You may have read the reports that five of Mr Callaghan 's senior ministers—Messrs Healey, Foot, Rees, Owen and Hattersley—have beseeched the Prime Minister not to hold the election just yet. Their argument seems to be: “Never accept the thrashing today that you can put off until tomorrow.”
Of course, it's not difficult to see why the frightened five might be a little nervous about their electoral appeal to the people.
How can Denis Healey look forward to the future when he can't face up to the past. With 1½ million on the dole, nearly 200,000 in Scotland, he stands too much chance of being invited to join them and ending up just another Socialist statistic.
Then there's Roy Hattersley, our Prices Minister, who might find electioneering in the High Street a little too hot for comfort. After all, he's been in the Wilson/Callaghan government—the only government to double food prices within 4½ years. [end p1]
David Owen comes from a constituency which is heavily involved in defence and you know what Labour has done to that.
While as to Merlyn Rees 's claim to popularity—well, I am afraid he's classified that as an official secret.
As for Michael Foot, in his passion for the abolition of all parts of the Constitution, such as the House of Lords and replacing Royal Commissions with Republican Commissions, I can only assume that he would be happy to see the next election delayed indefinitely.
Not a very impressive bunch of chickens for Farmer James CallaghanJim to take to market.
Now let me turn to a few things I want to deal with especially, this evening. [end p2] ([Note by MT:] 11 of our candidates are YC's.)
Labour—the natural party of failure
In the forthcoming election, there will be a concerted effort by our opponents to turn logic around and to stand truth on its head. Moses will descend from the mountain and will try to attribute to Labour all the traditional virtues of the Conservatives, while ascribing to Conservatives all the characteristic vices of Labour. Flat earthers will abound, Thatcher will be declared a dangerous radical and Labour will claim the field as the “natural” party of government.
But what is “natural” about Labour Government?
It isn't natural to have 1½ million unemployed—except under Labour.
It isn't natural to have prices double in five years, halving the value of the pound in your pocket and of your savings in the bank—except under Labour. [end p3]
It isn't natural to deprive our police of the support they need to protect our citizens or to run down our defences to a dangerously low state.—except under Labour.
It isn't natural to paralyse enterprise by the steady extension of government control over the economy—except under Labour.
It isn't natural to have a health service which is crumbling into decay under the weight of bureaucracy and industrial strife—except under Labour.
It isn't natural to destroy flourishing schools—except under Labour.
And it isn't natural to boast about a policy which has reduced living standards and piled up debt—except under Labour.
So much for Labour being the natural party of government.
The truth is that these things lead to instability and decline—they deprive people of security and hope. [end p4]
The only natural part of Labour Government is the failure which inevitably accompanies its drive to Socialism. The dole queues and frustration in this Socialist paradise are a breeding ground for disaster and despair in the future.
Meanwhile the bandwagon of government borrowing and public expenditure has again been set in motion by the Denis HealeyChancellor. We saw it all before in 1976 when the Chancellor took Britain to the brink of disaster. He was saved by the IMF, and ever since he has been bragging about how IMF government really works. But come the election, the IMF won't be standing. Mr Healey will be. And he knows, “Labour isn't working” . [end p5]
The Right Approach to Jobs
One of the most difficult and important tasks the next government will face is how to reduce unemployment, how to set about building the sort of economic conditions in which there will be more genuine jobs. I am not talking about more artificial jobs; they may be better than having nothing to do, but what we really want are jobs that not only create extra work, but also create extra wealth. Unemployment can't be reduced for long by measures which simply affect the statistics and convert actual unemployment into concealed unemployment. That's like treating the symptoms rather than the disease.
Let us look for a moment at where jobs come from and why some of them disappear.
We are all consumers—we all spend our money on things we choose at prices which suit our pocket. Some of the things we buy are made overseas, some in the British Isles. [end p6]
The inescapable fact is that the people who have good jobs and lasting jobs, are those who work for businesses which produce goods or services we want at prices we are prepared to pay. Jobs come through the customer. His purchases decide what and where those jobs shall be.
