats. If you look at health or education in France
or Germany, we can see that those have much less centralised state
interference than we've got here and so we as Conservatives should not
be afraid of citing Europe as a positive example from which we can learn.
HUMPHRYS: Right, what you seem
to be saying so far anyway, is move rather than to the left, move to right.
So, let me try and test you on another policy - not a policy but an approach
if you like, because you don't want to talk about specific policies at
this stage of course. Inclusiveness - throughout the campaign, the family
- a husband and wife who are married and live together is the ideal. Which
rather suggests to many people that you are slightly out of touch with
the way life has changed - are you prepared to reconsider that?
WILLETTS: Well you say the ideal.
The way I approach it is quite simply on what the evidence shows about...
HUMPHRYS: ...what Mr. Hague said,
this is the best way of doing it, he said...
WILLETTS: ...about, what the evidence
shows about what is best for children, but I do think that we in the Party
again have to say...
HUMPHRYS: ...no, you see, he went
further, invest in society said Mr. Hague.
WILLETTS: Well what I'm saying
is that it's clearly best for children if at all possible, they are brought
up... by in a stable relationship by their parents and by and large that
all the evidence shows that's a married relationship. But it doesn't follow
from that that we sort of hate single parents, that we don't understand
that relationships break down, that many parents who are bringing up their
children on their own think they're often a responsible partner and that
they're doing the decent thing trying to bring up a child on their own...
HUMPHRYS: ...which is exactly what
you've been saying all along.
WILLETTS: But the point is that
again, people thought that we were the party that was anti things, not
in favour of things and what we've got to start off with is what we're
in favour of and I would say John, that I think all of this, the tone of
voice is very important, the tone of voice has to be one which is persuasive,
and the frustration that I had, and I'm sure many other candidates had
in the past few weeks, is that it wasn't so much the doubt, you never really
got to a specific policy because people didn't think that we had their
best interests at heart.
HUMPHRYS: So it's about presentation,
not policy?
WILLETTS: No, you're calling it
presentation, I would like to call it something...
HUMPHRYS: ...well tone of voice
is presentation really isn't it? I can either shout at you or I can ask
you exactly the same question in very gentle terms. Same question, different
tone. Different presentation.
WILLETTS: I think it's about the
character of the party and as the character of the party changes, so the
policies will be formulated in a way that draw on what we've established
as our party's identity.
HUMPHRYS: I'm not quite sure I
follow that but, so let me try one other way of testing you on where you're
heading. Europe now, a number of people in that film said that, look Ken
Clarke ought to be in the Cabinet, it's daft that he's not, we know what
his views are on Europe, ought he to be, in the Shadow Cabinet I should
say of course, ought he to be in the Shadow Cabinet? Because that would
tell us a great deal wouldn't it about your inclusiveness politically within
your own party.
WILLETTS: I personally would like
to see Ken Clarke and other leading figures in the party who are associated
with him, I would like to see them once more playing a significant, much
more significant role in the Conservative Party...
HUMPHRYS: ...within the Shadow
Cabinet perhaps?
WILLETTS: ...within the Shadow
Cabinet perhaps and I don't know...
HUMPHRYS: ...and allowed to, sorry,
it's important that I clarify this, and allowed to say the kinds of things
that he has said in the past, allowed to express his views about the desirability
of Britain joining economic and monetary union?
WILLETTS: Well I think that we
all know that Ken has very clear views on that and it's impossible to imagine
that he wouldn't express them. Now how, what those mechanisms would be,
I don't know, but it's not beyond the wit of man to work out a way in which
the Conservative Party, which is still now operating with just over a-hundred
and sixty members, we really ought to be able to draw on the talents and
the expertise and the wisdom of every significant person in the parliamentary
party and Ken is certainly one of those, and again, I think that the mood
in the party in the past few days has not been to go around trying to exclude
people, we do want to bring people like Ken in, and although most of us
in the party do have a very clear view that we do not want Britain to join
the Euro and that is clearly the majority view of the party, again, where
we can, where we can learn is that that doesn't mean that we hate Europe
and that there may be other areas where we can learn from Europe, I mean,
if I may quote an example in areas I've been shadowing, pensions, we all
complacently say oh Britain's got such marvellous funded pensions, they're
all way behind on the Continent, well I've noticed in the past few years
is that we've been losing ground and there is at last serious pension reform
going on in places like Germany. So the real challenge for us is in Opposition
is not to say everything in Britain is marvellous, they're all hopeless
on the Continent, in some of these areas, we can say actually they're getting
their act together, and under Labour, we're in danger of falling behind.
