................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 25.6.95
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: On The Record today, the Prime Minister
in an interview here in Downing Street. Mr Major's first extended interview
since his campaign really began to win back the leadership of the Conservative
Party. That's after the news read by Moira Stuart.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: In today's programme an interview with
the Prime Minister in Downing Street. How will he convince the wavering MPs who
hold his fate in their hands that they should vote for him on Tuesday week? I
shall be putting that to him. And who might stop him? We've a report on the
people who this weekend are trying to decide which horse to back and why. We'll
also be looking at past leadership campaigns and the dirty dealings that go in
the background.
But first, the Prime Minister. I spoke
to Mr. Major earlier this morning.
Prime Minister, it does now seem certain
that you are going to be challenged for the leadership by a significant figure,
is that a bit of a blow?
JOHN MAJOR: Well I've no idea whether that's so or
not, certainly one never sets out the possibility of an election without
expecting there might be one, whether there will be we'll have to wait and see.
HUMPHRYS: That's a bit of a change though isn't it
because your team, your election team had been hoping that you'd be
unchallenged.
MAJOR: Really? I don't know why you say that,
my expectation from the outset is that we may well have been challenged now
there may be, if there is a challenge so be it, that's what elections are for.
HUMPHRYS: Is there a significant chance do you
think that Mr. Redwood will run against you, resign from the cabinet?
MAJOR: Well I must say I am very surprised at
what I hear over the last day or so, John and I were talking in mid week, we
were looking forward to policy, John had some ideas about how we might develop,
so I would be very surprised.
HUMPHRYS: Have you spoken to him?
MAJOR: I haven't spoken to him no.
HUMPHRYS: Why not?
MAJOR: I see no reason why I should. John and
I spoke in the middle of last week, we spoke about future policy, we spoke
about the development of policy, we spoke about how we might move from where we
are now, I see no reason to speak to my Cabinet colleagues on the basis of
newspaper speculation, so the answer is no.
HUMPHRYS: We've been given to understand that your
Cabinet was four square behind you, sworn to a man and woman.
MAJOR: Well you've no reason to suppose that
they aren't. All my Cabinet have been told that we're having this election,
you've seen how many of my Cabinet are active and working during the midst of
this election, you've seen how many of them have been out there making
perfectly clear what their position is, so that's the position until somebody
says differently.
HUMPHRYS: Isn't his silence a little odd?
MAJOR: Well I think you'd better ask John.
What you are asking me to do is to comment on a Cabinet colleague with whom I'd
worked very closely, with whom I had long discussions as recently as last
Wednesday about the development of policy, and you are asking me to approach
him on the basis of third party newspaper reports, I would have thought if John
had any proposal of standing against me he would have told me and he hasn't
done.
HUMPHRYS: When you spoke to him last Wednesday,
did you tell him what your plans were?
MAJOR: I didn't tell any of my colleagues until
Thursday, there were various things that needed to be concluded, I spoke to my
colleagues on Thursday.
HUMPHRYS: Perhaps if you'd told him then, this
problem wouldn't have arisen.
MAJOR: Well I don't know that there is a
problem, you're telling me there is a problem, you perhaps have different
information than we, but I don't know yet whethere there is a problem, I
suggest we wait and see.
HUMPHRYS: But it would have helped you greatly
would it not, if like other members of the Cabinet, as you say, Mr. Redwood had
just stepped in front of the camera for thirty seconds and said the Prime
Minister has my full support.
MAJOR: I understand and you're raising these
great shibboleths about John, I suggest you wait and see.
HUMPHRYS: Not me just alone of course...
MAJOR: Well these great shibboleths about John
are being raised he did put out a statement last week, Now I suggest we just
wait and see and not waste our time in speculation.
HUMPHRYS: You must feel threatened though at the
possibility, even if it is only a possibility, that a member of your Cabinet..
