................................................................................ 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..