Conservative electoral optimism?

On 16 November 2003, Peter Sissons interviewed former UK Prime Minister, John Major.

Please note "BBC Breakfast with Frost" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

Former UK Prime Minister, John Major

PETER SISSONS: Right down to business. All over the Sunday papers, Tories in death penalty storm.

The newly appointed Shadow Home Secretary David Davies wants the death penalty.

What's your reaction to that?

JOHN MAJOR: Well I think it's a bogus story. I would make several points about that. Firstly that's always been a personal matter for Members of Parliament. Margaret Thatcher was in favour of the death penalty all her time in parliament, she was Prime Minster for eleven years, had a big majority. It was never introduced as a government measure.

That's the first point I'd make, David is speaking for himself. The second point I'd make is this isn't party policy, I very much doubt that it will become party policy. I certainly always voted against it. And if my recollection is right, Michael Howard always voted against it. So, I think this is David expressing a personal view that many people will agree with. But it isn't party policy, it isn't going to become party policy in my judgement.

PETER SISSONS: But if it gets you a few extra points in the polls, it can't be a bad thing can it?

JOHN MAJOR: No, I don't think that's going to be where the battleground is. The battleground over the next few months and year or so, 18 months, till the next General Election, is going to be in public services and taxation and perhaps in foreign policy for a bit, but not I think in issues of this sort. These are personal matters, they've always been personal matters, they've always been individual votes, not a matter for party policy. It isn't party policy and I don't think it will become party policy.

PETER SISSONS: The past few weeks have seen a bit of an earthquake within the Conservative Party. Seventeen standing ovations and dumped within weeks. Do you feel sorry for IDS?

JOHN MAJOR: I think he had a very tough time over the last few weeks. I think on a human level it would be impossible not to feel sorry for the difficulties that he faced at that time. I think that they were very difficult. I think he faced them with some dignity. I think he's left the beginnings of a good policy portfolio.

There's a lot more to be done. I think we would be very unwise to assume that the policies we've got now will all remain unchanged, or that they won't be further developed and added to between now and election. Clearly there's still a substantial amount to be done. But I think he left a bedrock of policy there and I think he can be proud of that.

PETER SISSONS: But since he's gone the party appears to have a spring in its step again, you keep meeting Tory MPs who've big smiles on their faces. It was right to ditch him.

JOHN MAJOR: I think the evidence of the last few days, it's painful to say that, but I think the evidence of the last few days suggest that it was. Michael Howard is a very experienced politician. He's been round a very long time. He's a leader of the Conservative Party who has seen the country and the party in good times and bad, in boom and in bust. And I think drawing on that experience is very worthwhile.

Experience, somebody once said experience was a name given to your mistakes. But if that is true then you have a fair chance of not repeating those mistakes again. And he's a very high quality ... I've known Michael for a long time so I speak from a personal bias. I've known him over a quarter of a century.

But he's a very high quality politician. I think he's a match for Tony Blair and I think the Conservative Party have now got a genuine alternative Prime Minister in place, whom the country can see is a genuine alternative Prime Minister. And that's a great help.

PETER SISSONS: Do you think it's just conceivable they could steal victory at the next election?

JOHN MAJOR: I certainly think it's possible. If you look at the support that the Labour Party have. For a long time it's been a mile wide but half an inch deep. And I think you can see the difficulties the government are now having. If you look at the government quite dispassionately they have been there since 1997 with a huge majority, and therefore capable of enacting whatever they wish.

They inherited the best performing economy any incoming government has inherited in the last fifty years. So they had a good economy, a clear parliamentary majority, and I think one now has to look at the outcome. Is heath better? I think not. Is education better? I think not. Is transport better? I think not. So you can run down a whole range of policy areas and say what has happened to the war chest of a good economy that they had, and what have they done with the large unassailable majority that they had? And I think the answer to both those things is not very much. And so I think they're very vulnerable on what they have not done, as well as what they have done.

PETER SISSONS: You've now agreed to serve on this committee of four wise men who'll advise Michael Howard. But hasn't he been really let down by what people call the other big beasts. He really needed Clarke, Portillo, Hague, on his front bench. They all declined to serve and in fact Michael Portillo just decided to walk away.

JOHN MAJOR: Well I don't think they have. I mean, I bumped into Michael Portillo last week and I think Michael in his heart had made up his mind to leave parliament some time ago. And if you've lost the heart for it, if you've lost the instinct for it, if you've lost the desire to get into it, then the best thing is to get out.

PETER SISSONS: Well he also has the safest conservative seat, or one of them, in the country. Why wouldn't it be really fair now for him just to get out of politics, to resign his seat and let somebody who will serve on the front bench, say Malcolm Rifkin, to come in for the last 18 months. You can't be certain ...

JOHN MAJOR: Well I would be delighted to see Malcolm back in the House of Commons, I think he will be at the next election and I think he'll play a significant part in the future of the Conservative Party. But Michael was elected to serve this term out, I think it's right for him to do so. As far as Ken not serving in the Shadow Cabinet, I'm sure that's right. I think Ken will be extremely supportive and helpful. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

But if Ken had gone in the Shadow Cabinet every word he'd utter would have been forensically examined to see if we can manufacture a new Tory split. So I think Ken is right to say "I've been around a long time, my experience and my wisdom are available to the leader of the opposition, but I'm going to stand aside for the time being".

After the election, if Michael wins, and I certainly think that is now a possibility, I think we can win this election, nobody should write this election off - then Ken would be there to return to government at a high level I hope.

PETER SISSONS: Was it six wasted years under Hague and Duncan Smith?

JOHN MAJOR: I think that's a cruel judgement, if you make that judgement. It was a very difficult situation in 1979. We had been there for 18 years and I remember in 1992 when we won the election that everybody said was unwinnable, sitting on a sofa just like this in Downing Street with Chris Patton.

And we were discussing the fact that we had stretched the democratic elastic too far, we shouldn't have won the election, and that the next election, the one that came in '97 would be all but unwinnable.

Well it proved to be so. And the government had such a huge bounty of goodwill because they had been in opposition for so long that I don't think there was very much any leader of the Conservative Party could have done in the short term.

PETER SISSONS: You write today in one of the Sunday newspapers in defence of Prince Charles "dire days for the Royal Family" you begin. What role should the Prime Minister, a Prime Minister, play when the monarchy is under attack and public support appears to be shaky?

JOHN MAJOR: Well I don't think Prime Ministers and politicians should rush into these events as a matter of course.

PETER SISSONS: But is it any part of the Prime Minister's role to advise the monarchy about the public mood, about it's own PR. You did on the Royal divorce.

JOHN MAJOR: I'm sure the Prime Minister does advise the Royal Family. What advice he gives them is private, I don't know what it is. It's known only to him and to members of the Royal Family. But I'm sure he does. I'm sure he does. And I think the concern that people must have is there has been a continual series of stories, all of them in their own way damaging.

This latest one, for which there is no corroboration, Prince Charles has plainly told his most senior officials that this story is utterly untrue - there's no corroboration for it. It has been very widely aired. It's travelled all the way round the world. It has done some damage, and that concerns me.

Because if it does damage to Prince Charles it isn't only Prince Charles, it does damage to Prince Charles's family, particularly Prince William and Prince Harry. It does damage to his wider family. It does damage to the institution of monarchy which is very valuable for this country. And it actually does damage to this country as a whole. So I think it's important to knock these stories down.

---