Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

Speech to Conservative Local Government Conference

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: Caxton Hall, central London
Source: Thatcher Archive: CCOPR 143/78
Editorial comments: Embargoed until 1230. A section of the text has been checked against the BBC Radio News Report 1300 4 February 1978.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 3747
Themes: Agriculture, Conservatism, Economic policy - theory and process, Education, By-elections, General Elections, Local elections, Privatized & state industries, Energy, Housing, Labour Party & socialism, Local government, Local government finance, Liberal & Social Democratic Parties

AN ELECTION THIS YEAR?

I read in the newspapers that there is likely to be an Election this year. Naturally it's a subject that interests me. And I'm sure it interests you as well.

Some of you will be fighting election campaigns yourselves in the Spring. They will be regarded as a vital build-up to the General Election itself. That election will be a tough fight for all of us; and so will the local campaigns, because this year they follow the splendid victories of the last two years. In many areas we will be defending past gains. There will be fewer Labour and Liberal seats for us to win than there were last year or the year before.

Your work is relevant to the General Election in another way. Many of the things you are doing, the Conservative policies you are carrying out, highlight the differences between ourselves and the Labour Party, and show clearly the choice that Britain will soon have to make. [end p1]

So I want today to look ahead to the election and tell you how I think it will be fought, and what I believe the main issues will be.

But let's begin with the question of when it is going to be held.

You may say—and it's a very reasonable point—that it should have been held already. A Labour Government without a Commons majority, forced to carry out the minimum of Conservative policies, is a very poor alternative to a Conservative Government with a majority, which actually believes in Conservative policies and carries them all out in good time.

The reason why we haven't got such a Government today is simple—the nationalisation of Steel, Mr Steel that is. He and the other Liberal leaders haven't moderated Labour. The electors did that—voters in Stechford Ashfield, Workington, Woolwich and Walsall who took away Labour's majority.

What the Liberal leaders did last year was to give Labour the kiss of life. They resuscitated Socialism. They endorsed a whole range of policies and attitudes which most of those who voted Liberal in 1974 have never believed in. [end p2]

So there was no election last year thanks to Mr Steel, and that leaves Mr Callaghan with a much freer hand about when to call it.

The Constraints on Mr. Callaghan

But he doesn't have as much freedom as he would like.

First of all, he wants to get his devolution Bills through Parliament before the election. That presumably makes a summer election more difficult, though not impossible. We must be ready for it. We will be ready for it. But don't be too disappointed if it doesn't come.

Second, the life of a minority Government is never very certain, especially when—like this one—it has to steer a course between Eric Heffer and Cyril Smith, and even to cheat periodically in the attempt to cling to power.

But it becomes even less secure as a Parliament draws to its close. By-election defeats sap the foundations. Liberals and Nationalists agonise over whether they should seek the honour of voting with us and bringing on the election. The Government itself fiddles and fumbles and tries to “fix it” , with one eye on the coming campaign and the other on the day-by-day dramas of House of Commons votes. [end p3]

The third constraint on Mr Callaghan is the economic scene. As we know from Richard Crossman 's diaries, the overriding consideration during a Labour Government is to try to time the Election during that very short period when the economic indicators look a little better—and before they start looking worse again. It's what I call “the Labour trap” —taxes down for a few months, wages and public spending up and a quick dash for the polling booths. Its the way they've always behaved and you can't expect an old Socialist dog to learn new tricks.

The time in which the Labour trap can be sprung will be running out by the autumn. Not only will the inflation figures be threatening to move up again. The Government will also be running into many of the problems they have postponed, not least on the pay front, and that will put considerable strains on the Cabinet and on its relations with a few trade union leaders.

So the people who are betting on Mr Callaghan and me having a date in October have got history on their side. For my part, October would do fine. I don't think Labour should be allowed to splutter on into the dying days of this Parliament. It should give the people the chance, this year, to elect a fresh Government with a new mandate to tackle Britain's problems. [end p4]

Labour's campaign between now and the election will be hampered by two major drawbacks. They can't talk much about the past. And they don't dare talk much about the future.

The Labour Record—a Crisis of Socialism

It's obvious why the past presents some problems. After all, that involves looking at their record. The fiction they are busy spreading is that they have bravely toiled through difficult times which were none of their making, and that now virtue and heroism are being rewarded as the sparks fly upwards and we emerge from the waters of the Red Sea and arrive unscathed in the Promised Land.

Very moving. The facts are rather different.

Because of course the facts were largely of their making. Labour can't blame world conditions. Most of the developed countries have done better than us in the last four years, and hardly any of them have our advantages of coal and oil and gas.

