This is the fourth time since I became Leader of the Party that I have attended your Conference.
London, Manchester, Nottingham, and now Bradford.
Since that first Conference we have savaged the Government in bye Election after bye Election.
Winning six seats, we have reduced their majority by twelve. That is only one less than the number of Liberal seats! [end p1]
These gains have not just been in London suburbs, Woolwich and Ilford, but also in Ashfield, Stetchford, Walsall and Workington in the Midlands and the North.
I no longer hear those tales about a Tory Party confined to the South Eastern suburbs.
We have staked our claim, not just as a national party, but as the national party, with an appeal across the whole country to people from all walks of life: people with no time for extremists or for fringe nationalists intent on wrecking the United Kingdom.
A party of ordinary, commonsense, hardworking freedom loving people. [end p2]
Just as our party is the national party, so the Conservative Trade Unionists are fast becoming a national political force. We read in the Press this week that the Labour Party is getting rattled about the growth of the CTU.
They have every reason to be.
For one thing, more and more trade unionists are seeing that it doesn't make much sense to go on subsidising Socialism by paying the political levy. After all, why pay a Government Party to lower your standard of living?
Contracting out used to be a trickle—now its becoming a flood. Central Office used to issue a few hundred contracting out forms a year. They have issued a thousand this week. [end p3]
Conservatives are now making themselves felt within individual unions.
Every week we hear of more CTU members being elected to union office as shop stewards and Branch officers.
We now have our own groups in the unions for Teachers, Civil Servants, Local Government and Health Service workers and ASTMS members. We shall be launching groups for railwaymen, post office workers and journalists after this Conference. This is one of the best forms of worker participation for Britain. [end p4]
I am very pleased that within the Party we have a large number of CTU members standing as candidates in the local elections in May, as well as some 40 or so who will be fighting as parliamentary candidates in the next General Election.
Time is running out for this government. Quite soon the parties will start writing their Manifestos. But before everyone's attention is focused on the next Manifestos, I hope that no-one will forget what Labour said last time in 1974.
Remember it?
It was going to be “Back to work with Labour” 8.4%; inflation and so on. [end p5]
But let me tell you, not what Labour actually said in 1974, but what their Manifesto should have said.
They should have said something like this:
“On taking office, Labour's first priority will be to increase prices. In four years of Labour Government, prices generally will rise by 86%; and food prices by no less than 94%;—twice as fast as under the Tories. [end p6]
“The value of the £ will be almost halved—cut by 47p in 47 months.
“In four years Labour will put up the tax burden on the average family by £490 per year—nearly £10 a week more tax. 1,400,000 people will be able to pay tax who would have been deprived of this privilege if Conservative tax rates had remained in force.
“But tax increases alone will not be enough to pay for Labour's programme. Government borrowing will have to be increased by a massive amount—in fact nearly £1,700 per family over the next four years. [end p7]
“As a result of this, and plans for nationalisation, control and interference, Labour will break four post-War records:
One, living standards for the average family will fall—for the first time since the War.
Two, unemployment will rise by nearly 880,000 by the end of 1977—over 600 jobs lost for every day of Labour government.
Three, more than 20,000 companies will be made bankrupt in the next four years.
Four, industrial production will fall below, and stay below, the level reached during 1973. [end p8]
“By enabling local authorities to nationalise building land, by discouraging the sale of council houses to tenants, by cutting local authority home loans, Labour will make it difficult for many people to own their own homes.
“Labour will plunge the construction industry into recession; as a result over 200,000 construction workers will be unemployed. This will be used to justify proposals to nationalise the building industry. [Manuscript addition by MT:] That will give the Rt. Hon. Ant. Wedgwood Benn (in Bradford last night) the chance to justify … [Typescript resumes:] [end p9]
“By compelling all local authorities to turn their schools into comprehensives, and ignoring Tory demands for higher standards in education, Labour will ensure that fewer children will have a chance to do well at school. [Manuscript addition by MT] We intend, “they should have said,” to kick away the ladder which got us and so many of our children to the top. [Typescript resumes]
“For the rest, Labour plans to strengthen closed shops, weaken the Health Service, underpay the police, and cut Britain's defences. This will contribute to a fundamental deterioration of the quality of life of the British people.