HUMPHRYS: Just a final thought
then on the leadership, I know you are not going to tell me who you support,
but can I assume, at least I am going to assume from what you've been saying
is that you don't want the social authoritarians running the party, in
which case of course you would not want perhaps Ann Widdecombe, Iain Duncan
Smith. Can I make that assumption?
WILLETTS: Well, I'm not going to
get into personalities, but I will say this, that as people get fed up
with this Labour government, and they will, will they be saying to themselves,
what we really need is stronger laws, more government intervention, a stronger
set of instructions about how to lead their lives, or will they be saying,
as I believe, we're fed up with the intervention, the regulation, the nannying,
the prissiness, treat us as grown ups, give us more shape, you know more
power to shape our own lives and I think that if that's going to be the
reaction of the majority of the British people and if that seems to me
to be consistent with basic Conservative principles, that's the direction
in which the party should go.
HUMPHRYS: Sounds more like Michael
Portillo to me than somebody else?
WILLETTS: Well, I'm not going to
get into personalities and I think that whatever happens, I believe that's
the direction in which the party should go.
HUMPHRYS: David Willetts, thank
you very much indeed.
WILLETTS: Thank you John.
HUMPHRYS: Depending on which newspaper
you read this morning Tony Blair is either all set to call a referendum
very soon on the euro - or Gordon Brown is saying No - he won't let it
happen for some time to come. Well, many people are saying Mr Blair will
never be in a stronger position than he is now but he's got to start trying
to turn around public opinion very quickly. Paul Wilenius has been talking
to some of those who say Mr Blair must show a lead.
PAUL WILENIUS: In the wacky world of fantasy
politics, William Hague would be Prime Minister.
WILLIAM HAGUE: This is what is at stake
in this election.
WILENIUS: Brave anti-euro warrior
fights off threat to currency.
HAGUE: I think we should keep the
Pound.
WILENIUS: But in the real world,
it didn't quite work out like that. Labour's back in power and the Tories
are back to the drawing board; most voters just didn't fancy their policies.
Tony Blair's now the biggest
thing in the Houses of Parliament since - well, Mrs Thatcher. Pro-Europeans
feel he's so powerful he can sweep aside any opposition and cuddle up closer
to our continental cousins. But they also feel he can go further and rev
up the bandwagon for a dash to the euro.
LORD SIMON: I think it is very important
and I think we should commit ourselves now to forming the policy on joining
the euro when we have this unique opportunity of political endorsement
and economic conditions running rather well for us.
WILENIUS: Loading up for an early
morning dash across the Channel, gardening enthusiasts from Hoo in Kent.
Like many British they love a trip to France, to pick up cheap tobacco,
wine and food. But although they might like to bring back the goodies,
many people don't want to take the route of closer integration with Europe.
Indeed they wouldn't be amused, if more power was handed over to Europe
and the Pound was replaced by the euro.
UNNAMED WOMAN: Mainly when we go to Europe, we
usually go have a meal, you know buy some beer for my husband.
UNNAMED MAN: I don't like the French food,
no, it tends to hop off your plate if you're not careful.
WILENIUS: With the election over,
pro-Europeans want take us in a new direction, towards a euro referendum.
Already signposted for next autumn. But there are obstacles. Not least,
most people want to stop the euro campaign dead in its tracks. So it'll
be a big job to change their views and some say the push to win over the
public will start immediately because many voters hate giving up anything
British.
BILL RAMMELL MP: I think there's now a real opportunity
to launch a major national debate on the Euro and I hope and believe that
we will start doing that now and I think there are indications already
from what the Prime Minister has said that that seems to be his intention.