Labour can't blame us for their troubles either. They campaigned in 1974 to overturn our counter-inflation policy. That was their election platform. As soon as they came in they took off the brakes and reversed our spending cuts—increasing State spending by the phenomenal sum of £6,100 million in one year. They raised taxes. They loaded new burdens on industry. [end p5] They rammed Socialist legislation through Parliament, regardless of the harm it was bound to do. Behind the curtains of the Social Contract, prices soared, unemployment soared and output, profits, and investment plummeted.

The crisis of 1976 wasn't a crisis of capitalism. It was a crisis of Socialism. It was the price we had to pay for the policies of Labour's first two years. Since then, thanks to the IMF and that splendid advertisement for free enterprise—North Sea oil, we've been painfully hauling ourselves back from the brink of disaster, and Labour call that a miracle!

No, the record is Labour's record. No-one else's. Prices almost doubled. Taxes and unemployment more than doubled. Back to work with Labour, they said. You know it's a Labour Government working when 1½ million people aren't.

You can measure the cost of Socialism for every family. This week the money coming in to the average home in this country will buy £6 less than it did under us. That's the Callaghan Bill—£6 a week.

Things have undoubtedly got a bit better recently. We haven't travelled very far along the Recovery Road. There's a long way to go. But we've been moving in the right direction. That doesn't disappoint me. It pleases me. [end p6] And it doesn't surprise me either. Labour have been carrying out the bare minimum of the things we told them to do. And Conservative policies, as you see, do work.

It's interesting that they attack us for having policies which they say would lead to disaster, even while they move grudgingly and belatedly to adopt them. So we had Mr Silkin pretending that a Labour devaluation of the Green Pound had no real effect on prices, but that a slightly larger, more reasonable, Conservative devaluation would send them through the roof.

The day after they've attacked us for having an armoury of extremist, reactionary policies, they usually attack us for having no policies at all.

Well, they should know our policies better than most. They've been starting to carry them out for the past year. On spending. On cash limits. On taxes. On education. On housing. On small businesses. And so on and on and on. Never enough. Never in time. But the first glimmerings of Conservative policies. Imagine the trouble they would be in if we hadn't written “The Right Approach” . They would not have known what to do next! [end p7]

So we shouldn't be surprised that there's been some improvement. But it takes a Labour Government to boast that if everything goes exceptionally well for the next year or two they may actually have got one or two of the economic markers back to where they were four years ago when they came in!

A miracle? No. The Wilson-Callaghan years are the years of slump. The Wilson-Callaghan years are the years of inflation. The Wilson-Callaghan years are the four lost years when Britain all but went bankrupt. So I can't see much joy for Labour in talking about the past.

The Labour Party's Programme

What of the future? Well, the future presents them with equal problems. Not because they don't have any plans for the future; they do. And very unpleasant they are too.

They were set out in their Party Programme passed at their Conference eighteen months ago by an overwhelming majority. They added a footnote at their last Conference—the so-called moderate one, the cover-up Conference—but a pretty lethal footnote it turned out to be. With hardly any dissenters—not apparently Mr Callaghan, not Mrs Williams, not Mr Healey—they voted for a substantial measure of nationalisation in the building industry. [end p8]

You would think that would have merited at least a peep of protest from some of those moderate Labour ministers we keep hearing about. You would think that someone might have put up a hand at the back and asked whether it was really sensible to send the building industry the way of British Leyland and British Steel. But no. Hardly a hand was raised. Hardly a protest was peeped. As Cromwell said of the Rump Parliament, “Scarce a dog barked” . Of course, they'd have lost their licences if they had!

Comparisons with Cummunist Programmes

Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News 1300 4 February 1978

Well, that new nationalisation proposal just gives you something of the flavour of the rest of the Labour programme. It's a document which has much in common with the programme of the British Communist Party. It's a programme which is quite literally more extreme than the manifesto on which the Italian Communists fought their last election. Now we read that the Left of the Labour Party want to open a dialogue with the Euro-Communists. I sometimes wonder whether the Euro-Communists might not find Labour's National Executive Committee a bit too left-wing for their taste. (Applause.) [end p9]

Now just in case anyone should suppose that those comparisons with Communist programmes are a little far-fetched, that it's only the Tories seeing imaginary Reds under the bed, we intend publishing an educational survey, a booklet setting out side-by-side on the same page what Labour says and what the Communists say. Then people can see for themselves what Labour have got in store for them. End of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 1300 4 February 1978.

