................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
TORY DISCUSSION
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 11.5.97
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS:
Elections for Tory leaders are funny old
things. In this one we've got six candidates - each of whom is saying that
every one of them would make a perfectly good leader of the Conservative
Party. So how are the Tory MPs to decide who they're going to vote for? In
truth there will be plenty of sandbagging going on in the tea-rooms and bars of
Westminster - but that's private stuff. So, what are the real differences in
policy?
Well, we've asked the campaign teams of
each of the six candidates to come and join us this afternoon - and three
agreed: DAVID WILLETTS for Peter Lilley; FRANCIS MAUDE for Michael Howard and
GRAHAM MATHER for Stephen Dorrell.
Not much to choose between them in truth
then Mr Willetts.
DAVID WILLETTS: Well, I think certainly it's going to be
a courteous election campaign and that's what I suppose the country want, they
don't want the sort of arguments that did us so much damage over the past few
years. But I think that there will be real issues, there will be visions of
the future of the Conservatives and what Peter Lilley stands for is a belief in
free enterprise, the enterprise economy, that's the fundamental principle. But
he recognises that one of the ways in which we've lost ground over the past few
years is that it's been caricatured and people don't understand that the
economic case for the free market has to be reinforced with a moral case and we
have to explain that that's the best way of spreading opportunity for all,
creating what Labour call an inclusive society. We know best actually how to
do that and it's the dynamism of an enterprise economy.
HUMPHRYS: You wouldn't disagree with a word of
that. Your man Mr Maude?
FRANCIS MAUDE: Well, I mean, the idea that somehow all
these candidates are indistinguishable I think is a slightly eccentric one.
HUMPHRYS: Do you disagree with anything that Mr
Maude says?
MAUDE: Anyone who believes that Ken Clarke is
indistinguishable from John Redwood I think has not been living in this
country. So clearly you have got six people with very different views, very
different personalities, very different characters, very different approaches.
But I think what we have to do is make sure we don't sort of conduct this in a
rancorous way. David is absolutely right, rancour has been in a way at the
heart of the problems we have had over the last five years. But we also have
to make sure that we don't tear up everything that we have stood for in the
past and believe that we have got to go back to ground zero. We haven't. This
was a Government over the last five years which had very real achievements - in
the economic field, in terms of law and order, and won the arguments in respect
of those. What we didn't do is win the election and we didn't connect what we
were achieving with people in their everyday lives and that has to be done.
The only way you can achieve that is by having real leadership from the front,
firm views, firm direction, because actually people in the party want to unite,
they want to unite round a clear sense of direction. What I think we know now
can't be done is to achieve unity around compromise.
HUMPHRYS: That's not rancour really is it Mr
Mather? I mean nobody will say: "Oh well, kick each other to death," but it's
basic differences of policy approach. Hard to see them.
GRAHAM MATHER: Well, there are three elements in our
rebirth. We've got to be frank, we've got to admit that the public saw us to a
very great degree as a Government which was made less competent because of
inner party warfare, because some of our colleagues spent a lot of time in a
negative, destructive series of attacks on John Major. There's a lot of public
hostility to that sort of approach but if we look where we go from here, first
we've got to get the policies right - crisp, clear, simplified policies which I
think being in Opposition actually helps a party to do. And then we've got to
look at our organisation which has clearly been very seriously run down over
recent years, despite the enormous efforts of our core party workers and we've
got to speak to them and enthuse them and galvanize and strengthen the party.
But I think the most important thing of all is to see which of the six is
electable, which will make a Prime Minister our fellow citizens can really
support and vote for with confidence, who combines policy skill but also a
personality which is sympathetic and attractive.
HUMPHRYS: Now some might say that's a bit of a dig
perhaps at Michael Howard?
MATHER: No, I am not in the business of making
digs.
HUMPHRYS: But you are saying that your man is the
most electable of them all because he is more sympathetic, wherefore the others
aren't.
MATHER: That's for our colleagues in the
Parliamentary Party to judge but I think one of the interesting things about
this campaign is that it's not a sprint it's a marathon. We are going to have
several weeks to examine the candidates in operation and see really under
pressure - of colleagues, of the media - who actually comes across as this
electable, potential Prime Minister of our country.
HUMPHRYS: One of the things your man has said is
that it wasn't the voters who got it wrong last time it was you in the party.
So let's start in with David Willetts again, look at why the voters didn't like
you, the reasons they didn't like you was because of the disunity in the party,
so let's look at some of the reasons behind that and the obvious one to start
with is the single European currency. Now, the difference between your man and
the others on a single European currency, between Mr Lilley and the others?
WILLETTS: Well, what Peter believes is that of
course there are many people in the party who have objections of principle to a
single currency but I think everybody in the party also have practical
objections to going into a single currency in the near future simply because
the economies are not converging. So what Peter would say is: let us agree
that if a Labour Government, if this Labour Government were to propose a single
currency, we could bury our differences as to whether the objection is of
principle or practice and simply straightforwardly oppose it because it would
not be in our national interest.
