Downing Street Press Conference
8 October 2007
The PM held his third monthly press conference today, taking questions on his decision not to call a general election, Iraq, Royal Mail, public sector strikes and the Middle East.
Parts of this transcript may have been edited
Read the transcript
Prime Minister:
Good morning. Let us make a start.
Question:
Prime Minister, won't the charge of David Cameron that you are treating the public like fools stay so long as you don't admit really that what happened this weekend was an electoral calculation which failed because you realised you would not do as well as you were hoping in the General Election? And secondly, can I ask you do you feel you have got the right advisers around you now?
Prime Minister:
Well let me take both these questions. Yes, I did consider holding an election. Yes I looked at it. My first instinct, if I were honest with all of you, was that I wanted to get on with the job of putting my vision of what the future of the country was to the people of the country and deliver on it before there was ever an election but I did listen to people. I looked at what people were saying. I heard from our candidates in marginal seats. These candidates in marginal seats were telling us that we would win the election. I happened to believe that we would win at any time, but I made my decision on this basis: I wanted more time to set out my vision for the future of the country without a summer dealing with issues from foot and mouth, to floods, to terrorism, to economic and financial crisis. I had not yet had a chance to put forward my vision about health, about housing, about education, about the future of our economy and prosperity generally, and that is why I made the decision that I did.
As far as advisers are concerned, I take full responsibility for everything that has happened. I will not put blame to anybody else. Anything that happens in Downing Street is the direct responsibility of me and I will always take that full responsibility myself.
Question:
Prime Minister, isn't it the case that the decision to want to set out your vision could have been taken at any stage, not at the last minute when the polls turned against you? You presented yourself as the face of the new politics. Isn't the evidence of the last few days you listen to people when they will agree and you deny them a vote when you think that they might vote against you?
Prime Minister:
Well let me deal with both these points, as you are making two points there.
First of all, I did think, it is the Party Conference season, let the Party Conference season finish. Immediately that is finished, make your announcement about where things are going. So, as I considered an election I also said let us bring this to an end at the end of the Party Conference season and that is exactly what I did.
As far as listening to the people and as far as a consultative process of politics, I will continue to do everything that I have started, and indeed step it up. Citizens' juries in every part of the country to listen to what people are saying, engaging people about the big issues. A constitutional reform package that includes the public being able to talk about a written constitution and changes that we can make, local government democracy giving people more say perhaps in health, perhaps in housing, perhaps in education, perhaps in policing matters. This is a major agenda that I don't think is lightly to be dismissed as something for a day, or for a week or for a few months. This is an agenda for a long term change in the British Constitution, and I hope that the debate that we started in the Summer can move on to a new level over the next few months when people will have the chance in every area of the country to express their views. We have commissions, we have citizens' juries and at the end of the day of course we will have deliberative assemblies of people in different areas where they can make their views known about the Constitution. So this is not something for one day, it is something for long term.
Question:
The ultimate way to listen to people is to give them a vote. You were going to do that on Friday, you ordered your civil servants, you ordered your Ministers, and you ordered your Party to be ready for an election and at the last minute when the polls turned, you turned. That isn't listening, is it?
Prime Minister:
But that is not correct. I said to you that I did consider an election. I said my first instinct was always to keep on with the business of governing to set out my vision of what the country should be like for the future. I think everybody who is here agrees that every time we have met at press conferences or in any other circumstances over the last few months we have been talking about either foot and mouth, or floods, or talking about terrorism, or talking about in the most recent instance, Northern Rock and financial crisis, but my vision of the future of the country is how we meet the rising aspirations of the British people. I feel I need the time to show people that that vision about rising aspirations can be delivered in the changes that we are making in housing and health and education and in the economy generally, and I believe that the public generally will want us to have the time to set out that vision for the future.
Question:
But Prime Minister, you did more than listen to the idea of an early election. You and your advisers marched us all up to the top of the hill and in the end surely you changed your mind because you thought that you might lose. Why can't you just admit that?
Prime Minister:
No what happened was I considered it and I came back to my first instinct. And my first instinct was always that we must have the chance to put our vision of the future of the country to the people of the country and of course when you are considering something, people are right to make preparations one way or the other, and that is true. And you look at and hear what people are saying and I think as for consultation, I listened to what was being said particularly from my marginal seat Members of Parliament who actually wanted an election and as they have said to me, and as I believe whenever the election is held, we will win that election, but at the same time I had to take a longer term view about what I believe is the case for the vision of the country that we want to put forward. There is a change taking place in this country, you know. There are rising aspirations amongst the British people that have got to be met. I have sensed it in home ownership, I have sensed it in people wanting a far more personal service from the National Health Service. They want a service organised around their needs. I have sensed it in education where people are wanting their schools to have education that is more tailored to the talents and the abilities, and in some cases the very big talents that are not being catered for of pupils in our state system, and I have sensed these rising aspirations and I want a chance to show that our vision of the future of the country can deliver on these rising aspirations of the British people, and that is what it was about.
Question:
Prime Minister, following on from that, do you accept that this has not been handled well. It has gone badly and you have already taken responsibility for that therefore you must take responsibility for the fact that it has not worked out as it should have done.
Prime Minister:
I think your weekend has been better than mine. The future, however, I think people will understand. It is the Party Conference season. People come to you and say let's look at this. I did consider it. I then made my decision. I had decided I would make my decision at the end of the Party Conference season. If you like I could have made it earlier. Perhaps I should have made it earlier, but I decided that I would make the decision at the end of the Party Conference season and that is exactly what we did. And now we get on with the business, which I think is what the people of the country are asking us to do, and that is to look at their aspirations, see how we can meet them in practice, deliver on them for the future and then that judgement will be made. When I went round the country I didn't see that people were saying our priority is this, what they wanted us to do is to get on with the job.