NEIL KINNOCK: I think it's probably over
this weekend that the orchestra will take their places, begin to tune up
and then within a matter of months certainly, will be playing at full
blast.
WILENIUS: Once the pro-euro bandwagon's
rolling, it'll include business leaders, many Labour MPs and activists.
But the great British public will need more persuading. They'll have to
be bombarded with information and support for the euro, if they are to
be pushed towards a Yes vote. Many voters are still waiting for a lead
from the very top, to give the campaign new momentum. Those leading the
charge feel the battle could be lost, unless politicians speak up soon.
ADAIR TURNER: I think the support of the
leading members of the government is absolutely crucial to winning a referendum
on the Euro. I mean let's be clear, business people, trade unionists,
members of civil society can play their subsidiary role in this argument,
but political arguments and even though it has a large economic aspect,
it's basically part of the business of politics, is won by politicians.
SIMON BUCKBY: As we've seen over the weekend
large, sections of the business community have come out already and said
that they now stand ready to make a contribution to the argument about
Britain's role in Europe. They're desperate to make that argument, their
businesses are suffering because we're outside the single currency but
they can't make that argument on their own. They need to have the argument
led by the politicians and as we've seen in the last month, no politicians
in this country know how to persuade public opinion like Gordon Brown and
Tony Blair do.
WILENIUS: Despite Britain's love
affair with its heritage, Tony Blair says he's a big fan of the euro.
But many Union Jack waving voters, the patriotic press and some businessmen
feel the single currency is well - just not British. So he'll have to
persuade them otherwise and that the economic conditions are just right
before we take the plunge.
Our day trippers change
their pounds for French Francs. The exchange rate is at the very heart
of the issue. The last time Britain linked up with European currencies
it ended in disaster on Black Wednesday. Organisations like Business for
Sterling are sceptical and will urge Blair to steer clear of the euro forever
and even some of his own MPs feel it would be economically dangerous to
dump the Pound.
JIM COUSINS MP: I do not think it's workable
and sustainable in the longer run or in the interests of the British people,
certainly not of people in the Newcastle area, that we should lock onto
the euro at the present levels of exchange rates. It isn't workable, it
wouldn't be sustainable.
WILENIUS: Arriving in Calais our
shoppers relax for their short trip to the hypermarket. But if the pro-Europeans
are hoping for an equally smooth ride through Cabinet, they might be in
for a surprise.
The appointment of Jack
Straw as Foreign Secretary may have been seen by some as a boost for the
No camp. But pro-Europeans believe he's dropped his previous scepticism
about the euro, and that this makes a referendum more likely. But there
are deeper concerns that the government might be held back from fully supporting
a Yes campaign by Chancellor Gordon Brown.
TURNER: I think it's very difficult
to work out exactly where individuals are on this issue. I think clearly
a successful referendum campaign requires the unified commitment of the
most senior people in the government. I think Gordon Brown will look very
carefully at the economics.
JANET BUSH: The question of whether Brown
and Blair are split on this issue is the one that exercises all of us in
planet Westminster and beyond. It is very difficult to tell. Blair I think
really does want to go in to Europe. I think he sees an opportunity for
himself to be a leader in Europe and to do that he feels we have to be
in the euro, I fundamentally disagree, I think he could be a major player
in Europe without the euro.
WILENIUS: For our shoppers, it's
clear that making the right choice is difficult, when there's so much on
offer. For government it's even more of a problem, especially when the
economy's involved.
So Gordon Brown has piled
up five economic tests before even considering a euro referendum and he
won't even start to assess them until after the public campaign. Making
public opinion the most important thing Ministers will sample.
RAMMELL: I certainly believe that
public opinion can be in the longer term turned in favour of Britain participating
in the single European currency. If you look at the detailed polling evidence
and then you also look at your own experience, talking to people on the
door step. Yes, opposition is wide to the single currency, but it's fairly
shallow, there's no issue on which people actually change their view so
quickly as Europe and the single currency.
BUSH: British opinion has
been solid for two years, it's even risen and I think funnily enough, rather
than thinking that the Conservatives fighting on the euro and losing so
badly in this election being bad for our campaign, I think it actually
liberates us because the only way we're going to fight this and win is
for it to be a truly cross party campaign.