The Results of a Labour Majority

Now I'll give Mr. Callaghan one thing—he knows a lot about elections. After all, it was Mr. Callaghan who refused to implement the Boundary Commission's recommendations in time for the election of 1970. That way his party had a better chance of winning. So he is not going to want any of that poisonous Socialism to see the light of day before the election. You've probably noticed, he hardly ever uses the word Socialism these days. He knows it would lose Labour votes by the million. And to do him justice again he probably doesn't believe in much of that Socialist programme himself, though what he actually does believe in in politics is a little more difficult to fathom. But let us stretch our imaginations a moment and contemplate the unthinkable. Suppose he won a majority at the election. What would happen?

First, the brakes would come off. At present the brake on Socialism is Opposition votes in the House of Commons. That brake wouldn't exist. [end p10]

Second, the Left-wing Tribune Group in Parliament would be greatly strengthened. Just look at some of Labour's candidates in Conservative seats with small majorities.

Near my own constituency in North London, for example, I understand that the Labour Party has selected an extreme left-wing candidate to fight Hugh Rossi in Hornsey, and another from much the same stable to fight Geoffrey Finsberg in Hampstead. So if Labour won the election, you could have two outstanding constituency MPs, moderate, common-sense Conservatives, replaced by extreme Socialists. And that is the same story in one constituency after another across the country.

So Mr Callaghan would have, if he won, a stronger Left wing in the House of Commons. Try as he might to drag his feet, he would be pulled to the Left. Every compromise would be a compromise with the Left and therefore towards the Left. And Labour's programme would seep, drop by drop, onto the Statute Book.

Of course, Mr Callaghan will try to hide all this from the electors in that bland and reassuring way we have come to know so well. Unfortunately for him, every now and then, someone blows the gaff. And there's no greater gaff-blower than Mr Benn. [end p11]

The other day, in a speech, headlined enthusiastically in the “Morning Star” as “Six Socialist points to defeat Mrs Thatcher” , he called for more public ownership, more public spending, and more Socialism.

So don't let anyone be in any doubt. At the next election a vote for Callaghan and what he pretends to stand for is a vote for Benn and what he really stands for. Anything Jim can “fix” , Benn can “fix” better.

I don't believe the people of this country want the same Britain as Mr Benn. I think they'll give that vision of the future the thumbs down. And in doing that, in voting Conservative, they can do more to clean up the Labour Party than the so-called Labour moderates will ever do. Remember this. A swing of 4 or 5 per cent to us at the next election would send one-third of the members of the Tribune Group packing. That is one service that we should all be happy to carry out for Mr Callaghan.

A Watershed Election

The coming election is a watershed election. Every General Election is important. But next time the vote could decide what sort of country we are going to live in for the rest of this century. [end p12]

It could decide whether we turn our backs on the free society and the enterprise economy. It could push the point of balance in Britain so far to the left that no Government would ever be able to redress it.

The balance in a society decides what sort of country you live in—how free it is, how prosperous, how concerned about standards in moral, social and economic life. When you look at the balancing points in Britain today, what do you conclude about the reasons for our failings in the past and about the approach we need to take to the future?

Imagine yourself an uncommitted, rather neutral, non-party voter, and ask yourself these questions.

Do you think that our problems are caused by the State doing too much or doing too little? By State spending consuming too large a share of the nation's resources or too small a share? Do you think that our industry would be strengthened if there was more nationalisation and interference or less? Do you believe that we would be a happier and more prosperous and more free people if the trade union leaders had more political power over our lives or less power? [end p13]

Those are the sort of questions we must put before Britain. And I guarantee you this. When you ask them, you won't find many people giving Socialist answers.

So, is the common-sense majority, who would give a Conservative answer, extremist or reactionary? Are we extremist or reactionary because we say with the people that the effect of having a Labour Government for roughly ten out of the last thirteen years is that the balance in our society has shifted too far towards the State and too far away from the individual, too far towards regulations and control, and too far away from freedom and independence?

Are you extremists in local government because you want to sell council houses to the families who live in them, because you want them to have the independence which comes from owning the roof over their head? Is Horace Cutler an extremist in London because he's given hundreds of couples the chance to “homestead” —to move into houses left derelict by Socialism and Socialist controls, to do them up and to buy them with a local authority mortgage? [end p14]

“Do it yourself” —that's the chance that Conservatives are giving families in London. It's not a bad slogan provided we always have a safety net for those who can't manage for themselves. As good neighbours we have to help them.

If we're reactionary for believing that, then so are not only the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens but also the majority of the successful governments among our friends abroad—even those governments which are allegedly left of centre.