For example, we buy cars of a design we like, a size we want at a price within our means.
The jobs in the car industry will go to those manufacturers whose cars satisfy us as customers. Our tastes will change, so successful producers have to design new models, instal the latest and most up-to-date machinery and use it effectively to make the car as cheap as possible. If producers don't, they will lose the business and the jobs, to those who do. Alas, too many of our “car jobs” have gone to Germany, France and Japan, because their companies and workforces have learned these lessons. Manuscript addition by MT:
The real tragedy of recent years has been that many firms have disappeared from industries where other European countries compete and where we ought to be able to do likewise. Typescript resumes: [end p7]
The same basic requirement of satisfying the customer goes for our many and varying tastes—whether in clothes, TV sets, kitchen equipment, carpets, foodstuffs, etc. Look at the number of things we now use that were unknown to your parents in their youth: transistor radios, colour TV, computers, drip-dry textiles, deep freezes, Sky-train. These weren't dreamed up by sector working parties or Ministers for Industry. They came from those in industry and commerce who had new ideas and the skill and determination to put them into practice. [Manuscript addition by MT] So government policies have to encourage these people & not hinder them. [Typescript resumes:]
What are the do's and don't's for more genuine jobs and real prosperity?
Don't's
Don't tax income so highly that employers and employees say it isn't worthwhile to work harder or to expand. [end p8]
Don't tax profits so much that people won't take risks. You can't expect them to risk almost everything they've got to set up in business if they bear all the losses and the government takes nearly all the gains.
Don't envy the success of others—applaud it. It's painfully obvious that some Socialists would rather have more unemployed than see a few people make a big success of building up a business and providing a lot of jobs.
Don't employ twice as many people as a job needs unless they are prepared to work for half the competitor's pay. [Manuscript addition by MT:] You won't save a business or save jobs by making it uncompetitive. [Typescript resumes:]
Do's
Do have taxation policies which encourage effort, skill and responsibility and encourage people to start up in business and make it grow. [end p9]
Do pursue budget policies which keep down government borrowing. When governments borrow heavily—and this one has—the results are inflation, which is a fraud on people's savings, and high interest rates, which are a brake on expansion.
Do reduce detailed government regulation which diverts effort away from production and efficiency.
Do adopt economic and political policies which encourage profits so that there are sufficient resources to plough back in research and development and to provide investment.
Let us get this clear then; real jobs are created by the skill and energy of those in industry and commerce, who see a market need and satisfy it. The most useful thing a government can do is to assist and encourage this natural process. Above all governments must not impede it. [end p10]
Sometimes politicians are asked: “Where will all the new jobs come from” ? We cannot foresee precisely where the new jobs will be, but that doesn't mean the jobs won't happen. If, in June 1959, Mr Derick Heathcoat Amory, the then Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been asked the question, where will the new jobs come from in the next three years, he might have answered: “From successful private enterprise” .
He certainly wouldn't have guessed have that the engineering and electrical industries would provide 251,000 more jobs, or the paper and printing industries nearly fifty-three thousand. And why should anyone have expected him to predict that another forty-five thousand jobs would appear in the metal goods industries and another thirty-four thousand in food, drink and tobacco? [end p11]
He couldn't have foreseen these things any more than Tony Barber could have foreseen the massive growth in the distributive trades, and the construction industry which occurred under the last Conservative Government.
All these jobs under previous Conservative Administrations were brought into being without planning agreements, the Industrial Strategy, or the National Enterprise Board. Governments concentrated on the business of Government which is to create the conditions under which private enterprise can work successfully. [end p12]
The example of Aberdeen
A political philosophy based on detailed government intervention and regulation does not turn the wheels of progress—it clogs them. Socialist planners so often get it wrong.