WILENIUS: Tony Blair could be the
toast of Europe, if only he can get Britain into the euro. But if he calls
a referendum and loses, he could wreck his leadership and his government.
Not something he'd like. So he'll only complete the dash for the euro,
if he's absolutely sure he can win.
So before Tony Blair marches
the great British public off to the voting booths to decide on going for
the euro, he'll need to listen to the views of people like our day trippers
on the matter.
UNNAMED MAN: I'm used to the pound and
I think if we go into the euro, we'll have to give all our gold reserves
over to the European Parliament or whatever and we'll have no say in the
future, all our taxes will come from over in the continent.
UNNAMED MAN: I'd like to keep the pound,
this government today seems to be hell bent on pushing it through, whether
we like it or not.
UNNAMED WOMAN: The only thing is, I do think that
if we, with the pound you, all the currency going from one country to the
other, you've still got one currency, you don't have to keep changing do
you, that's about the only thing. But as for the euro, I'm totally against
it.
UNNAMED MAN: I'd vote against it, I wouldn't
certainly vote for, I'd vote for coming out of the Common Market altogether
to be quite honestly.
WILENIUS: Our shoppers have had
a hard day plundering the French supermarkets. But the government is wide
awake to the risks, if it mishandles the euro issue. It could sink it.
BUSH: I think that one
of the reasons that Gordon Brown is so cautious is that he knows that a
referendum, whatever the result, could be a real risk to Labour continuing
in power. If they hold a referendum and it's a No vote, their credibility
is crushed. If they hold a referendum and there's a Yes vote, and Tony
Blair gets his wish and we go in, what if then the economy goes belly up,
because of the rigidities of being in the euro, then the electorate will
blame them till kingdom come for having forced the British people into
that decision.
WILENIUS: Even on the way back
over the Channel, there's no escaping the right wing press. Millions of
people will be fed anti-euro stories, many from the well financed No campaign.
So the government will have to try to get its message across to the people,
despite the views of the big press barons. This won't be easy and there's
expected to be a long and bloody battle for the hearts and minds of the
British voters.
BUSH: Both sides are arming
themselves for a very very big battle ahead. So you will see a huge push
from pro-euro people, you will see an aggressive campaign against the euro.
LORD SIMON: I do think it's crucial and
I think political leadership is required and is well ceased of the importance
of this decision. Neither Gordon Brown nor Tony Blair in my view is under
any illusion as to how important this is for the strategic positioning
of the UK. To give it greater strength within a strong union and within
a globalising world where this capacity can only enhance Britain's influence
and I think they understand that and they will do what I believe is the
patriotic thing, which is to enhance our European standing, rather than
running away from the challenge.
WILENIUS: In two years' time Tony
Blair could be celebrating another historic victory. This time over the
euro. But it could be just fantasy politics because he needs a sceptical
British public to join the party as well. Otherwise it could be his euro
dreams that are dashed.
HUMPHRYS: Paul Wilenius reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well it was a bad
result for people who support the Northern Ireland peace agreement. For
David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionists, it was verging on the
disastrous. His party still has the largest number of seats but only just.
Only one more than his old enemy Ian Paisley who wants to kill the agreement.
Mr Trimble has already said he will resign his leadership if the IRA does
not begin to get rid of its weapons. But many people are now saying he
should go anyway. His credibility has been shattered. Mr Trimble is in
our Belfast studio.
Good afternoon, Mr Trimble.
DAVID TRIMBLE: Good day.
HUMPHRYS: It was a pretty dreadful
result wasn't it. Can you stay on do you think?
TRIMBLE: It was a great disappointment,
there's no doubt about that. But let's bear in mind, let's put it in perspective,
yes overall we lost three seats, but we made two gains. We defeated Bob
McCartney, the leader of one of the anti-agreement Unionist parties, we
defeated Willie McCrea and we put up our percentage share of the vote compared
to the Assembly Election and I think that's the valid comparison. May I
also correct something that you said, I have indicated that I shall not
continue as First Minister beyond the 30th June unless the IRA carry out
the promise they made to us a year ago, to put their weapons beyond use.