I was greatly amused by the newspaper which said in a rather puzzled way when we published “The Right Approach” , that there was really nothing in it which a moderate Social Democrat of say the German variety would oppose. Exactly. But alas our Labour Party is not like Mr Schmidt 's party in Germany. That's one reason why we're so much poorer than the Germans. The Germans know what happens to a country that embraces full-blooded Socialism. They should. They live next door to the Russians.

Use of North Sea Oil

Under a Labour Government the gap between us and our friends and neighbours would continue to widen, despite the great opportunity presented by North Sea oil. [end p15]

You know how Labour would use that wealth. They think that Whitehall knows best how to spend it.

They argue that the only way to create jobs or industrial prosperity is by State interference, State planning, State controls. If that was true, we'd be one of the wealthiest countries in Europe now.

We say that the oil revenues must be used to pay back Britain's debts, to lighten the tax burden, to invest in new energy supplies for the future.

The oil must be used by the British people themselves to create new wealth. If we channel all the money into Government spending, if it's frittered away on Socialist subsidies and Whitehall schemes, then what will be the future of this country when the North Sea wells run dry?

A Positive Programme for Revival

To restore our economy to full health will take time. We're not promising overnight success or miracle cures. But we believe that Britain has the brightest of futures provided we re-learn and apply some of the lessons that have been forgotten in the last years of Labour. What's needed is not a reluctant and half-hearted acceptance of part of the truth at the eleventh hour. What's needed is a positive programme [end p16] for revival carried out by a Government that really believes in the policies it is pursuing and is united in its resolve to see them through.

A number of Conservative councils have blazed the trail that we shall follow when we are the Government. You've been trying to get the best value for your ratepayers. You have made significant savings, without big cuts in programmes, by slimming down bureaucracy and streamlining administration.

The Socialists don't and can't do it. We saw that from the independent survey the other day which showed that rates rise in line with the proportion of Labour members on the council.

You have been heavily involved in the battle to raise standards in education. We are with you all the way. When we are the Government we intend to raise standards in all our schools for all our children. And we will make certain that able children from poor homes have the opportunity again to travel as far as their abilities will take them.

I've said how much I welcome the drive to sell council houses. I repeat today the pledge I made at Blackpool, that a Bill to give a statutory right to tenants to buy their homes will be brought forward in the first session of the next Parliament. That means, I hope, by November at the latest. [end p17]

And we shall scrap many of the foolish and frustrating regulations that dictate what council tenants can and cannot do. Too many Labour councils seem to think the families that live on council estates are their personal political property. With your help, we shall disprove that decisively at the next election.

And when that election is won my instructions to the Minister responsible for local government will be clear. I shall tell him to review as a matter of urgency every Whitehall circular and rule governing your activities. Our aim will be to give you more responsibility for your own communities. It is time-wasting and pound-wasting for central government to spend so much time looking over your shoulders.

One of our energetic backbench MPs, Michael Latham, has forced into the open by Parliamentary Questions what has happened under the Community Land Act. [end p18]

So far there have been 9 orders and regulations under the Act made jointly by the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland and Wales. There have been 4 other English Orders, 13 English Directions, 29 English Circulars or letters, 6 Scottish Orders, 2 Scottish Directions, 28 Scottish Circulars or letters, 2 Scottish publicity directions, 11 Welsh Circulars, 5 Welsh Guidance Notes, and 2 Welsh Directions to the Land Authority for Wales, making a total of 111 official instructions about how the Act should work. But in its first year of operation only 33 acres of the land acquired by local authorities were resold to developers. That's a ratio of about 4 Whitehall orders to each acre. All that nonsense will stop. We will stop it.

Thrift, standards, freedom of choice, personal responsibility—those will be our watch-words as we begin the great task of rebuilding this nation and restoring a more sensible balance to our society. I don't mind the Labour Party knowing the main thrust of our campaign. Because I don't believe they have an answer to our arguments or any workable alternative to our philosophy. [end p19]

I am profoundly convinced that what we are saying today is more in tune with the hopes, the anxieties and the ambitions of the people that it has been for years. They are Tory at heart—the Wilson and Callaghan years have seen to that. Those years of the Labour locust are coming to an end. Let us hasten that end with all our energy, all our will.

Let us get out and about among the people and tell them what we believe and what we intend to do. I wish all of you luck who will be doing that in your own campaigns this spring. But it is a job for every one of us who loves this country and who believes that, once rid of the ghost of Labour past and the threat of Labour future, there is no limit to what it can achieve.

If we work together for the values we all share—if we work as we have never worked before—then this can, this will be the turning point, the year of victory.