Question:
Do you accept that what your advisers are saying which is that the Conservative tax proposals: inheritance tax, stamp duty, non-domiciles are quite popular, and are you tempted to steal them?
Prime Minister:
[Party Political Content]. I relish the chance to do a forensic examination of the non-domiciled taxation measures which as I understand it raise £600 million and not £3.5 billion. I relish the chance also therefore to explain to people that you cannot build a policy of cutting either inheritance tax or of cutting stamp duty without having the means to pay for it, and if we were to go back to that idea that we had in the early nineties where you make tax promises, have no way of sensibly or realistically affording them, then that not only means that you cannot meet your promises, it causes economic instability and it was exactly the problem that was caused in the early 1990s, so when the debate comes on these proposals, I relish the chance both for the forensic examination of them because they do not add up, but also to explain to people that I thought this country had moved from the days when you had politicians that promised things, had no idea how they would pay for them, made up sort of policies about how you might get money which they knew were perfectly unrealisable, and then you put the economy into economic disarray. Now that is what happened in the early 1990s. I am determined that is not going to happen again and I believe that the British people are also determined that that doesn't happen again.
Question:
Prime Minister, can we just be absolutely clear here. Are you suggesting that your decision not to hold a General Election had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the opinion polls, and everything to do with your decision to give yourself more time?
Prime Minister:
Yes, I considered holding an election. Obviously I saw the opinion polls. I also heard from my marginal seat Members of Parliament that if we had had an election they would have won their seats, and I believe and I still believe that we will win, and would have won a majority and will win a majority whenever the election is called. But I had to take a bigger view of the situation. For me the issue was do I return to that first instinct? We need time to be able to show people how our vision of the future of the country is to be realised. It is not enough just to express that vision, you have got to show that you are delivering on that vision. So whether it is in home ownership, whether we want to build more homes, eco towns, whether it is in the Health Service, we want GP access and people to see that they can get their GP at the weekend, whether it is the bigger vision of the Health Service where people can have the preventive health care that they want, or in education, I think that the right decision is to say to people look, let us over the next few months show people how we will deliver on that vision.
Question:
Prime Minister, for 5 days millions of households have not had their post. Do you think it might be time to ban strike action in our essential public services?
Prime Minister:
Well this is a very serious issue and I hope that the talks that are taking place between the trade unions and the management, and we are not going to intervene directly in an industrial dispute, that was the old days, can be brought to a conclusion but this is unacceptable. This is a disruption to people's lives. When we the government are investing a huge amount of money in the postal services, it is not something that we can either condone or we can stand lightly by and say it is an acceptable form of behaviour. I want these people back to work. I want people to have their postal services immediately and we the government, that is providing money for the Post Office, will have to consider our position in the light of the events.
Question:
[Party Political content]. Don't you think the time has come to make these very rich people pay a little bit more towards services in this country which they use?
Prime Minister:
Well this is one of the issues when I can genuinely say that it is a matter for the Chancellor. The non-domicile taxation, when I was Chancellor we carried out a series of reviews, in fact reviews are still in progress on the system of non-domiciled taxation. I think you will find that whereas the figure that has been quoted [Party Political content] that there are 150,000 people who could pay £25,000 in taxation and that would have no massive effect on the British economy, that this is not true. I think you will find that there are only a few thousand people that would ever pay that sort of money, or would ever be able to pay that sort of money, or would keep their tax status as non-domiciles without changing their tax status, and I think you will find, as I said a few minutes ago, that the actual cost of what could be raised is about £650 million pounds. It cannot raise the £3.5 billion pounds. Now, I have investigated this in the past. There will no doubt be reviews in the future. I think all the information should be made available to people. They will see for themselves that you cannot dream out of a few thousand people who are already paying £4 billions in tax as non-domiciles, another £3.5 billion pounds, all you can raise is several hundred million pounds. That is a decision that can be made, but it cannot fund a massive cut in inheritance tax which cost £3.5 billion. It can give you a few hundred million pounds, it cannot provide you with £3.5 billion. And we have got to remember that non-domiciles include nurses who are coming to this country to work, they include businessmen across from the United States for a year, not for three or four years, they include a wide range of people, and only several thousand of these people are capable of paying the sort of money that is being talked about and I think to most people in the taxation industry and the accountancy industry this is all very well known.
Question:
Can you tell me if you did actively consider in the past, or are thinking in the future, about stationing British troops alongside Australian troops, whether or not you had a substantial reduction next year? And also on interpreters, should it be a guiding principle that countries should give visas to the people that help their armies?
Prime Minister:
Well I will be making a statement on Iraq this afternoon, and if I may say so the second part of your question will be the subject of the Statement and it is better for me to announce that to the House of Commons.
On the first part of your question about Australian troops. I welcome the contribution that Australian troops have made in Iraq. They are operating in a different geographical area from where we are in a number of respects, but obviously where there is co-operation it should happen and where we can work together we will but I have got no specific proposals, nor I gather has the Australian Government for what you are suggesting.
Question:
Prime Minister you have presented yourself so far as a national leader who looks above petty party-political advantage. Why did you go to Basra to announce a withdrawal of British troops by Christmas, do it at the time of the Conservative Party Conference to take headlines off your opponents, and use somewhat phoney figures, since a quarter of those you said would be coming home had come home already. Isn't that just the kind of Blairite spinning that you are supposed to stand against?