MAJOR: Look John, I don't feel threatened about
that or about anything else. I have decided to have this election, there's
been a lot of talk, a lot of speculation, a lot of media comment, the same
people appearing time after time over the last few weeks and over a longer
period, now I think that is not good for good government, it's not good for the
country, it's not good for the Conservative Party. Now I don't think that..I
frankly was not prepared to let that go on until November, in nobody's
interest, not the country's, not the Party's, not anybody's and so I've taken
the opportunity of saying let us have an election now, let us do that, let us
clear the air and then let us get on with the policy matters that are
important. What I find frustrating is that so much of modern politics, just as
you've started this interview, is on the basis of speculation about what people
might do, what people might think...
HUMPHRYS: But you expect that during a
leadership election wouldn't you.
MAJOR: Well it isn't just doing a leadership
election, I mean this has been happening for the last two or three years John.
What people ought to be talking about are policies, policies on the economy,
policies on education, policies on health, policies on defence, that's what
actually matters to people up and down the country, what the Government does
and I have to say to you I think they are much more interested in the fox and
goose up and down the country about what the Government actually does than in
these personality points that have so dominated politics for so much of the
last two or three years. Now I want to get back to politics, and I'll tell you
why. There is a very sharp difference in policy between the Conservative
Party, between the Government, and the principle opposition policy, very much
the case in politics that any Government in office has forensic examination of
his policies by the public at large but as we move into two years short of a
General Election, it's about time we had a proper debate about the Opposition's
policies as well. We had a look at what the alternatives are, now I want real
politics to resume and that means getting rid of this nonsense we've had in the
past, hence my actions last week.
HUMPHRYS: But the reason I suggested you might
feel threatened at the possibility of Mr. Redwood running against you is
precisely that. Because he represents a large body of people who are not
satisfied with your policies, who don't like many of the things that you've
been doing. And that is true, isn't it? Those people do exist...
MAJOR: Well, let's actually deal with what the
dissatisfaction is and what the concern is. This country has been through a
recession that was very painful - not unique. So has France, so has Germany,
so has Spain. So, has the United States, so has Japan. The knock-on effect of
that has been quite painful for many people. What has happened after that
recession? We have come out of that recession this country earlier than other
countries and better than other countries. If you actually look at the
circumstances that exist today and the prospects that lie immediately ahead,
then, you get a rather different picture.
Which country at the moment is doing
perhaps best economically across Europe? This one is. Low inflation of a
sort we haven't had for a very long time. I remember you and I talking years
ago about the dangers of rising prices. We have unemployment falling faster in
this country than it's fallen anywhere in Europe. We've had exports hitting
record levels in eight or nine months out of the last thirteen or fourteen
months. We've got a growth in manufacturing employment for the first time
since you and I were at school.
Now, they are fundamental changes. They
didn't magically happen. They happened because we took painful, difficult
decisions that were uncomfortable for people. Now, because we took those
decisions we are now better placed for the future than we have been at any
stage for very many years and we've set a clear objective. A clear objective
of doubling living standards in the next twenty years. And the policy we
have now and the prospects we have now show that we might be able to achieve
that.
Now, I would ask just one question of my
critics. Is it right to have taken those painful decisions in the short term,
in order to ensure two things; one: that we don't have the problems that we've
had in the past ever again; and secondly that we can improve and double
living standards over the years ahead. Was it right to take those decisions,
or not? And my answer unequivocally is that it was right to take those
decisions. I did take them and I am prefectly prepared to defend them in this
leadership election, beyond this leadership election in the next General
Election and thereafter.
HUMPHRYS: But your critics, as you describe them,
know all the things that you've just been telling me, they're intelligent
people, they're aware of what's been going on but they are still not satisfied.
They still want other things, different things from you and even..
MAJOR: You say that everyone knows - I just
wonder, across the country as a whole, how much what has changed has really
taken route.
HUMPHRYS: But I'm not talking about what's
happening, I'm talking about your own MPs. If I may just persue this thought.