“On the basis of this strategy for national decline Labour hopes to be elected again.” [end p10]
That is what their manifesto should have said in the light of events. But of course they would never have been elected if it had.
But the way to judge parties is not by their promises but by their performance. By this acid test, over the whole of the post-war period, the Conservative Party has done far better by the working people of Britain than Labour.
Today, I just want to give four examples. [end p11]
First, living standards.
In the sixteen years since the War which have seen Labour Governments in power, the real standard of living of the average worker rose by six per cent. In the sixteen and a half years of Conservative Government, living standards went up by nearly 60%;—ten times as much.
Second, jobs.
Under this Labour Government we have had 1½ million people unemployed. In the worst Conservative year, the number never exceeded 1 million. [end p12]
Third, taxation.
Time and time again we have cut tax, then Labour came in and put it up. Now, to get back to where we were, this Labour Government would have to reduce personal tax by some £5,000 million.
Fourth, home ownership.
5 million people became home owners during our 16½ years of office; 2½ million in Labour's 16 years.
Those are not promises, not theories, but four hard practical facts demonstrating that the people fared better under Conservative governments. Better, but still not good enough. [end p13]
We are no longer one of the wealthier nations of the industrial world. West Germans produce twice as much per person as we do. They have higher pay, better living standards, and better pensions. Nor is it Germany alone that does better than we do. We now come only 18th in order of national wealth per head of the population. France, the United State, Japan, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland are way ahead.
And still we are declining relative to our competitors.
There is now an aura of defeatism amongst the Labour leaders about Britain's economic recovery.
That's not surprising. [end p14]
Labour have tried most devices known to socialism to get things moving again.
They have controlled pay and prices, squeezed differentials, subsidised jobs, pressed firms into planning agreements, attacked wealth, redistributed income, co-ordinated strategies, prevented foreign investment, restricted, restrained, blacklisted, bullied.
But it just hasn't worked. Industrial output is still below the level of the three day week. Productivity is not rising. Business confidence is low.
Sometimes, trade unions have been blamed. [end p15]
But that can't be right because many of our competitors also have strong Trade Unions—many of them would proclaim that free Trade Unionism is one of the hallmarks of a free society.
Can the answer therefore be in the attitudes adopted by some Unions? Perhaps what we need is not so much a technological revolution as a psychological revolution.
We must try to dispel a number of fallacies.
The first fallacy is that overmanning protects jobs. [Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News 1800 11 March 1978:] The reality is that it doesn't. Too many people on the job cut down on efficiency and puts up prices. It's just like too many cooks spoil the broth; too many people on the job could put up prices. Higher prices mean either our competitors get the business, or that fewer people can afford to buy, or both. [end p16]
The consequence is that our industries shrink and some go out of existence altogether. Those in other countries flourish and what happens? They've gained our customers and, they've got our jobs.
So let's learn the reality that overmanning creates unemployment. End of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 1800 11 March 1978.
The same applies to restrictive practices—they price our goods out of the market, and lose us jobs.
The second fallacy is that more investment of itself will solve our problems.
What is the reality? [end p17]
In Britain to produce £1 of output a year we have to invest £2.70 in capital.
In Germany they get £1 of output for every £1.40 they invest.
And in America they get a £1 of output for every £1 invested. [end p18]
Its not that we are short of investment: we are failing to make good use of the investment we've already got.
The third fallacy is that the state subsidies can save jobs indefinitely. The reality is that they can't.
At best, subsidies wisely used, can soften the hardship or ease the process of change, and both of those things are worth doing. But we cannot build tomorrow's prosperity on yesterday's products.
When steel was nationalised there were 260,000 people in the industry. Today, there are only 200,000 even after the taxpayer has subsidised losses of £870 million in the last three years. [end p19]
The £520 million needed to cover steel losses this year will not even preserve those jobs intact. Further, that subsidy will lose jobs elsewhere in this country. For some of the money needed for that £520 million will come from successful industries which could have used it to expand and create lasting jobs. It will come out of the pay packets of other workers, reducing the amount they have left to buy goods produced in other factories.