Prime Minister:
I think you are wrong in every respect if I may say with some respect to you. I think the facts do not merit these accusations. First of all I had to go to Iraq, to Baghdad and Basra, before I made my Statement in the House of Commons. I think the criticism of me today might have been that I had not had the chance to hear from the troops on the ground, to hear from our military commanders, to meet Prime Minister Al Maliki, to meet the Vice-President, to meet the Ministers for Finance, for Trade and for the Economy to discuss not just troop movements, but also to discuss economic reconstruction in Iraq. As far as what I said, I think you will see when I announce it in the House of Commons this afternoon that my Statement is far more comprehensive about all these things than anything that was said in Basra, and I think you will also find the statement about numbers that I made in Iraq is absolutely accurate.
Question:
Prime Minister, you have said that you want to listen to the British people. One of the things that the British people seem to be demonstrating is no appetite for any new war related to Iraq. Yet the war drums are banging in Washington for an attack on Iran. Are you prepared to follow previous Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in saying that such an attack is inconceivable. And indeed are you prepared to go further and say that you would neither support nor assist any American attack on Iran?
Prime Minister:
I will follow what I have said myself only recently that we take very seriously what the Iranians are trying to do in building up their nuclear capability for nuclear weapons. This cannot go unchallenged given that it is a breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If they do not co-operate with the international authorities that are examining their nuclear installations, or potential nuclear installations, that is a very big breach of international rules as well. And we believe however that this matter can be resolved by diplomatic means, by the Resolutions that have been passed by the United Nations, by sanctions if necessary, but I am not prepared to go further than that. What I am prepared to say is we take very seriously what Iran is proposing and we are prepared to use the methods that we have used in diplomatic sanctions to deal with this problem and I do not rule out anything.
Question:
What about Iraq? Just as James Baker has advocated at the highest level.
Prime Minister:
And the Iranians have got to get a message, as I will give them today at the House of Commons, that they must not intervene in Iraq in a way that is breeding further violence and supporting terrorism and causing the loss of life in what is an infant democracy trying to make its way forward and the Iranians must hear the message that interference in another country's affairs as they have done without any support from the United Nations or any international organisation is unacceptable.
Question:
Prime Minister is a three-week General Election campaign regarded by yourself as insufficient time for any politician to get their vision of Britain across?
Prime Minister:
What I am saying is that we need not only to set out the vision of the future of the country and how we meet the rising aspirations of people and I think most people would agree that the Summer has not been the occasion, given the events of the Summer, to do so but show to the people of the country that we are delivering as well.
Question:
Inaudible
Prime Minister:
Well I think to announce in the early Summer that we are going to be building more houses, to announce that we are going to develop plans for eco towns, to announce that we are going to change tuition fees, to announce that we are going to change reading and literacy work in our schools, to announce all these things, I think people want the chance to see that some of these things are actually in being and I think also, on a whole range of areas, starting with the Pre-Budget Report we have got more to set forward about our vision for the country. Now it is about meeting people's rising aspirations, it is about understanding that people who work hard, who play by the rules, who make a contribution to their families are also making a big contribution to the country. It is understanding people's aspirations whether it be in relation to taxation, or whether it be in relation to housing, or whether it be in relation to the education and opportunities for their children, and I believe that not only must we show that we are able to understand people's aspirations and respond to them, but show we are delivering on our answers and our policy solutions to them.
Question:
Prime Minister, does this make you any more drawn to the idea of fixed term Parliaments?
Prime Minister:
Well, it is an interesting question because our constitutional debate at the moment and the review that we are holding into the constitution will undoubtedly raise these questions. You will get on the basis of a discussion of a written constitution proposals coming forward for a number of things that would cement in legislation things that are either taken as precedents or not even done as precedents at this time. I think there are strong objections to fixed term Parliaments as well in a parliamentary system because the government has actually got to be responsible to the House of Commons and owes its authority to the House of Commons and if it loses the authority of the House of Commons, you should expect it normally to fall and have to go to an election. So I think there are difficulties about fixed term Parliaments being the requirement rather than a possibility and therefore I think the constitutional debate on this should continue and it should happen over the next few months.
Question:
Prime Minister during your trip to Iraq you have met General Petraeus. The Iraqis, especially Shias, are concerned about the arming of Sunni ex-insurgents by Americans as they are saying this is not going to be balanced and encourages the militia phenomena in Iraq. Have you discussed this or have you heard from General Petraeus about his vision for what is happening, especially in Anbar province, at a time that southern militias and others are under constant attacks by the Americans?
Prime Minister:
Well look I have talked to General Petraeus about both these things, first of all about Anbar Province where the central issue is that local tribes, as you have mentioned them, have thrown out Al Qaeda militants and Al Qaeda terrorists and I believe that everybody should welcome the progress that has been made on the ground in Anbar Province where we now have a situation where Al Qaeda has been shown that it is not welcome for both the propaganda and the violence it preaches. Then on this issue of training people or arming people, look we are building up security forces in Iraq in a way that hasn't happened as quickly as it should have but it is happening now. In the south of Iraq there are now 30,000 police or armed forces who are operating to give security, allowing us to transfer some of our responsibilities to the Iraqi people themselves. Right across Iraq there are 3 or 400,000 people being trained as armed forces and as security forces both in policing and obviously in the army. Now this is a good thing because Iraq is soon able to take over responsibility for its own security and that is what the aim of the next stage of the mission is about, as General Petraeus has laid down. So yes it is right that the Americans train up security forces, it is right that you avoid a police force that has corrupt individuals in it and therefore you have got to be very careful about who you recruit, but the eventual aim is to transfer much of that security from the American army and from the British army to the Iraqi people themselves.