MAJOR: I suggest we wait until the end of this
leadership election before we make judges about them.
HUMPHRYS: Absolutely, but we are going to see you
challenged if not by Mr Redwood then by Mr Lamont. He too represents a body of
opinion in the party that understands the kinds of things you've been doing but
don't think they go far enough in many cases.
MAJOR: Well that's a prefectly legitimate
political argument. I'm prefectly prepared to take that argument on. But let
us wait and see whether anyone is prepared to bring that argument forward.
HUMPHRYS: Mr Lamont's going to.
MAJOR: They may be prepared to. They haven't
yet. They may be prepared to, let us discuss that when and if they do.
HUMPHRYS: Mr Lamont, what was it he said: "I made
him and I can break him"
MAJOR: Well I'm not going to comment on
reported words of Norman's that I haven't myself heard him say. I'm not going
to get into that business. If there is a contest I will contest it very
strongly but as yet there is not.
HUMPHRYS: There is this large group of MPs, as
we've discussed, who don't think that you have been 'Conservative' enough, to
use the sort of language that Lady Thatcher used and don't think that you will
be Conservative enough. Can you win them over - or have you written them off?
MAJOR: Well, I wonder whether we might examine
that thought for the moment, about whether one has been Conservative enough, I
think we have privatised a number of industries that weren't privatised in the
1980s, that's classically Conservative, putting something out of the public
sector into the private sector. Industries that people didn't image could be
privatised in the 1980s have been privatised since I became Prime Minister. I
suppose stopping rising prices and getting inflation down is typically
Conservative, has been for a very long time. I wonder whether you or anyone
else can tell me of a time when we had inflation under a more secure lock and
key than we have had it over the past two or three years. I suppose stopping
huge wage inflation undermining the problems that the country then has with
inflationary knock-one. I suppose that's typically Conservative. Even during
the recession of 1980-1983, wage demands never fell below seven and a half per
cent, those granted never fell below seven and a half per cent. Here we are,
three years after a recession, with wage increases working at three and a half
per cent and as a result the economy becoming stronger, even though there has
been a political price to pay for the government and that's the point I will
argue. We have been prepared to pay a political price in the short term
because I believe quite passionately that what we are doing is right for the
medium-term and the long-term. I have grown up in the last forty odd years
watching this country face economic buffeting of one sort or another almost
invariably caused by the on-set of inflation. Now I don't like inflation, I
don't think it's any good for people, it damages their savings, it damages our
economic prospects, it damages the number of people who are employed in this
country.
Now, when I came into government, I
wanted to stop it. On the first day I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I said
that was top of my priorities, it's never changed and I don't think that is
anything other than classically Conservative.
HUMPHRYS: But, again I come back to this
fundamental point that they know that. As you say you've argued it for a long
time and they're well aware of it and they are still not satisfied with it.
MAJOR: What you are saying is something quite
different John, what you are talking about is perceptions, not realities.
HUMPHRYS: Well it's their preceptions, isn't it
and that's what matters when it comes to a leadership election or any sort of
election.
MAJOR: I'm talking about realities. Well now
we are in the position to turn the realities into the perceptions as well and
that is what I'd like to do. And what would help us talk..turn the perceptions
into realities would be a whole series of interviews in which people ask about
the realities rather than the perceptions.
HUMPHRYS: Well alright, well reality is as opposed
to perceptions. Europe is a reality, now that is something on which a lot of
people are deeply dissatisfied and I'm not just talking now about the Teresa
Gormans of this world, I'm talking about all sorts of mainstream if you prefer
that phrase, mainstream MPs who are deeply worried about the way things have
been going and they want you to give them more than you have given them yet.
Are you prepared to do that, to win them over because I myself have spoken to
many MPs over the last forty-eight hours who say he hasn't done enough for us,
yet.
