A large number of the short interviews i see merely produce sound bite answers — they don't really inform the public. And secondly — though i probably shouldn't say this — it's 65 years since ijoined the conservative party. I was, am, and always will be a conservative. But for — in recent months — a little longer than a few months — there's not been a great deal i could say that i would wish to say in favour of what the previous government were doing. With that being so, i thought it betterjust stay off the air. Now, of course, the election�*s behind us, the party's looking again to the future and i can — i can return to speaking out, hopefully in favour. Well, there's a lot to get into. Let's start with where we are as a country — the country that you led for seven years. You used to say — vocally, publicly — that you dreamt of a nation at ease with itself. Has your dream come true? emphatically not — indeed, quite the reverse at the moment. Wherever you look — notjust in our country that we have but right across europe and the united states — there's a great deal of dissatisfaction and a large part of it has come about from one single effect, and that is the financial crisis of 2007—08, which has cast a very long shadow. And, of course, there were other things that were not the result of any individual national government — the covid pandemic, for example, was something that was unexpected, the ukraine war with all the difficulties created for governments right the way across europe because of the increase in fuel prices and the net result of all of those, i think, is a great deal of dissatisfaction. And a great deal of pressure on democracy with the belief that it has been failing the electorates. . . Well. . . And you've seen that in the volatility of the electorate in the last two general elections. Going back to where we are as a country today, labour are back in power after 14 years. Did your party, the conservatives, deserve to lose? i think there's a time when democracy needs a change in government. I could see that in 1997. We had been in government for 18 years and it was perfectly true to say that we were tired and that we were running out of fresh ideas and we were running out of fresh people to make — to make ministers and re—inject the government with vigour. And, of course, the same thing applies — although it was only 14 years on this occasion — but 14 years plus the difficulties that i've just been talking about. He's as famous for his love of cricket as his politics, growing up in south london, just a stone's throw from the oval. It was a time of absolutely mass immigration into the uk, particularly from the west indies and particularly into brixton. I saw the immigrants who'd come, and many of them became my childhood playmates at cricket and football in eastla ke road. You once wrote, instead of inciting fear, the bigots should have gone to the oval where, when the west indies played, it was carnival time. The atmosphere was full of fun. And this idea, that the bigots should've gone to the oval, prompts me to ask you whether or not you worry that bigotry has seeped into the conservative party. Well, you say the conservative party — i don't know why you single out the conservative party. It isn't — there is a degree of bigotry in the country. There always has been. But is there in your party? i think there probably is in a number of parties. I don't think it's solely within the conservative party. It's certainly — some of it is in the conservative party, some of it is in reform uk, i've no doubt some of it is in the labour party. Don't forget when you look at politics, people tend to think that fascism and communism are at opposite ends of the political pole. They're not. They meet. They're next to one another. So, it's not fair to say it is just the conservative party. How do you think. . . ? there are people in the conservative party who advocate policies i would disagree with. I wouldn't call them bigots. They're entitled to their view and i'm entitled to my view. We should be proud that people from all around the world look on us as a bastion of freedom and wish to come here. Why has immigration got to the levels it has — over 700,000 net — do you think? well, there's been a big change, of course, since brexit. Lots of people from europe — who worked particularly, actually, as it happens, in the hospitality industry — have left — and other people have been actually encouraged by the government to come here. And then, there are the people who come here by boats who haven't been encouraged to come here at all but do because they're not quite sure where to go. You mention the boats — are you glad to see the back of the rwanda scheme? absolutely. Why? well, if you really wish to know, i thought it was unconservative, unbritish, if one dare say it in a secular society unchristian and unconscionable. And i thought that, really, this is not the way to treat people. We used to transport people nearly 300 years ago from our country — felons who at least had had a trial and been found guilty of something, albeit it that the trial might have been cursory. I don't think transportation — for that is what it is — is a policy suitable for the 21st century. Well, let me challenge you on that because a lot of people — some in your party, some outside of your party, some that were once in your party — would say what's really unconservative or unchristian is allowing this boat crossing to continue. And the way you stop it — and this was the argument of the former british prime minister rishi sunak — the way you stop is by having an effective deterrent. So, isn't it actually the compassionate view to take all measures necessary to stop the boats, as someone once said, and isn't the threat of deportation to rwanda part of that policy? are they seriously saying to me that somewhere in the backwoods of some north african country, they actually know what the british parliament has legislated for? i think not. I absolutely think that is not the case. So, i'm not sure that it is the deterrent at this stage. If it had actually happened, it might�*ve been, but it would still have been odious, in my view. And it's a hard problem to solve, let's be honest. Yes, it's a very hard problem to solve. Very big trade—offs involved. You're working with tough gangs. . . Which is why over the last year, i kept my mouth shut about what i thought about it. But let us put it into proper long—term context. There are people coming from all round the world who are coming here and the more autocracies grow