The question of the party leadership is something which interestingly will
be considered at the Annual General Meeting of the party which takes place
just within a fortnight. The leadership is an annual election and I shall
be there, I shall be available to be re-elected at that meeting and if
anybody else wishes to put themselves up for that post, they are very welcome
to do so and I shall be quite happy to abide the outcome of the votes of
the council as I have been repeatedly throughout this process.
HUMPHRYS: Do you have any indication
that somebody else will put himself up?
TRIMBLE: Well there's the usual
sort of press speculation you get on this occasions. But what I am saying
to you is that I am not scared of a challenge. I have been absolutely
open with the party through this process and the party has held its nerve
and that's what I would say to them at the moment, hold your nerve, you
kept your nerve when the party got twenty-one point seven per cent of
the vote in the Assembly Election, you kept your nerve when the party vote
dropped to seventeen per cent in the European Election, don't lose your
nerve because the vote has gone up to twenty-seven per cent this week.
HUMPHRYS: But, I mean the problem
is this isn't it, that most of the Unionists in Northern Ireland and most
Unionist MPs in Northern Ireland are now - well you shake your head but
I was going to say, against the agreement and I include not just of course
Ian Paisley's DUP, but also those of your own MPs who are opposed to the
agreement.
TRIMBLE: Well, first of all the
votes, the votes are absolutely quite clear on this, the Ulster Unionist
Party fought on a manifesto very clearly trying to achieve progress and
achieve the full implementation of the agreement. That manifesto was endorsed
by more votes than the DUP. So you can't draw any judgement with regard
to Unionist voters from that. Some of my colleagues have reservations
about the agreement. I mean I quite clearly, it's quite obvious that the
implementation of the agreement has not been perfect, indeed, I think this
is a time for the government, the British government in particular, and
to some extent the Irish government too, to pause and reflect that the
way they have handled the implementation of some aspects of the agreement
has caused serious problems for the centre parties and we've had a disappointing
result, John Hume's SDLP have had a disastrous result, it's the extremes
that have grown. I think Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern should sit down and
think very carefully why have their actions resulted in a strengthening
of the extremes and a weakening of the centre. That reverses what everybody
would regard as the proper priorities in building a new democratic future
here in Northern Ireland.
HUMPHRYS: The government, the British
government wants to have another meeting, another get together to talk
about the agreement. Is there any point in that? - your position is perfectly
clear. Can you see any point, you say nothing now unless and until we have
proper decommissioning.
TRIMBLE: It's time for people to
do things, there is really not very much to talk about, no doubt there
will be a flurry of political activity but we don't build those up as being
talks or negotiations. There was a promise made, there's an obligation
in the agreement to decommission, there was a promise made by the IRA,
thirteen months ago not yet fulfilled, no wonder there are difficulties
on that point. There was an intention to in the agreement to have an administration
where those in the administration supported those who had to enforce the
laws, namely the police, we've had the administration in existence for
over a year, it's still..Nationalists are dithering and indeed trying to
turn what their obligation into a negotiation. Now I think that is quite
wrong and indeed actually, the evidence on the ground is that the Catholic
community is way ahead of their leaders on this and that they are buying
into the new policing arrangements and want to see the police made effective.
It's time for Nationalists to stop dragging their feet and let us get
those issues dealt with.
HUMPHRYS: So you wouldn't be interested
in going along to any talks unless it was purely to talk..or negotiations,
whatever you want to call them, unless it was purely to talk about decommissioning,
that's the only thing you are now prepared to talk about.
TRIMBLE: That's all that is actually
going to be talked about. In fact if there are meetings, if there is this
political activity, it is going to be about getting the agreement fully
implemented, it's the failure to implement the agreement fully that has
caused the difficulties and it is the way in which the government has seemed
to have as it's first priority, that of appeasing the extremes and, as
it were, feeding more concessions to the extremes. That has caused the
difficulty I think, as I say Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern should sit down
and reflect how their stewardship of this process has run it into a crisis.