Let me give you one example. Twelve years ago the Labour Government published a plan for the future of the Scottish economy. It was full of optimism, as such plans always are.
There was only one cloud on the horizon for those planners, only one corner of Scotland which would not share in the boom which was supposedly coming. That corner was Aberdeen and its hinterland which, according to the planners, was going to miss out. [end p13]
But they reckoned without private enterprise which discovered, exploited and brought ashore North Sea Oil, making Aberdeen today the boom-town of Britain. Of course, if it had been left to the planners, the oil would still be at the bottom of the ocean and Aberdeen would still be back in the 1960's while the rest of the world is moving into the 1980's.
Yet the chill winds of experience never seem to dampen the ardour of Socialist regulators.
There was only one thing which held up Sir Freddie Laker 's onslaught on airline prices—Labour ministers, and they had to be taken to court before they would get off his back.
They never learn. Show a Socialist any sign of prosperity, and he will use it as an excuse for more taxation. Show a Socialist a mark of success, and he will see in it a cause for further control and restraint. Show a Socialist an enterprising idea, and he will reject it as a Tory plot. [end p14]
Devolution
The Scotland Act contains a pledge that the people of Scotland will be consulted in a referendum. I would like to make it clear that the next Conservative Government will honour that pledge. The holding of a referendum is not an issue between the two parties.
It remains our view that the present Act is misguided. But if the result of the referendum is such as to persuade Parliament that the Act should be brought into operation (and the final decision is one for Parliament) it would be the duty of a Conservative Government to ensure that this constitutional change develops in a way compatible with the unity and prosperity of Britain. [end p15]
However, if Scotland rejects the Act the Conservative Government will convene an all-Party Conference, as we have long advocated, in order to achieve the greatest possible measure of agreement on a policy which will both satisfy the just aspirations of the people of Scotland for a proper influence over their own affairs and which is consistent with the unity and good government of the Kingdom. [end p16]
Public Sector
A healthy private sector is essential to our economic recovery. It already provides 7 out of every 10 jobs and will provide many more if it is encouraged rather than harrassed.
But a word about the public sector. There are many things we cannot do for ourselves—defence, law and order, roads and public transport, hospitals, schools and colleges. All these are vital to the nation's future. Good administration, a professional approach and efficiency are just as important there as elsewhere.
Although those who work in the public sector have to be financed out of the proceeds of productive commerce, they have the satisfaction of knowing that their competence makes a great contribution to a flourishing private sector. Indeed, it could not do without them. [end p17]
Social Services
You will have noticed that we devoted our last Party Political Broadcast to the Social Services. The Social Services grew and flourished under Conservative governments as we created prosperity in which everyone shared.
It was a Conservative Government which introduced the Christmas bonus for pensioners.
It was a Conservative Government which introduced pensions for the over-80's.
It was a Conservative Government which introduced the invalidity allowance for the chronically sick.
It was a Conservative Government which introduced the Family Income Supplement for poorer families.
It was a Conservative Government which introduced an Attendance Allowance for the seriously disabled who need constant care and attention. [end p18]
It was a Conservative Government which introduced a widow's pension for those women widowed between the ages of 40 and 50.
This is but a small part of a record of which we have reason to be proud.
I do not claim that the Conservative Party is the only party which cares, that we have an exclusive claim to compassion and concern for the unemployed and the poor. But I do say that we are the only party which recognises that we are all in this together, that we cannot ensure security for the old unless we create opportunity for the young. Creating more national wealth is the key to providing better national welfare. [end p19] Beginning of section marked “Not included in press release” .
We recognise that our approach involves a change of direction. It will put a full-stop to the Labour Party's declared intention of moving relentlessly towards the Socialist policy of the Left.
Failure to change direction, however, could run this country into great risk and danger, imperil present jobs, inhibit new ones, undermine the structure of the social services, and leave us virtually defenceless.
We shall proceed steadily, conscious that our objectives are better obtained over a Parliament rather than 100 days.