MAJOR: There is a great debate on Europe, not
just in our party, let us put the point in context first, there is a great
debate on Europe, right across the parties, anyone who believes the other
political parties are united in Europe hasn't looked at them, the Labour
Commonmarket Safeguards Committee has reappeared.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah but they don't have to vote for a
Labour...
MAJOR: I'm just putting it in context and then
I'll turn directly to your point, the Labour Party had more of its members
actually voting against its own whip on Europe than we had during the
Maastricht debate so let's firstly kill the notion that this is just a
Conservative dispute now let me turn to the question of European policy. We are
in the European Community, we've been in it for a very long time, it's
responsible for a huge amount of inward investment or partly responsible, not
wholly responsible. Partly responsible for a huge amount of inward investment
that's produced a massive amount of jobs in Scotland, the north east, the north
west, the Midlands and Wales in particular.
It sustains a large number of jobs in
this country. Very few people accept that the very fringes of argument argue
that we should leave the European Union. Now, let us clear that point firstly.
The second question is where is the European Union going? Now, that is where
the point of problem arises for many people. Are we going to go into what they
see as a wholly federalist Europe? And my point about that has been perfectly
clear. No we are not going into a wholly federalist Europe. That is why I
pragmatically reserved our position in a number of areas where I think it
would be damaging for us - the Social Chapter and the opt-out on the Single
Currency.
HUMPHRYS: But, well alright. Let's pick up the
Single Currency because hat's where they want you to be much more specific and
much more sceptical. They want you to rule it out for the next Parliament.
Now, you said yesterday you wouldn't do that.
MAJOR: Look, I'll tell you why I decided
firstly not to rule it in. I think, firstly, there are many economic
uncertainties about it. There are political uncertainties about it and there
are constitutional uncertainties about it. For that reason, I was unprepared
for us to accept in the Maastricht Treaty that we - like the others - should be
Treaty bound to go into a Single Currency.
HUMPHRYS: Indeed. They know why you rule it in.
They want to know why you rule it out.
MAJOR: The background is important, if you wish
to see why I take the position I do. So I have decided that we will maintain
that option to decide, at a later stage. Would it be wise to decide now? We
don't know the circumstances now. What is my primary aim? My primary aim is
to have a Europe reflecting what the British think is right for Europe and for
us. To achieve that, I need influence in the argument.
Standing on the sidelines of the
argument, splitting in the middle, saying I'm not going to have any part of
that discussion. I'm going to decide now to do absolutely something wholly
different. What sort of influence am I going to have in the middle of the
debate?
Just a minute. There are some people
who say: but you'll just be dragged along. Well, will we? Of course not, if
we don't wish to be dragged along, we won't. Britain has changed the European
Union in the last few years. That is what the people should realise. We've
made changes. Not far enough yet in agricultural policy that nobody else was
able to make. We've made changes in enlargement. Would we have had the EFTA
nations in Europe, but for British pressure? Not yet, no.
Would we have the Central and East
Europeans promise to come in but for British pressure? No. Would we have had
subsidiarity but for British pressure? No. Would we be embarking on
deregulation now but for British pressure? No. And, so, the point is the
British influence matters in Europe. It can change Europe.
Now, what some people are asking me to
do is to say, at this stage, that I am going to remove that British pressure
from an area of acute importance to the future development of Europe. I'm
going to say now: we aren't going to put in the British arguments. We aren't
going to argue for the way the European Union develop. We're going to pick up
the ball, move to the sidelines and say: at this stage, just a minute, we're
going to have nothing to do with that argument. What I am saying is: we wish
to try and influence that argument. We don't want Europe to make a bad mistake
and that means we must be in the middle of the argument fighting for the sort
of Europe that we want and we do so, against the uniquely favourable back
cloth, that if Europe decides to go in a direction that we don't approve of, we
are not under a Treaty obligation to go with them, as other people are.
HUMPHRYS: So you're not persuadable on this?
MAJOR: That is high politics. It's important
politics but, above all, it is politics that is in the interest of the future
of the United Kingdom.