Question:
Prime Minister you might think this is a helpful question, would you like to rule out an election in 2008 and avoid the sort of weekend you have just had? And the other thing is when you sought this office you spoke of your moral compass, can you say hand on heart that the change in the opinion polls was not the trigger for your change of heart over the election?
Prime Minister:
Yes I can because I have told you the basis on which I made my decision. I saw the opinion polls, I saw reports coming in from our constituencies. I repeat, if there were an election held now I believe that the exposure of the issues during the campaign, we would win that campaign. But I made the decision, as I told you, for different reasons, I made the decision because I want the chance to be able to show the British people my vision of the future and that is what I will continue to do and that is the basis on which over the next few months you will see the policies that are policies of change, policies that will show that this country is not only able to change but will change as a result of policies that can be put forward. These policies will be unveiled over the next few months.
Question:
And 2008?
Prime Minister:
Very unlikely. I said that on Saturday.
Question:
Your criticism of the opposition tax proposals has focused on the forensic detail of the non-domicile levy that they are putting forward, but you haven't addressed at all the issue of inheritance tax, the unpopularity and the sense of injustice that surrounds this tax which you as Chancellor extended so that it threatens millions of middle income homes. Do you think on this issue you have proved yourself to be out of touch with the rising aspirations of the British people?
Prime Minister:
Well the first thing, why I have mentioned the non-domicile tax proposals is it is very difficult for any Chancellor or for any politician to go before the British people now and say I am going to do something, I am going to raise £6 billion to pay for a huge tax cut, and then not to be able to show how in detail you are going to raise that money. And as I say I thought these days when you made all these promises, they were uncosted, sometimes uncostable, unaffordable certainly, [Party Political content].
As far as inheritance tax is concerned, I have always recognised inheritance tax to be a major issue for people. People buy their homes, people want as families to transfer their homes to the next generation. I have always understood the desire on the part of people to be able to do that, and so the question is what is a workable, what is an affordable and what is a fair reform of inheritance tax? And we as a government have been raising the threshold so that more people, or more houses of a certain cost, or more estates of a certain value, are exempted from inheritance tax and we have raised the threshold and it is going up I think from £300,000 to £350,000 by 2010, so we have continued to raise it from under £200,000 to over £200,000, to £300,000, we continue to raise it. But of course you can look at other changes and it is possible to do so, but the question surely is this, when you propose a change is it workable, is it affordable and is it fair? And that is where the debate will move over the next few months and I think people will relish that debate in the country about what is the cost to be paid by a proposal to raise money, and who pays it and how much money it raises, and what is the cost of a proposal to cut taxes which looks to me at the moment as if it is unaffordable because it is unfunded. And then you have got to ask the question, even if it is affordable is it the fairest way of delivering a tax cut of £3.5 billion to the British people and that is really a question that people will be able to answer over time. And as I say, the debate on that will continue, I think it will be a very interesting debate and I think it will be a debate which will interest the whole of the British people.
Question:
Prime Minister you wavered about the Labour leadership decision all those years ago, now the election, people who call you a ditherer have got a point haven't they?
Prime Minister:
Well I did the right thing when I wanted Tony Blair to be the leader of the Labour Party, I have always said that that was the right decision. I also did the right thing this weekend because I did it on the basis that I wanted to have the chance to put my views about the future of the country before the country, but also to show that I was delivering on my vision of the future. And as for this decision about decisiveness versus indecisiveness, I think people will look at both strength and decisiveness in this way, real strength and real decisiveness is making the long term decisions about the future of your economy and achieving stability for it, and real strength is making decisions about the future of your security and defence.
Question:
Prime Minister there has been some speculation that transatlantic alliances are shifting and maybe a more special relationship is developing between Washington and Paris. What do you think about that?
Prime Minister:
Well I welcome a relationship between America and France that is stronger than it has been in the past. I welcome the fact that President Sarkozy is going to address the Congress of the United States of America and I welcome the fact that President Sarkozy is adopting a policy that is similar to ours in wanting to strengthen transatlantic relationships. So I believe that France and Britain have a great deal in common in building a stronger relationship with the United States of America, and I believe that as things move forward over the next few years you will see with Germany and France and Britain, and with the European Union, a determination that America and Europe work better together, not only to deal with some of the economic problems that undoubtedly the world faces, but also to deal with some of the security and political problems that we know exist.
Question:
I was just going to say does it bother you, I have got pages of texts here from our listeners who do think you have bottled it, so how are you going to turn that around, what would you say to our listeners that do feel that that is the case?
Prime Minister:
I think when your listeners look at it and look at what constitutes strength and determination they will see that making the right decisions about the future of the country, whether it is on foot and mouth or floods, or whether it is on terrorism, or whether it is dealing with the economic crisis, these are the issues that affect people's lives, affect the security and the safety of the country and I hope the people of the country will judge it, I hope that the people of the country will see that when it comes to the big decisions we take the right long term decisions based on strength and decisiveness for the future of the country.
Question:
Why did you make your very important announcement in the peculiar way you did over the weekend, and is the fact that you have called this press conference an acceptance that you made an error of judgment?
Prime Minister:
Well I said to you just a few minutes ago that I had said to myself, look let the party conference season end, the party conference season as you know is when people are talking about party politics, people are talking about all these issues, let it end and then I will make my announcement. Now I could have done it differently, I could have done it earlier, but that was my decision and that is why I made the announcement immediately after the party conference season finished and I made it in such a way that I thought it could lead to this press conference now today and you have all got a chance to ask your questions.