HUMPHRYS: But only for the first term. He's not
prepared to say: "It will never be in our national interest," - which of course
Mr Howard is.
WILLETTS: Well, politicians have to deal in the
foreseeable future and we are talking here about the foreseeable future - it's
difficult to look more than five years ahead and of course there are many
people in the party who would have objections of principle. But what Peter is
saying is: let us unite around the principle, the position, that if a Labour
Government, if this Labour Government were to propose it we would be against it
and I must say I think that that is something that we in the party could agree
with. But can I just...
HUMPHRYS: No, because I mean Mr Howard won't agree
with that will he? He will say: at no stage, ever. Well let - just Francis
Maude just comment on that, if I may. At no stage, ever, would Mr Howard stand
for...
MAUDE: I think Michael believes that it's
objectionable in principle and that's likely to remain the case unless
circumstances change in a way that no-one envisages at the moment. But I mean
we have not only to work out what is going to be our stance if the Labour
Government does try to take us into it in the next five years but also what is
going to be our stance at the next election, and we did suffer - to be blunt -
because we didn't have a clear position at this election. We allowed it to
become much more of a problem than it need do for exactly the reason that David
says, that actually if you take people together people are either opposed to it
in principle or believe that it's impracticable in the foreseeable future and
there is a position around which people can unite. But we do actually have to
have a leader who is prepared to say: no I don't find this acceptable in
principle, that is a position around which people I think can unite - even if
they don't believe, they don't share the view on principle - because the
practicalities will make them...
HUMPHRYS: And that will be Mr Dorrell's problem,
won't it Mr Mather, because he can't say that. He can't go as far as Mr
Howard.
MATHER: No, well Stephen Dorrell actually
started this rethink in a speech at the Foreign Press Associationon Thursday.
HUMPHRYS: That's why people are a bit suspicious
of him isn't it.
MATHER: No, no, no, I think for the same reason
Francis said, that people were unhappy about the policy during the election.
They didn't feel it carried conviction because it wasn't detailed enough, and
Stephen Dorrell in his speech looked at some of the details, some of the
problems of convergence, and said very clearly: we aren't going to be in a
Single Currency in the first wave if we honour those principles. And I suppose
another element which people are worried about - is the Single Currency a ramp
for a centralised super-state? Is it the first step towards political union?
HUMPHRYS: In other words a matter of principle.
MATHER: Indeed. And that of course will be
clearer after the inter-governmental conference and the nineteen-ninety-nine...
HUMPHRYS: Not already clear now?
MATHER: Well it's not - let's say there's a five
per cent chance in my view, that Europe will stop integrating...
HUMPHRYS: So you tried that fudge didn't you, for
years and years and they didn't get you anywhere.
MATHER: This isn't a fudge John, because...
HUMPHRYS: Well, it's a non-decision isn't it?
MATHER: No, it's not actually, because if that
five per cent eventuality happened, that Europe stopped federalising, and that
the Single Currency worked, our fellow citizens would expect us to have the
option open to look at that, and if...
HUMPHRYS: And if mad cows took to the air then
we'd...
MATHER: Well Stephen Dorrell has made it
absolutely clear that absent that five per cent, he doesn't see Britain forming
part of the Single Currency, and that is I believe where the party finds itself
as well.
HUMPHRYS: But that sort of non-decision did not
get unity, has not achieved unity.
MATHER: No, but with respect you're encouraging
us to attach far greater importance to this issue than it deserves at the
moment. We made...
HUMPHRYS: It was a pretty important factor in your
demise.
MATHER: Well, I'm not sure that it was, it was a
serious problem.
HUMPHRYS: It split your party down the middle.
MATHER It became a problem because we allowed
it to achieve a significance and importance beyond what it merited, because the
actual, the reality of what we were going to be asked to decide during this
current parliament was that actually, virtually no-one I know of in the
Conservative Party believed that we ought to be thinking about joining that,
so...
WILLETTS: That is the argument for Peter's
position, and the other point about our position is that we should not get
bogged down in the detail of politics, something that Graham had first on his
list, slightly to my surprise was new policies. Now I will freely admit that I
do have a certain degree of interest in the substance of policy, but I also
think that once you're in opposition you should enjoy being in opposition, you
could accept what your role is in opposition politician. There is going to be
lots of material generated by Labour that we can analyse and criticise, and I
think that people will also - the contrast between that ruthlessness we saw
from Peter Mandelson in his interview earlier and the the moralising rhetoric
of Tony Blair calls out for someone who will clearly and in a sort of dry way
just take it apart.
HUMPHRYS: So you want a Mandelson or a Blair?
WILLETTS: What I'm saying is, the British
electorate I think will see through the Tony Blair rhetoric. They'll get fed
up with these grand moralising speeches, not least because the contrast between
the big moralising speeches and the way in which Peter Mandelson actually
wishes to run a Labour government ...