There can be no substitute for victory. End of section marked “Not included in press release” and end of speech. [end p20]
(2) The Times, 2 September 1978:
Mrs Thatcher says ‘frightened men’ in Cabinet want election postponed to next year
Mrs Margaret Thatcher, the Leader of the Opposition, last night said “five frightened men” are pressing the Prime Minister not to hold an autumn general election.
She said that they were Mr Michael Foot, the Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Merlyn Rees, the Home Secretary, Dr David Owen, the Foreign Secretary, Mr Denis Healey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr Roy Hattersley, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Affairs.
She told a rally of Glasgow Young Conservatives that those were the Cabinet ministers who were afraid of facing the electorate. She added that Mr Healey had a vested interest in opposing an election, because he was responsible for an economic policy that had placed more than a million and a half people on the dole; if the election took place in October, he would join the unemployment queue.
Earlier at Melrose Mrs Thatcher crisply listed the four main issues, apart from high unemployment, on which the general election will be fought by the Conservative Party.
The first was taxation “in the knowledge that you have to create wealth before you can distribute it” . The second was law and order, because “I find wherever I go this is an issue; you cannot have a strong people who are free unless you have the law impartially and justly administered” . The third was adequate defence forces.
Mrs Thatcher, having said there would be three issues, then added another: “To reconfirm our people in a parliamentary democracy as a forum that truly represents the people and that no power in the land should be more powerful than that.” That was taken by some of her audience as a warning against the power of some trade unionists.
The Conservative Party offered, she went on, a splendid programme of belief that could not be compromised “by cynical pacts because people are afraid to face an election” . She and her party were not afraid to face the electorate and they were confident of victory. Later in the day, at Glasgow, Mrs Thatcher predicted how Mr Callaghan and Labour would play their election campaign. She said there would be a concerted effort by Labour to turn logic around and to stand truth on its head.
Mrs Thatcher said: “Moses will descend from the mountain and will attribute to Labour all the traditional virtues of the Conservatives while ascribing to Conservatives all the characteristic vices of Labour. Flat earthers will abound. Thatcher will be declared a dangerous radical and Labour will claim the field as the ‘natural’ party of government.”
Mrs Thatcher has separately developed in speeches over many months the detail of her four electioneering themes but yesterday for the first time she gave them in succinct party manifesto form.
Throughout her three-day tour of Border constituencies she has given party workers the clearest orders to work for a decisive Commons majority, and has refused to discuss any Liberal or minor party pact except to dismiss it from her serious political thinking.
Yesterday she spent the daylight hours in Dr David Steel 's Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles constituency, and consequently gave increased emphasis to her swelling theme of Conservatives going it alone.
Mr Steel, she said in Melrose, was arguing that weak government was good government, and that a Labour government propped up by a handful of Liberal MPs was better than a government with a good majority in Parliament. That was nonsense. Minority governments could only struggle on from day to day with a series of short-term measures. They could not tackle longer-term questions that affected the future of the nation.
“No one should be in politics unless he has strong beliefs and wants to see them translated into action” , she said. “To promote pact politics is to preach beliefs at election time only to compromise them immediately afterwards so that power can be shared with a party that believes something different.”
That sort of cynicism would not suit her or the Conservative Party. It would reduce Parliament to a political bazaar where votes had to be bought by doing deals, regardless of the true need of other people.
Last night, Mrs Thatcher, who has spent many hours promenading high streets and meeting fishermen and farmers, made the only big set speech of her Scottish visit to the rally of Scottish Young Conservatives. To them she developed at length the Tory views on excessively high unemployment that have been made the opening broadside in the Conservatives' national election campaign.
In a question session afterwards, Mrs Thatcher said that she would bring back grant-aided schools. Challenged about Conservative immigration policy she conceded that many immigrants from India and Pakistan were very close in their attitudes to the Conservative Party.
“I do not want to put any of that in jeopardy” , she said.