Question:
Prime Minister do you consider yourself still bound by the Labour 2005 general election manifesto and the vision expressed in that, and if your vision is not significantly different from that, why do you need extra time to set out that vision? And if your vision is significantly different from that, shouldn't the people get a general election to decide whether they want this new vision?
Prime Minister:
Well that is a very important point, but we said in the 2005 election we wanted to do more about home ownership. I have found better ways in my view of going about this. We said in the 2005 election we want schools of the highest standard so that every child has the best opportunities, now we are changing our policy so that we can do it in a better way but it is the same aspiration that was set out in that manifesto. We said that we wanted a better Health Service that was organised in a way that responded to people's needs, I think we are now with a vision of a Health Service that is organised around people's personal needs in a way that that hasn't happened before. Now we are achieving the ambition of a better health, better education, better housing system for this country, we are achieving it in different ways in my view, possibly better ways, but that will be for the country to judge and I want the chance to be able to show that we are doing things in a better way.
Question:
As you know, there is a tremendous amount of debate in the States as to whether the withdrawal of US forces will make America safer or less safe. Of course the Bush administration says it will make America less safe. You are speaking as a leader who is in the process of withdrawing British forces, does the withdrawal of foreign forces make Europe, make Britain, make America less safe? Is now the time or does that pose a threat?
Prime Minister:
Well you see the test is this, can we show that the Iraqi people are capable and able to run their own security? And if we can show that then that is a success, that is progress. And so as we take some troops out of Iraq it is because we believe that the Iraqis are in a position to run their security forces themselves. And therefore you cannot see the reduction of troops as an admission either of defeat or as a run-down or as a threat to security, it is the other way round. When we announce less troops in Iraq it is because we are winning the security battle and that there is a lull in some of the fighting that is taking place in Iraq, and we hope it is a permanent lull. Equally at the same time if we reduce our troops it is because the Iraqi people are now capable, with 30,000 security forces in the south alone, of replacing the several hundred British troops. So I don't accept your hypothesis.
Question:
Prime Minister the British troops in southern Iraq are playing a vital role in protecting the most vital supply routes to the coalition forces and our important allies there do not want to see anybody protecting this route except British forces. Have you actually considered this option?
Prime Minister:
Yes and I will speak in detail about this in the House of Commons this afternoon. But if you will forgive me I don't think I should make the announcements, which are far reaching about both the manner in which we will conduct the next stage of our operation in Iraq and the numbers required for it here at this press conference, I feel it is right that all these new figures will be given, and the new statement about the role that we will play will be given to the House of Commons.
Question:
Prime Minister having admitted that you took a calculated decision to let all the speculation about an election run until the end of the party conference season, [Party Political content], and if so will you admit that that backfired spectacularly on you?
Prime Minister:
Look I considered an election, I said let's see what people are saying during the party conference season. I then said, as I am saying to you, you have got to bring that to an end and I said I would bring it to the end to myself at the end of the party conference season. That is exactly what I did. I have said to you I could have done it earlier, and maybe I should have done it earlier, but that is the reality of the situation. But if you are implying that my decision was based on something other than I say to you, that I want the chance to put forward my policies and show that I am delivering on them, and I have only had several days, several months in office to do so as Prime Minister, and that I think everybody here agrees that over the summer I was doing things that were not strictly related to some of the policies I am talking about, housing, health, education and the economy. So that is the reason for my decision but I freely admit that I made the decision that I would announce things at the end of the party conference season and that is what I did.
Question:
Why not set a genuinely bold constitutional precedent and name the date of the 2009 election now?
Prime Minister:
Because at the end of the day I have said an election is not likely in 2008, I have said there is a debate going on about the constitutional procedures to be adopted for the future, but you know this is a parliamentary democracy, this is where governments owe the majority to votes in parliament and that is the way that the system is going to continue to work, at least for the reasonable future.
Question:
I was just wondering on the plans for, forgetting the super casinos, the small and larger casinos, many areas are actually relying on these plans as part of their regeneration projects. What reassurances can you go and give those areas that these plans will go and get the go ahead if they want them?
Prime Minister:
We have circulated the 16 areas for the small casinos asking them if they still want to go ahead with them. As far as the two large casinos, the super casinos I should say, I have said I think there are better ways of regenerating the areas and that is what we are looking at the moment. And Hazel Blears, who is the Secretary for Local Government, is coordinating the work about what we can actually do both to help Manchester, that regeneration area, and also to help Blackpool which we accept has got specific challenges it has got to meet in the future.
Question:
If your first instinct was not to call an election until your vision had been set out, why was it your advisors' first instinct on the very day you were elected as Labour leader to brief that you were going to hold an election in 2008?
Prime Minister:
I don't think that any advisor that I know was putting this forward. If there are memos from people I didn't see them on that day and I didn't see them at that time.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
I can't remember anything about that. To be honest the position that I have always held, my first instinct as I said was to keep on governing because I think it is right to show the people that you can deliver. As far as the rest of the time is concerned, people will put their views, people will say things, I don't deny there are memos kicking around from people here, there and everywhere, [Party Political content], some people with authority, some people without authority. But the fact of the matter is I take responsibility, I take the blame, I make the decision, if anything goes wrong it comes back to me.