HUMPHRYS: So, when they say...
MAJOR: And, on that point, I am unshiftable.
HUMPHRYS: Unshiftable, unpersuadable, not
persuadable.
MAJOR: On the point of looking after the
interests of the United Kingdom I am unshiftable.
HUMPHRYS: No but specifically on this question of
ruling out...
MAJOR: That is what I've said, I am unshiftable
on the importance of looking after the interests of the United Kingdom.
HUMPHRYS: And, you interpret that as not ruling out
a Single European Currency?
MAJOR: I will interpret it, if you may, John.
Don't interpret it for me.
HUMPHRYS: I'm trying to help you.
MAJOR: Well, I don't think you are doing. I
set out perfectly clearly what I meant and what I intended to say, a moment or
so ago. I wish Britain to have a key role in influencing how Europe develops.
HUMPHRYS: Indeed.
MAJOR: If it develops in a way that we don't
like, we won't join it and I am no Federalist.
HUMHRYS: Right. Well, let me try and help the
audience then, if.....
MAJOR: You asked me to clarify it, I'm
clarifying it. I want help Britain...Europe develop in a way we think is
right. I am no Federalist. But, for Britain not to influence that debate is to
help - almost invite - Europe to take decisions without Britain's influence
that may be wrong. Is that wise? Is that in Britain's interests?
HUMPHRYS: Well, let me be clear, if I may that I
fully understand what you're saying. You are saying that you will not -
because of Britain's interest - you will not rule out a Single European
Currency membership for Britain during the next Parliament?
MAJOR: I have....
HUMPHRYS: That's quite clear, is it?
MAJOR: You're pushing me into time scales that
nobody yet knows about.
HUMPHRYS: Well, it's what your people want to hear
isn't it? Some of your people want to hear
MAJOR: I must deal with the realities of what
the debate may be. And so far I think I've been pretty accurate about the
realities. I said there would be no Single European Currency in 1997. Lots of
my critics say differently. The whole of Europe has accepted there won't be.
1999? I've always been sceptical about whether we would be there in 1999.
What is very apparent is that the original idea - that the whole of the
European Union would move to a Single Currency in 1999 - is not remotely
tenable.
There's not a cat in Hell's chance that
anything like that would remotely happen. What is possible but no more than
possible is that some members may be in a position to move forward in 1999.
Now, I am sceptical about that but what I am being invited to do step by step,
salami slice by salami slice, is step back from a position of influence in
determining in how the whole of Europe goes forward.
HUMPHRYS: And you won't do that...
MAJOR: And the whole of Europe is important to
Britain's future and we have our position absolutely preserved. If Europe went
ahead with a Single Currency, Britain would have to decide what it would do.
And how would it do that? Firstly, the Cabinet would make a decision. Does it
want to go into a Single Currency, or not?
If the Cabinet says no, then I have no
doubt that Cabinet would...the country and Parliament would support it. If the
Cabinet said yes, it would have to go to the House of Commons and we would keep
open the option of a referendum as well.
HUMPHRYS: That's all. You'd keep it open?
MAJOR: Well, the first decision is...there's no
point in saying: we're going to have one, until we know we're going to go
ahead.
HUMPHRYS: Why not? Well, people think that that's
what you should do. That you should say that this is such a fundamental...
MAJOR: And, a lot of people....
HUMPHRYS: Let me think back to the question. A
lot of people think that this is such a fundamental question for Britain that
it's going to determine the way the United Kingdom goes for the rest of time.
That you should not even contemplate it without assuring the people of Britain
that there is an absolute commitment to a referendum. Now, that would help
you.
MAJOR: Well, I've just made the point clearly.
The first decision is for the Cabinet to decide whether it goes ahead. If the
Cabinet decides it is going to go ahead, then, it will need to consider whether
it wishes to have a referendum or not. I have expressly stated not just now,
not just for the purposes of this election that over the last two years or so
that I'm not going to rule that out.
