Sir John Major has been giving testimony at the Leveson inquiry into British press ethics today. Some of his testimony appears to directly conflict that of Murdoch’s, who in April claimed: “I have never asked a prime minister for anything.” Major becomes the first ex-Prime Minister to claim Murdoch tried to get him to change government policy.

The ex-Prime Minister said that in 1997, Murdoch said his papers would oppose the government if it did not change its policies on Europe.

The ultimatum was handed down at a private meeting with the News Corporation founder on 2 February 1997, three months before the fateful election in which the Tories were heavily defeated by New Labour.

Major said he assumed Murdoch wasn’t after personal gain:

He has never asked for anything that would benefit him personally or his company. In my very limited contact with Mr Murdoch his statement is on a strict interpretation literally true. Certainly he never asked for anything directly from me but he was not averse to pressing for policy changes.

In the runup to the 1997 general election in my third and last meeting with him on 2 February 1997 he made it clear that he disliked my European policies which he wished me to change. If not, his papers could not and would not support the Conservative government.

So far as I recall he made no mention of editorial independence but referred to all his papers as ‘we’. He didn’t make the usual nod to editorial independence. Mr Murdoch and I kept our word. I made no change in policy and Mr Murdoch’s titles did indeed oppose the Conservative party. It came as no surprise to me when soon after our meeting the Sun newspaper announced its support for Labour.

And that was that.

Pressed by Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, why he had not given more details about the exchange in his autobiography, Major said:

I haven’t talked about this conversation at any stage over the past 15 years but now I am under oath. I was asked the question and I have answered the question.

At a private dinner, Murdoch told Major he wanted Britain to withdraw from the European Union, but Major made it clear at the meeting that was not going to happen.

It was one of three meetings that Major had with Murdoch during his seven years in Downing Street, but he said he could not remember details of the other two, in 1992 and 1993.

Major recognised the relationship Murdoch had with Margaret Thatcher, but didn’t desire one himself.

He also noted the fact that Murdoch was a foreigner with a fair amount of influence over British society as a whole:

I recognised Mr Murdoch’s remarkable success in business but did not admire much that was in his newspapers, nor his methods or his political philosophy. [The Sun has] lowered the tone of the discourse on public life. I do think parts of his press, parts of his media empire have lowered the general quality of the British media. I think that is a loss.

I think it is evident which newspaper I am referring to. I think they have lowered the tone. I think the interaction that there has been with politicians has done no good either to the press or to the politicians.

I think the sheer scale of the influence he is believed to [have] whether he exercises it or not, is an unattractive facet in British national life, and it does seem to me an oddity that in a nation which prides itself on one man, one vote, we should have one man, who can’t vote, with a large collection of newspapers and a large share of the electronic media outlets.

In his witness statement, Major stated:

Sole proprietors have enormous influence. One man one vote is a principle we have long accepted. One man, many newspapers [and satellite television ownership] is a very different principle. It is important that such great power is not abused… In many ways sole proprietorship is inherently undesirable. Power without hindrance is bound to be poorly exercised.

One of Major’s biggest concerns however was the politicisation of the government information service. It would be a problem if information was, “perverted rather than presented accurately,” which makes sense.

[Source: Guardian]