Question:
Prime Minister in your conference speech you said something that was very clear. You said: "Let me be clear, any newcomer to Britain who is caught selling drugs or using guns will be thrown out." It subsequently turned out that there is a 2004 EU directive which makes that illegal and in effect the only people you can deport are those who present a serious and present threat which affects the fundamental interest of the state. Now did you not intend to include EU nationals in that, and if you did aren't there real problems with it? The problem is surely you could be guilty of the charge [Party Political content] which is you have got a headline-grabbing announcement which isn't thought through?
Prime Minister:
I believe you are wrong, I believe I can give you the cases who are EU nationals who have been thrown out of this country because they have either pedalled their drugs or because they have been carrying guns. And as you know this is an issue within EU law and there is this issue about the right to family life which means that if people have been in our country for a long period of time, that it is difficult to throw them out of the country. But I said newcomers to the country and anybody who is a newcomer to the country would not qualify under this right to family life.
Question:
Prime Minister can I just clarify on the election, or the election that wasn't, in terms of the discussions that go on between you and your advisors in private and semi-private. Who first raised the suggestion of an election this year?
Prime Minister:
Look I am not going to get into that. As you say, there is some memo that was sent ...
Question:
I didn't mention a memo.
Prime Minister:
Well there was some proposal that appeared in the Guardian on the day I took over this job, and I can't remember seeing it and with respect I do read the Guardian but I can't remember seeing that particular piece of information. And there will always be views of people all over the place saying these things.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
I said my first instinct is what I have told you. I considered the issue as you would I think. Look you are in a position of power as Prime Minister, you have the decision to make in your hands as to whether there is an election, and there can be a debate about whether that is the constitutional position that should survive forever or not, but you have that power. You also have a responsibility, you have a responsibility to listen to people and if people come to you and say I am a marginal seat MP and I want to stand now and I want to get re-elected, people coming to you saying look if you want to put forward your ideas you should call an election and so on, you have got to listen to people. But with power comes responsibility and I don't regret listening to people and hearing what people had to say but in the end, and as I say I think we would have won the election, but in the end I had to make a decision. I made my decision, my instinct was that we should continue to govern and to do what is right by the British people but showing that we can deliver and that is what I am following.
Question:
To use a phrase that was used earlier, hand on heart and so forth, if the News of the World poll had put you 5 points ahead in the key marginal and that you would have got a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons, would you have still not called an election?
Prime Minister:
I would have made the same decision, I have just told you, I have explained my decision, it is what I wanted to do to show the British people I can deliver.
Question:
Prime Minister have you been invited to the US sponsored conference in Maryland on the Middle East and what are your expectations of this conference - a declaration of intention, comprehensive negotiations on the final status?
Prime Minister:
If I may say so I will say something about this also in the House of Commons this afternoon. I think it is important that we understand that the problems of the region that I have just been talking about that include the problems of Iraq also are problems because of the failure to find a solution in the Middle East and because of the problems between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And if we can do anything, whether it is at the US sponsored conference that you are talking about, or through supporting Tony Blair's work in the Middle East, we will do so. And you may have seen in the last few days we have published an economic road map for the peace process to underpin the political process that has got to be about security and about ensuring a safe Israel within its own borders able to live in safety, and a viable state for the Palestinian people, and we have published new proposals recently about how we can assist that process.
Question:
When you were considering whether or not to have an election was the growing clamour in the media for a referendum on the EU treaty one of the decisive factors in you reaching the decision that you did?
Prime Minister:
The issue about the EU amending treaty is an issue that would continue to be discussed whether there was an election or not, and it is an issue that there are strong views about. And the question is whether our red lines, the red lines that we demanded in May and June in Brussels, whether they show that there is not as I suggest a fundamental constitutional change taking place or whether, and this is what the debate is about, people believe the change is so fundamental as a result of this amending treaty that there should be a referendum. Now that is where the issue lies but I do say to you that would be an issue that would have to be dealt with and debated out whether there was an election or not. And there will be full parliamentary discussion of all these issues and I look forward to that taking place.
Question:
In the international issues you have talked about Darfur, you have talked about Zimbabwe, poverty, the end of poverty. If I may believe that you would want to deliver change in the international arena as well, what would be the number one priority for you in achieving a real difference, making progress in the next phase of your premiership?
Prime Minister:
Well we have got to, if I put it as highly as this, we have got to renew the international institutions for the future. Nobody can say that the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, all the international institutions that were built in the 1940s and to some extent reformed some time ago are working to best effect for the international community. You only see when you have financial turbulence around the world that we don't yet have international institutions that can be an early warning system that can help people in different places cope with what are a common factor that is bringing about financial difficulty. You only can see when you look at the environment that there is no international organisation at the moment that has got the responsibility for dealing with all the environmental and climate change issues from forestation to adaptation, all these issues that have got to be dealt with. And you cannot be confident that we have international institutions that can deal with some of the huge social problems that we face. So I believe that just as in 1945 the international institutions had to be renewed by brave acts of statesmanship and led by America, that so too in 2007 and beyond we have got to work to renew the international institutions. I think that could be a major contribution, not just to the security and prosperity of the world but to the peace of the world in the longer term.
Question:
[Party Political content]. We know that in Afghanistan the UK Army is pretty over-stretched and there is a huge task to go ahead. Are you going to say anything today following the Iraq statement and if not what is going to be your strategy in Afghanistan, are you going to put more resources there, are you going to invest more in reconstruction? Because it seems that this is the next step or at least a step that one cannot miss.