HUMPHRYS: What's your own personal feeling?
MAJOR: It might be right. It might be right.
HUMPHRYS: What's your view, at this stage?
MAJOR: Well, answer me some questions and I'll
tell you.
HUMPHRYS: Well, alright. Do you believe ... a
straightforward question...
MAJOR: No, no, no..
HUMPHRYS: Do you believe that there...we should
not - you asked me to ask you a question and I'm doing it.
MAJOR: No, I'm going to tell you the questions
you should be asking.
HUMPHRYS: That's a novel way of conducting an
interview, Prime Minister.
MAJOR: Well, I think, it would be very helpful
for you because it will help you understand.
You're asking me to take a decision now
in unknown circumstances. Do you know what the currency markets will be like at
the time?
HUMPHRYS: No. But, that isn't what I'm asking
you.
MAJOR: But it is relevant to what decision is
taken. It's acutely relevant to what decision is taken and how the matter is
handled. Nobody knows the circumstances of the day.
HUMPHRYS: But to many of your supporters...
that is not to do with circumstances, it's a matter of fundamental principle.
MAJOR: You don't need to tell me what my
supporters say and think, I know that. I also have to look at what the
realities of the situation would be, and I agree with many. This a very
fundamental decision. I've never been in doubt, I've said so in the House of
Commons, the most important political, economic and potentially constitutional
question we have faced for generations....
HUMPHRYS: Precisely, therefore the economic
circumstances may not be relevant to that because it is such a profoundly
important political...
MAJOR: The economic circumstances are central
to that. As you said earlier and as I said earlier, they are central to that.
HUMPHRYS: It is a profoundly important decision
for political reasons, then ...
MAJOR: With great respect you're missing the
point. The economic conditions are absolutely fundamental. If the Cabinet
decides to go ahead it will consider whether it should have a referendum,
parliament will have its views at this time. We'll have to go to parliament,
we may have to have a referendum. I don't think I am prepared to rule that
out. It may very well be necessary, nothing new in me saying that, I've said
that for a long time, but I do not yet know all the circumstances. Do not try
and pin us down, we will deal with what is right for the country at the time.
HUMPHRYS: Something else that will have worried I
assume, many of your supporters, or potential supporters, or the waverers in
the last couple of days is what your potential challenger Norman Lamont wrote
in the Times when he said that at the time of the Maastricht negotiations you
wanted to make membership of the ERM a legally binding obligation on them.
MAJOR: Well, I'm not sure that that's what the
notes of the meetings at the time recall. But let us deal, Norman was talking
in terms of the general opt-out. Let me tell you something about the opt-out.
I was determined from the outset that we would not commit ourselves by treaty
to a single currency, that we would opt out of a single currency. That was my
policy, cabinet policy, Downing Street policy right from the outset, and Norman
was in no doubt about the fact. Norman negotiated many of the details of that,
I made it perfectly clear to the other heads of government that we were not
going to sign a treaty obligation with Britain being obligated like others to
go into a single currency. The other heads of government knew from me
personally that no opt-out, no Maastricht Treaty - that was the position,
Norman knew it was the position, he agreed that that was the position and
within that Norman negotiated the details but I don't think one should be
mistaken about whose policy it was or how the policy was formulated.
HUMPHRYS: So Mr. Lamont is not telling the truth
when he says...
MAJOR: I don't know precisely what Norman has
in mind, I'm bound to say...
HUMPHRYS: You made it pretty clear in that
answer...
MAJOR: Well I am very surprised at what I read
and so were other people who saw it at the time.
HUMPHRYS: So it isn't true, what he said is not
true, categorically not true.
MAJOR: I have just said what I propose to say
about that, it's not my recollection.
HUMPHRYS: At the end of the day MPs are going to
choose a leader who they believe will lead them to victory in the next election
and keep their seats for them, I mean, that's a pretty basic political instinct
isn't it and what their constituents are telling them, what many of their
constituents are telling them on the doorstep is you've got to do more to help
us, home owners in particular, existing home owners, we need help, the sort of
help that we're not getting at the moment, and we need a commitment on that.