in other parts of the world, the more people haven't a life without the freedoms that we enjoy, the more they will seek to come here. A lot of people from africa, over the next 50 years, will look for something better for themselves and their families. This isn'tjust a short—term problem. So, how do we solve that problem? i think if the european and other countries worked together and decided they would tackle this problem at its roots — let us seek out where these rubber boats actually are manufactured. Often china. Let us ban their import into the whole of europe and seek out the gangs working with the local countries — notjust britain, but working with our partners all across europe, collectively, we can provide a bigger deterrent. What kind of health is the conservative party in today? i may be deceiving myself, though i don't think so, but i think a large part of our nation is by instinct centre—right — not far—right but centre—right — and the only party that can legitimately appeal to the centre—right is the conservative party. And that is what we have to do. We have to decide where our natural support really lies and appeal to them. People may have made a misjudgement about the last election. We lost five seats to reform uk and people arejumping up and down and some rather reckless people are saying, well, we must merge with them! well, that would be fatal. We lost 50 to the liberals and we lost a huge amount to labour. We lost the vote on the left more than on the right. And we have to focus on that centre—right position. We're not an ideological party. I do think traditionally, we have been a common—sense party. And i'm optimistic. I think it's a — we have had such a bad defeat, we have got a base upon which we can build in a wholly new and, i think, potentially effective way. I heard a story about how after you were voted out of office in 1997, you said to a young george osborne the great danger for your party was to be taken over by its right wing. What's the great danger today? well, i don't think the conservative party should be taken over by any part of it. There are different strands of conservatism. We need the right wing. What we don't need is the far—right — people who've attracted themselves to the right wing who perhaps would be more comfortable in reform uk than with us. What i want is for them to reach a concordat so that they can agree and so that we don't have these factional disputes within the party. When major came to power in 1990, the issue of the uk's relationship with europe was causing serious ructions within the party. All: brexit! decades later, the matter hasn't gone away and divide remains. What has brexit done to and for your party? well, brexit has been the most divisive thing that has happened in our party in my lifetime and it is less important what it has done to our party than what it has done to our country. That was going to be my next question — what do you think it has done? well, i don't think it's done anything good. If i mayjust reflect on it for a moment, it's made our country weaker, poorer, and that is emphatically not in the interest of our country. The world saw us as a member of the european union. It was a megaphone to magnify our power in the world. So, instead, we are isolated and outside. Did it have to be thus? i mean, could brexit not have — if delivered in a different way, could it not have fulfilled the promise of those who advocated it, which is that it would make us richer and more free? well, it's done exactly the reverse, hasn't it? what has happened to all the benefits of brexit that we heard about? well, maybe they're yet to come. Well, i don't — i don't recall people saying during the election campaign, in 10 or 15 years�* time, maybe 20, we'll have some benefits of brexit. But do you not grant that there could be? no, no — stop a minute. It was going to be milk and honey straight away. And it wasn't milk and honey and brexit was sold to the nation on the basis of things that haven't happened and couldn't have happened. There was a great degree of misapplication of reality, if i can put it in that delicate way. Do you mean lies? that's another way of putting it — that were actually told to the people about what brexit was going to be about. And a large amount of that came from conservative sources. Not all of it — there were some very senior labour sources part of that at exactly the same time. But i don't see the great advantages that were going to come from brexit having come yet and i don't see any likelihood that they're suddenly going to magically appear in the future. Why do people not look at the practical example, the practical effect, that we are poorer? and that is not some statistic. Being poorer means taxes are higher, expenditure on public services are lower. That's actually what it means, and that is what has actually happened because of the false promises of brexit. People said we were going to get our sovereignty back. Well, up to a point, that's true. We now have sovereignty to be poorer. We have sovereignty to be less influential. Well. . . So, if you ask am i resolved, the brexiteers now say, the brexiteers now say, oh, well, get over it. It's all gone. If my house had been burgled, i would be pretty fed up if the burglar then said, well, it's all over now. Forget about it. So, would you advocate going back into either the single market or the customs union? i don't think its practical at the present moment. I don't think it is politically practical at the present moment, but i think it will happen. The next generation — the young generation, when they voted, voted overwhelmingly to stay in the european union. In ten years�* time, when they and their compadres are in parliament and running the country, it may be possible to get back but the brexiteers did a good job in making it difficult because we not only insulted our neighbours but in addition to that, we have lost all the special advantages we had — the rebates, the opt—out from the social chapter, the opt—out from the single currency. All those things are gone. If we sought to get back, we would probably have to accept them or we couldn't get back. So, it may be that that is going to be more than parliament, at any stage i can see, will accept in the foreseeable future. What they'll do in the long—term future, who can tell, because who knows how circumstances will change? the brexiteers did a very good job in dividing us from europe, even though they did a very bad job improving our prosperity and our wealth when they did so. Let's turn to