Prime Minister:
Afghanistan is the frontline against the Taliban. If the Taliban were to be able to take power in Afghanistan then the whole of the civilised world would be affected. And that is why we must as a collective effort, and there are more than 40 countries involved in Afghanistan, support both America and the NATO forces that are active in Afghanistan at the moment. We have around 8,000 troops, we have got 20% of the armed forces in Afghanistan, we are supporting with economic development initiatives also an attempt to give prosperity to what is a rural economy essentially with large numbers of small farmers active in that economy. We will continue to do that and there will be a chance to outline further policies for the future in Afghanistan in the future.
Question:
On Saturday who will you support - England or France - as a Scot?
Prime Minister:
England. The one barrier to my support for England in the World Cup final has been removed by the unfortunate defeat of Scotland. I will be supporting England and I think the victory that was achieved against Australia was one of the great victories in rugby, and as a follower of rugby I think we can be confident that England is going to do well against France as well. I have been tempted over this weekend to take the advice of Errol Warren, the American jurist, who said he only read the sports pages of the newspapers because they were all about human achievements, and he didn't read the front pages because they were all about human criticisms.
[Party Political content]
Question:
The subject of opposed expulsions of asylum seekers who have failed in their cases has become quite controversial and today we hear that a commercial airline has refused to take part in any future opposed expulsions. Are you looking again at this whole area of policy?
Prime Minister:
We have got to expel those people who have come to our country but have got no justification for being here, and it is important that we reach arrangements with other countries, the countries of their origin, so that they will take them back. And we will continue to negotiate agreements with these other countries that they will make sure that the prisoners that are taken back, or the asylum seekers, are treated humanely and that is the way in which we will proceed. But I can't say that I am going to yield to the view that we should not deport asylum seekers who have got no justification for being in this country.
Question:
Prime Minister elections have been held recently in Morocco and the new Prime Minister has been appointed to lead a new government. I would like to ask you about your assessment of the UK's relations with this country, as well as efforts being made to settle the western Sahara issue through a ... plan presented by Morocco to the UN?
Prime Minister:
You are referring to very big issues. I want very strong relationships with the governments in that region and that is what we will work to achieve.
Question:
Prime Minister if you were to have a one to one with the Syrian President later today, what would you say to him on three specific topics: one, the allowance by Syria of the re-arming of Hezbollah; second, Syria's involvement in Lebanon allegedly causing disruption to their political process; and thirdly, his statement last week that he is not prepared to participate in a Middle East peace conference?
Prime Minister:
Well I would try to urge him, as I know others will be doing, that it is important that every country in the region involves themselves in the Middle East peace process and I would warn him about Syrian involvement in Lebanon about the dangers that that holds for the peace in that area, but also of course for the support for terrorist organisations in that part of the world. And I think the message will go out very clearly today and I will be referring to this in my statement later this afternoon.
Question:
Mr Prime Minister your Foreign Secretary met the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Miss Benazir Bhutto, last month and there were many ... that your government played an important role in broking a power sharing deal between Miss Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf. So what do you have to say on that? And since the deal has been struck now, do you think that both Musharraf and Benazir would be helpful in fighting the war against terror in a more effective manner?
Prime Minister:
We want a Pakistan that does fight the war against terror. The borders on Afghanistan are difficult ones. We are obviously concerned about any terrorist activity that comes from within the borders of Pakistan and we will work to bring people together in Pakistan where that is possible but these decisions, at least the major ones you are talking about, will be a matter for the Pakistani people at their own elections.
Question:
I am afraid I am going to come back to the same thing Prime Minister, you said you listened to people but you did do more than that. Parliamentary business was moved around, brought forward, your trip to Iraq that you talk about was actually due to take place originally at the weekend and you brought it forward. [Party Political Content] the point is you did move things around, there was this feeling that the express train was moving towards an election and I don't think anyone in this room can quite understand why you don't just say yep we looked at it, it looked like we might lose, I need more time to advance my argument so I can in. What's wrong with that?
Prime Minister:
But I have told you, we did look at it, I did see the polls, I did talk to people from marginal seats, I did talk to people who said that they would win their seats, I personally think we would have won the election. So that is your first answer. The second answer is this, I made the decision because of what I want to do in the job I am in, I made the decision because I believe that the vision we have for the future of the country, people want to see that delivered in practice and my first instinct that that should be the case was the one that I believe is the right instinct about the future of the country. And that is why I will continue to set out to people the changes that we are going to make, and that is my promise to the British people that we will set out the changes we are going to make on housing, health and education so that this country is stronger and fairer in the years to come and my focus will be on these central issues that concern the British people. My focus will be to make sure that the changes that we are talking about are delivered in practice. That is why I made the decision.
Question:
You have spoken about the importance of involving ordinary people in the challenges ahead on health, education, making the big decisions. Why won't you give the people a say on the European reform treaty?
Prime Minister:
This is the issue. If we were joining the euro, if we were joining the euro we would have a referendum; if the previous issue of a new constitution was brought forward we proposed a referendum. This is an amending treaty where the constitutional concept has in the words of the declaration been abandoned. And if you actually look at what I have said and what was said before the Brussels conference, if we secured all these red lines on justice and home affairs, on the code of rights, on security and defence policy, on social security, if we secured all our red lines with a protocol, with an exemption, with an opt-in, with a veto, with an emergency break, if we secured all these red lines we didn't see that this was a fundamental constitutional change that required a referendum. Now it so happened we achieved our red lines, it so happened also that my job is in the next few months to make sure that these red lines are achieved in detail in all the wording of the amending treaty. Now when people have seen that in practice we can have the debate, but I believe that people will see that we have succeeded not only in getting our red lines but getting them put into so much detail in the amending treaty that the protections that we asked for in June are achieved in very great detail. Now if that is not the case then there would either be a British veto or there would be a referendum.