Can you give them that commitment?
MAJOR: Well, examine that point for a moment if
we may. Home owners need help, certainly home owners want to pay the minimum
amount necessary to fund their mortgages. Because of the policies we've
followed mortgage costs have dropped over the last three years or so, four
years or so by about a hundred and thirty pound a month for the average
mortgage holder. What will keep those costs low in the future? What will keep
those costs low in the future is low inflation meaning low interest rates,
being low mortgage rates, and that is precisely what we're delivering, and if I
may I will turn the point round. If you and I had been speaking in the late
nineteen-eighties I'll tell you the question you'd have asked me about housing,
you would have said, "Prices are going up so fast, how are young people ever
going to get on the housing ladder"? That's what you would have said to me,
and at the moment because inflation is low, interest rates are low. That
nexus, that mixture of the cost of mortgages, incomes and the cost of houses is
more favourable for home ownership than anything we have seen for twenty or
thirty years. Later this week, in the middle of the week, we will publish a
White Paper on housing. It will reinforce our determination to expand still
further the home owning democracy that is instinctive to the Conservative
Party. We will be aiming over the next ten years at another million and a half
home owners. Now to deliver that we need to keep the costs of home ownership
within what people can afford, and that, to achieve that the low inflation
economy is essential.
HUMPHRYS: But again I come back to the point I've
made a number of times during this interview: they know that, they know that
that is what's on offer at the moment, but if one of these troubled MPs rings
you up or you ring them up, and they say to you, "Look Prime Minister, you've
got my support, if you can promise for instance returning MIRAS to twenty-five
per cent, positive help for people when they've negative equity". What do you
say to them?
MAJOR: Well, I'm bound to say I've just set out
to you what the answer is upon that matter. I'm not.....
HUMPHRYS: The answer's no really isn't it?
MAJOR: I'm not going to discuss with you John
the future development of Cabinet policy and budgetary matters, and you and I
both know that.
HUMPHRYS: But you can't do ....
MAJOR: The principle of it I will discuss with
you, and the principle of it is that we are the party of home ownership, we're
the only party of home ownership, and most of the ways that we've sought to
build home ownership in the last ten years have by and large been opposed by
our political opponents. We're proposing to expand home ownership. We will
look at the right and most effective mechanisms to expand home ownership.
HUMPHRYS: Are you sympathetic to the ...
MAJOR: But don't expect me to bargain with you
in this interview over individual ...
HUMPHRYS: I wondered if you might bargain with
them.... bargain with me...
MAJOR: .... because I've no intention of doing
so.
HUMPHRYS: I wondered whether you might bargain
with them though, because you need their help don't you - their support?
MAJOR: I believe I have their support, and I
believe they understand what we need to do to achieve long term growth in home
ownership.
HUMPHRYS: Are you sympathetic though to those
points, returning MIRAS to twenty-five per cent, help with positive equity?
MAJOR: Those are decisions we've had to make
over the last couple of days. Well as far as negative equity is concerned I
think many people wonder precisely what might be done, I mean if you look at
the size of the housing market it's seventy billion - maybe well over a hundred
odd billion. I don't think that those people who themselves have already
accepted a loss of negative equity would regard it fair if we actually made
further action for those who haven't to protect them.
Equally, if you're going to protect
people in the housing market from losses, the question arises do you tax them
on gains. Of course, we're not going to tax them on gains. So, I think, the
question of negative equity is one that is easy to state in the abstract than
to see why any Government at any time could ever deal with it.
What we're concerned with is creating
the right conditions to encourage home ownership. And, the right conditions to
encourage home ownership are to have a stable housing market, to have a housing
market, when mortgage costs are low and to have confidence. And, one of the
reasons of getting this leadership election out of the way is that so people
can see the direction of policy. And that they can deal with the details of
policy, without the distractions that have been provided such a fog in the
last two years or so, on personalities, rather than policy.