the new world order. How would you describe britain's standing in the world today compared with, say, 20 years ago? well, it's obviously a little less than it was — and that's not because we have particularly failed, it's because it's the way the world has changed. America looks as though it may not be the america that would pay any price, bear any burden, to protect the success of human rights. China has been marching into the world in a phenomenal way. Do you think we're getting china right? do you think our approach to china is a healthy one? do you think we're — we're ready for a world in which china is as dominant as it is today? i think a lot of work has been done particularly to protect us against things like cybercrime and to protect us against china appropriating technology that is legitimately british. But what, if you want a safe world in the future, must be the primary aim of diplomacy? the primary aim of diplomacy would be to make sure that china and america may be opponents but they don't become enemies and they don't go to war. That must be the primary aim of diplomacy. And i think we have a role to play in that, and i think we should endeavour to play it. One of the things i think we would be wise to build up in the next few years — we're no longer the great military power that we were and we can't afford to be but we're not insignificant. But in terms of soft power, i think we can build up our soft power. I think we can build up our diplomacy. Which is best in terms of leadership — winning a war or stopping a war in the first place? good question, isn't it? i think if you can stop a war in the first place, that's fantastic. And we can play a part in all that but we're going to have to watch what is happening to democracy and autocracy because the balance is changing — and changing more quickly than most people realise. And the main point about the autocratic nations — china, russia, north korea, iran, nicaragua, venezuela and many others — there must be about a0 nations in the world, something approximately, who are autocratic or near autocratic. That's one fifth — over a fifth of the nations around the whole world. And as they grow, democracy has been shrinking. People don't, i think, focus on it but democracy has shrunk in every one of the last 18 years. We thought after the collapse of the soviet union and the fall of the berlin wall that democracy had won the battle of ideas. But we hadn't. And autocracy has come roaring back in the last 15, 16,17,18 years and we have to be aware of that danger and aware of the dangers that could arise from it. Let me give you a practical illustration. Let us suppose that the american president ceases to be active alongside ukraine. Let us suppose germany ceases to be active alongside ukraine and the europeans pull back and ukraine loses and russia wins. Is that the end of the matter? no, it isn't because for every event, there is a consequence and the ukrainians are spilling their blood on our behalf. But let's assume russia wins. How does the world see that? they will see that the west has funked and failed to protect a democracy — a big democracy in europe, of all places — from an autocracy. Now, what does that mean for the perception of america? they haven't prevailed. China will notice that. Will it encourage china to think, a—ha! we may be being too timid about whether we go into taiwan. Maybe america will do nothing about that, either. And of course, what happens to the allies of the west? what happens in asia, to japan, to south korea, to the philippines — strong allies of the west? and they will see the west has funked it. What do they do? do they decide, we're safer to line up behind china rather than the west, because that would be safer, or do they say, then we had better be prepared to protect ourselves better, and start moving towards nuclear capability? and so, you get suddenly a much more dangerous world. And that's why i think the west needs to continue its support of ukraine, so that they have the capacity to defeat them. But do you think the west has the will to do that, based on what you see right now looking around the world? well i — i'm alarmed at the possibility that america might decide that ukraine is not a strategic interest — because she certainly is — to the position of the united states in the world. And i think we should argue for the fact that — we as a nation should argue for the fact that she is and we should try and lead people into believing that it is right for us to defend ukraine because you are defending freedom against autocracy, and if you begin to weaken and lose on a mega scale — for this would be a massive setback unlike anything you've seen before — then there will be a price to pay for that and it may be a price we don't wish to pay. You're talking, really, about a new world order in which democracy is, to some extent, receding and autocracy is rising. It really strikes. . . Well, that is what's happening. Yeah, sure, but what's really striking is where that democratic recession, as some people have called it, comes from. Because around the world today, many young people are losing faith in democracy. If you look at the support for the afd in germany, if you look at the support for marine le pen in france, if you look at the support forjavier milei in argentina, a lot of these people are getting their support from those under 30. When you look at what's happening, as you say, to real wages for the last 20 years, can you really blame those young people? no, i don't. But you can't expect these young people to have a strategic view of what happens if we were to lose the war, for example. I don't suppose they've even thought of it. And so, i don't believe we've got a nation of youngsters who are less determined to be free than earlier generations but i don't think politics anywhere is widening the debate beyond the rather trivial narrow lines of party disputes in country after country and some disputes that hit the headlines. We need to be — i want politicians looking at the 2020s, the 2030s, the 2040s. And i note you've. . . I want — i want people to actually look at what the position is going to be in the future. When did you last hear, from any party, a senior politician make a lengthy, detailed speech on what we needed to do to protect our place in the world and our values and our wealth 25 years from now? what's your biggest regret with your time in power? wasn't long enough. Chuckles among his achievements in power, major laid the groundwork for the good friday agreement and is widely