[Party Political content]
Question:
[Party Political Content] Perhaps there is a better way of using £3.5 billion.
Prime Minister:
Well I think people will look at the facts and this will be a big debate in the months to come. I said that I look forward to that debate. This proposal costs £3.5 billion, it is more than the reduction of income tax by 1 pence in the pound in terms of its costs. 94% of people do not pay inheritance tax at the moment, only 6% of the public do pay inheritance tax. I accept however that people worry that they want to pass on their homes particularly but obviously pass on something to their children, that is a big issue in our society. So the debate will happen: is this fair, is it affordable, it is workable? And I think perhaps people will reach different conclusions over the course of the next few months from the early conclusions people reached, [Party Political content] it raises not £3.5 billion pounds but raises only a few hundred million pounds and I think people will then ask of this black hole, how would it be filled other than either by public spending cuts in health or education, or alternatively by tax rises elsewhere, or alternatively at the cost of economic dislocation in our country. [Party Political Content].
Question:
Prime Minister I am sure everyone will welcome the reduction in troop numbers in Iraq that you will announce this afternoon, but isn't the truth that the guys who come back are going to be set to go out in increased numbers in Afghanistan? And are you concerned by reports that the Royal Highland Fusiliers, who apparently are going to head out there as part of this new battle group, are having to draw in soldiers from other battalions?
Prime Minister:
This is obviously a matter of configuration for the Chief of the Defence Staff and for the Head of the Army, but I have tried in the decisions that we have made to make sure that our armed forces not only are funded by a big real terms rise in defence over these last 10 years where we have reversed what was a period of cuts in the defence budget, by having a period of real terms growth, but we have also for what is called urgent operational requirements provided hundreds of millions of pounds, running into billions of pounds, so that these urgent operational requirements can be met. There is an issue also of recruitment in the armed forces and we have tried to make recruitment more attractive. The armed forces were exempted from the phasing of the pay award, for the very youngest members of the armed forces the rate of pay increase was in some cases 8%, we have given an allowance for being away from home in conflict zones that is now more than £2,000 for being part of that period of service in a conflict zone, and we are trying our best to make sure that recruitment continues but also that we show, as I want to show, that we recognise not just the professionalism but we recognise the bravery, the dedication and the commitment of our armed forces. And I repeat what I said at my own party conference that we are proud of our armed forces.
Question:
Prime Minister do I understand you correctly that you are not completely ruling out a referendum on the EU treaty in case a further debate would show that it was so close to the abandoned constitution? And could I also ask you, are you ruling out to switch in Britain to a fixed term parliament, so to have a fixed date for an election, and if you are ruling it out why would you do that?
Prime Minister:
That is two quite separate issues if I may say so, but on the second one, let the constitutional debate happen on that. I have said what I think are the difficulties of applying the fixed term parliament to our parliamentary system because of the way the House of Commons commands the majority for the government and that is a mater for debate.
As far as the first question, look if our red lines are not achieved I have always said we will either veto it or say there has to be a referendum, if the red lines are not achieved then we would accept that there was fundamental constitutional change happening. But I believe that the red lines will be achieved and we will show that we have managed in the course of our negotiations to persuade our European partners that what we want is not only right for us but right for them. But that is for a debate that will come to a conclusion later in a few months time.
Question:
Some of us have got a bit confused by the terminology. What exactly is a 'Fife feartie' and are you one?
Prime Minister:
You know in this debate about strength and weakness and about fear and determination I think let the public judge and I think they will judge in the end that strength and taking the difficult decisions and being brave about the right things is about taking the long term decisions on security for example, taking the long term decisions on defence, taking the long term decisions about the strength and building the strength of the economy; not to take the short easy decision to either promise unaffordable tax cuts or alternatives, to have public sector pay policies that give in without actually being able to afford them, strength as being Chancellor was about having the resolution to bear down heavily on inflation, even if it was unpopular to do so. So let the public judge, that is a matter for the public at the appropriate moment.
Question:
Prime Minister you said that you wouldn't attend an EU-Africa summit in Lisbon if the President of Zimbabwe is present. Could you clarify if a UK government Minister would go in such a case?
Prime Minister:
I will not attend, no senior government Minister will attend. We are not prepared to sit down at the same table as Mr Mugabe and we are not prepared to do so because we are not prepared to give any suggestion to anybody in any part of the world that we condone what is an abuse of human rights in his country, the poverty and degradation of his people and the unacceptable behaviour of him as President. And I am absolutely clear that I will not sit down at the same table as President Mugabe.
Question:
Prime Minister do you, like people across the country, want to see Northern Rock continue as a thriving independent bank based in the north east with its jobs, history and economic importance and the work of the charitable foundation, the Northern Rock Foundation continue, and how are you going to achieve this?
Prime Minister:
I think people are pleased that we have been able to guarantee the savings of the depositors of Northern Rock and I think it was a very important declaration that we would provide insurance for those people and we are going to change the system in future so that in other cases there is greater protection than there has been in the past. I want to see the mortgages, and the savings, and the deposits of all those people who have been involved in Northern Rock protected and able to be safeguarded for the future. Obviously I too am concerned about the jobs of those people, hundreds of thousands of people employed by Northern Rock, particularly in the north east of the country, and I hope that we can work out a means by which the jobs of people in Northern Rock, the savings, the deposits and of course the mortgages of people who have mortgages with Northern Rock are properly safeguarded. But don't expect me to say anything more than that about commercial discussions that take place.
PMs in history
Sign up to our newsletter