We can't spend money twice over; money which goes to steel can't be used to recruit more police or to improve the national health service.
There is only one way to protect jobs and this is by creating healthy, profitable firms, producing goods and services at prices people can afford to pay. [end p20]
Because although we are here as Trade Unionists, the other thing we have in common is that we are all consumers. When we spend our money we judge by one measure: value for money. As producers we have to give that value or lose jobs to our competitors.
All this is understood by unions in prosperous countries like West Germany and Japan. Their wages are higher than ours, but proportionate to their output labour costs are lower. That's why they can outsell us in our markets, why their workers are better off than ours, why they are more prosperous.
To bring home these facts in day to day working life is the job of Tory Trade Unionists as well as others. Many firms already have a success story to tell because attitudes are changing. [end p21]
In those firms, employees know that productivity comes from intelligent use of resources on the part of shop floor, office and management alike. That co-operation and consultation are more important than “them and us” . They know that although we talk about two sides to a bargain, in well run companies everyone is on the same side and they share the rewards of success.
They know that in negotiating for today's pay they have also to consider the prospects for the company tomorrow.
They know that without profits you can't be prosperous or secure. Beginning of section excluded from press release
But many of us work in administration or in the public service. Efficiency, good administration and sound management is just as important for us. Every £ we save through economies can mean more left in the taxpayers pocket—and we are all taxpayers. [end p22]
The success of a public service is not necessarily judged by the amount spent out by the way in which our many duties are carried out. Recent incidents in the health service will have brought this home to everyone. ([Note by MT] “Publications will be issued in quantities smaller than required.” ) End of section excluded from press release.
What you will now ask, is the role of government?
Labour is better at finding excuses than finding answers. They blame world conditions, the high price of oil, the falling price of oil, the greater enterprise of others, the failures of management, anything but themselves.
Government's job is to waste less, and take less so that the people can keep a larger share of their earnings, and companies retain more of their profits. [end p23]
Government must stop so much interference with industry. This isn't a government of the people for the people; it's a government over the people.
The latest device is blacklisting. Remember, to blacklist a firm is to blacklist its workers. The prices of their products may be lower than their competitors but they have committed the unpardonable offence of incurring the displeasure of a Labour government.
Government's job is to reduce taxation so that it is worthwhile to work, worthwhile to be skilled, worthwhile to take responsibility, worthwhile to invest, worthwhile to build up a new business. [end p24]
When we advocate big rewards for those who want to develop new discoveries, offer new services, open up new vistas of economic activity, we are told that this might benefit some more than others and would be wrong. [Manuscript addition by MT] If everyone can't have it—no one should have it. [Typescript resumes]
But in an expanding society there will always be some people who benefit from new achievements before those benefits reach others.
To reject this is to reject new achievements, and to reject progress, without which the British economy will continue to weaken. [end p25]
In the period immediately ahead international competition is going to be tougher than ever. The need to arrive first and fast with the new product or the new service will be even more urgent.
To compete in these conditions we are going to need a new kind of economy; more flexible and responsive, less State controlled, far readier to bring finance, new ideas, management, brains, skilled men and women and salesmen together speedily, often in quite small production units.
Our country is full of people with talent, drive, and commercial acumen. Let us keep them here, not export them to our competitors. [end p26]
But to return to the Election battle that must come soon. [Manuscript addition by MT] People must by now be tired of promises. Ours therefore will be few. [Typescript resumes]
We shall try to govern the country in the best interest of all its peoples, whatever their race, colour or religion. We shall tackle each problem as it arises with practical common sense. We shall seek co-operation and not confrontation. We shall maintain law and order, but we shall be on the side of the victim and not the aggressor.
We shall uphold the liberty of the individual to speak and to act in whatever way he or she chooses within the law. We shall encourage incentive and reduce taxes. Our sole aim will be to govern wisely and well in the interest of all, and to restore Britain's prestige in the counsels of the world. [Manuscript addition by MT] This is a great work and it can't be carried out by timid minds.