HUMPHRYS: But, it does sound as if you're not
terribly sympathetic to those people I talked about with those particular
problems.
MAJOR: It does sound that I'm not going to
debate with you on this issue the future development on budgetary policy and
I'm sure you'll understand that.
HUMPHRYS: But what it means is that I've listed a
number of problems that some of your supporters, potential or real might have
and you've not been able to offer a great deal of reassurance on any of the
specific concerns that I've raised. That's why I've raised them in the
way that I have.
MAJOR: Well, I know, well you've put that
in a very prejudicial way. I have tried to correct some of the
misapprehensions that I think you have.
HUMPHRYS: But don't you think they knew all that?
MAJOR: Well, I don't think that's what they
hear day by day, when they hear you interviewing people. I think, what they
hear is one side of the question. They hear some of the problems that exist.
They don't hear the alternative news of what has actually happened. I wonder
how many people how many new homeowners there were last year. Not very many, I
would imagine. I wonder how many people were actually aware that mortgage
costs have fallen by a hundred and thirty pound a month for the average
mortgage holder some time ago.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I suspect they do, if they're
paying their mortgage, don't they?
MAJOR: Do they? Is that what they hear, day
after day? Is that what they hear day after day?
HUMPHRYS: They see it when they get their bills
in, don't they?
MAJOR: How about an alternative? Dealing with
some of the things that are going right? We have in this country, at the
moment, the best economic recovery, the best classical economic recovery - and,
I see you don't deny it. You're nodding in agreement, it is the case.
HUMPHRYS: You told me that earlier.
MAJOR: Well, I noticed you nodding in
agreement.
HUMPHRYS: I was just agreeing that you had told me
that earlier.
MAJOR: Well, I'm pleased to hear you supporting
it and I've no doubt you've put it to people. Now, we need to build on that,
give people the confidence that they can see we have produced a stable
environment and we can build on it and you begin to change the climate. That
is what is necessary.
HUMPHRYS: If you do not win on the first ballot,
will you go through to the second one. Will you as a previous leader said:
fight, and fight to win.
MAJOR: John, you're being very tempting, but
you do know very well that I'm not going to enter into 'if' questions with you.
I'm in this election to win this election. I expect to win this election.
Don't start encouraging me down the road... I expect to win this election, I
expect to be Leader of the Conservative Party after this election. I expect to
go up to the General Election and I expect to win it and I'm not going into
detailed bits of speculation, however much time you spend asking me about them.
HUMPHRYS: But, the only reason I try to tempt you
is because if you leave that option open, then they will think you're doing it
deliberately, won't they? So, it might be to your own advantage. Well, you
know, they'll say: he's not answering questions. Therefore, he wants to leave
the option open.
MAJOR: And, of course, if I proceed, you will
put the point precisely the other way around: ah, you'll say: so you do think
it is going to go to a second ballot. I'm not entering into that speculation,
John. I'm in this election to win this election and that is all I propose to
say to you.
HUMPHRYS: If - let me just try one more question
on this, then. And then we'll have run out of time, anyway. If you fail to
score a truly convincing victory in the first round - however you define that
- your authority will be weakened, won't it? You'll have to resign.
MAJOR: I don't accept your premise. Let us
wait for the result of this election. What is intolerable is to have the
continued speculation that we've had over recent weeks. The complete
blanketing out of the real world of politics and policy. Now, I believe, it is
in the national interest, the Party interest and, probably, my interest that
we, actually, get back to the details of policy. That's what I came into
politics for. It's what I care about. It's what I'm going to do and when I've
won this election, it's where we're going to be.
HUMPHRYS: Prime Minister, thank you very much.
MAJOR: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: The Prime Minister talking to me in
Downing Street earlier this morning.
...oooOooo...
|