HUMPHRYS: Right, so you man is Peter Mandelson?.
WILLETTTS: And I'm saying that Peter Lilley will
dissect some of his rhetoric from Tony Blair and he'll be a very refreshing
contrast to the Blair style.
HUMPHRYS: But you're not...
MAUDE: But the House of Commons is going to
matter a huge amount in this parliament. You can see already that Labour is
trying to marginalise it. Tony Blair's running away from Prime Minister's
questions. They're behaving not just as if they're the...
HUMPHRYS: But let's talk about your lot...
MAUDE: ... as if they own Parliament. Well I
think one of the strengths that Michael Howard will have is that he is a
masterly House of Commons performer. He's already bested Tony Blair several
times when Tony Blair was his Shadow in the past. He can do that in the
future. But we have to work on the basis that we will not let Labour get away
with...
HUMPHRYS: Alright, forget about Labour for the
moment. You've got to appeal to the people. You want a man who is going to
win back the support of the people of Britain. Now let's look quickly at
another issue, tax and spend, where clearly it seems at any rate they struck
the right note with the British public, at least a hint that there might be a
little more spent on public services possibly. Haven't you got to do the same,
now haven't you, your men got to accept - I'll put that to you first Graham
Mather, got to accept that you've now got to say a Tory Government isn't
hostile to public spending - and don't give me the history, if you would, if
you would look forward rather than back - isn't hostile to public spending; if
necessary we'd even spend a bit more, raise taxes a little bit.
MATHER: Well let's look forward, and let's see
how Labour are going to try to do this. What they've had to do ....
HUMPHRYS: I'd much rather you talked about how you
would deal with it.
MATHER: Well, I'll do both if I may. What
Labour are doing is using a Conservative approach, they are adopting a medium
term tax and spend strategy. They borrowed our tax and spending levels and
they're locking themselves in to do it. The question will be: will it
actually work - will their assessment of the numbers actually fit the
requirements of the public, and I don't believe they will. But that is the
point isn't it, it's entirely derivative, they have taken up Conservative
ideas, they're attempting to implement them, and as colleagues here have said,
our task in opposition is then to challenge and improve upon that.
HUMPHRYS: But your man would say what we've done
so far - in a sentence if you will - what we've done so far is about right on
the tax and spend policies.
MATHER: Well, I think there's always a hope
amongst Conservatives to bring taxes down, and Stephen Dorrell would like us to
do that.
HUMPHRYS: Some people wonder why you lost the
election in that case if you got it all right....
MAUDE: But Michael Howard's view and mine
would be that we should continue our strategic thrust which is to get the
amount of national income spent by the state down.
HUMPHRYS: Continue with policies that cost you a
massive defeat?
MAUDE: Well, we can speculate forever about
what the causes were, and my guess is that with hindsight we lost this election
back in nineteen-ninety-two, and we lost the public's confidence then and we
never got it back, and when people looked for somewhere to place their
confidence in, they found a Labour Party that seemed to present that
possiblity. But I mean the thrust which we have pursued over not just the last
five year,s the last eighteen years of trying to drive down the amount of
people's money that we take from them and spend on their behalf, that thrust is
right, and Labour broadly accepted that and we should not run away from it.
Those are things which are....
WILLETTS: I agree with Francis on that
We have to be a party which holds down public spending and brings down taxes
and Peter has a record of bringing down the biggest budget of the lot.
HUMPHRYS: Right, ten seconds literally on the
constituency chairmen. Now we all know it's only a tiny group of MPs who are
going to vote for the new leader of the Conservative Party. Quite wrong isn't
it - the constituency parties want a say in it. Shouldn't they have it.
WILLETTS: I Don't think it's for leadership
candidates to specify the terms of the election on which they're standing, but
it's obviously for the 1922 Committee to set the rules, and then I hope there
will be widespread consultation with the party in the country, especially those
parts of the country that don't have Tory MPs.
HUMPHRYS: I assume you would both say the same to
that.
MAUDE: For the future I think there's clearly a
case for involving party membership much more in these matters but for this
election I think it's simply not practical.
MATHER: I think we have to have a constituency
representative, and peers and MEPs involved, and it's not clear we can't do
that this time.
HUMPHRYS: The problem with this though, is that if
any of your men win the constituency chairmen, because we know, we've spoken to
them, the Telegraph did this morning - they don't want any of your lot.
MATHER: No, the point is, we need a leader who
can lead the whole party, not just the party in parliament but in Europe, in
the Lords, in local councils.
WILLETTS: We've got to get them back to where they
... into conference speeches. Over the past few years you can see there's a
lot of support in the country.
HUMPHRYS: All right, you've got the last word,
thank you very much indeed gentlemen. Thank you all, that's it for now. We'll
be back at twelve noon next Sunday. Good afternoon.
..ooOoo..
|