HUMPHRYS: Your - as you said earlier
in this interview, your resignation as First Minister is on the table,
you've logged it with the Speaker, has anything happened in the last few
weeks to change your attitude to that because we have seen the arms..some
arms dumps being re-inspected, there has been some movement hasn't there.
TRIMBLE: There hasn't been any
movement on the issue of the implementation of the IRA's promise to put
their weapons beyond use. It is that that I drew a line under with regard,
I mean having waited thirteen months for the IRA to keep its word, I think
it's not reasonable to expect us to wait any longer and the deadline incidentally
wasn't mine but it was set by the government itself and indeed the letter
is a message to the government, that don't try to fudge it this time because
we are not in the business, we're not in the market for fudge.
HUMPHRYS: The trouble is, we are
not clear are we quite, at least I'm not clear, perhaps I'm alone in this,
in what you mean when you say, put them beyond use. If, after all, John
de Chastelain and his inspectors go along and they say, look these dumps
have not been touched, they are sealed off, they are absolutely pristine,
then is that not putting weapons beyond use?
TRIMBLE: Well I think you've got
to look at the structure that exists there, John de Chastelain isn't involved
in the inspection of dumps himself...
HUMPHRYS: ...not him personally,
no, no, but...
TRIMBLE: ...no that's a separate
process. Furthermore, de Chastelain operates under legislation which defines
decommissioning as making weapons permanently unusable, permanently unavailable
and we have all assumed that when the IRA says put beyond use, they mean
something that is permanently unusable and permanently unavailable. The
precise way in which that is done is not for me. I'm quite happy to leave
that to John de Chastelain, provided we get something that comes within
his statutory remit.
HUMPHRYS: But you seem to be clear,
correct me if I'm wrong, that you want, you require in order to withdraw
your resignation, the letter, you require more than another inspection
or two or three more inspections?
TRIMBLE: Oh yes. Oh yes. I mean
the inspection process is quite separate from the decommissioning process,
that's always been the case and it's natural I suppose for people to say,
run them two together in their minds, but they are in fact quite separate
and while the inspections are welcome when they began, now they're not
actually something that are regarded as being particularly significant.
HUMPHRYS: So the dumps would either
have to be sealed off, or the weapons within them destroyed or some such.
TRIMBLE: Made permanently unusable,
permanently unavailable, but there are a variety of ways in which that
can be done. I am not concerned as to the methodology provided we get the
result.
HUMPHRYS: So unless that begins,
just to be quite clear about this, unless some weapons, I take it you don't
mean all by that particular date, correct me again if I'm wrong, but unless
some weapons are actually destroyed, put permanently beyond use, your resignation
stands?
TRIMBLE: Unless they are made permanently
unusable, permanently unavailable, unless we see that happening, I do not
see any way, I think I must say, and I must underline on this too, I think
people haven't fully appreciated the fact that the legislation to provide
for decommissioning expires next February, so we're actually in a situation
now where it's absolutely imperative that we see that process clearly beginning
now, because if we have another fudge then in a few months time we'll be
left in a situation where it's simply impossible for any decommissioning
to occur and then that would be, that would put Northern Ireland back into
a situation where it is controlled and dominated by paramilitaries, that
would be a situation where we are likely to see conflict re-ignited. It's
absolutely crucial that the issue is sorted out now. That is why I adopted
this measure, to make it clear to government that they have to do it, no
more wishful thinking, let's actually get it sorted, that's the important
thing.
HUMPHRYS: Can the peace process
survive without you?
TRIMBLE: The peace process cannot
survive unless the Agreement is fully implemented and that involves the
issues we have been talking about. It's getting the Agreement fully implemented.
And of course if the agreement isn't fully implemented then the peace process
has not succeeded and that is the crucial difficulty that we've been in
in the course of this General Election campaign.
HUMPHRYS: If you go there will
be a more hard line person presumably taking your place, it's dead then,
isn't it?
TRIMBLE: No, let's not tie these
things on personalities. It's the interests of the people that's the predominant
issue here.
HUMPHRYS: David Trimble, thanks
very much indeed.
TRIMBLE: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this
week. If you are on the Internet, don't forget about our website. Until
the same time next Sunday, good afternoon.
8
FoLdEd
|