Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

Speech in Finchley

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: Woodhouse School, Finchley
Source: Harvey Thomas MSS: OUP transcript
Editorial comments: No press release has been found. The transcript has been prepared from an audio cassette tape. MT spoke for an hour. There was a demonstration by feminists outside the school when she arrived - one of the few demonstrations she encountered at any point during the 1979 campaign. Time was set aside for questions after the speech, the first occasion she had taken questions from an audience during the campaign (according to John Sergeant, BBC Radio News Report 1800 2 May 1979).
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 6539
Themes: Conservatism, Economic policy - theory and process, Private education, Secondary education, Employment, Industry, General Elections, Monetary policy, Taxation, Housing, Labour Party & socialism, Law & order, Local government, Liberal & Social Democratic Parties, Religion & morality, Social security & welfare, Trade union law reform

Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

Well, you might have called the reception outside just a little warm! Fortunately, there are a great deal of our people as well who have a genuinely warm reception of the kind we Conservatives come to know and experience from meetings largely of Conservative friends. It's said, Mr Chairman, that André Gide once opened a lecture by saying this: ‘All this has been said before, but since nobody listened to it enough, it must be said again.’ Now in a way, that sounds just like an election campaign, because, as you know, we were here in this very hall just about three weeks ago saying, sorting out some of the issues upon which the election will be fought. And here we are tonight within a few hours of making what will be the most crucial decision made in this country for the next quarter of a century.

Of course it has been about prices and jobs and standard of living and all the economic things, but this election is about even more than the cost of the shopping basket. It really is about our fundamental freedoms and the future of our whole way of life in this country [applause]. And at the end of it, there will either be a Labour Government or a Conservative Government. And, Mr Chairman, there are three ways of ensuring the return of a Labour Government. One is by voting Labour, another is by voting Liberal, and a third in other parts of the country is by voting Nationalist. There is only one way of ensuring the return of a Conservative Government, a Government that has no Socialism in it, and that is by voting Conservative and that is what we are asking you to do tomorrow [applause].

Do you know, some of those people outside from the extreme left, they won't be advising any of their members to vote Conservative. Oh, no. We stand for the independence of the individual, for the fundamental freedom of the individual. They'll be advising their members to vote Labour, because it's through the Labour movement that they can best achieve their extreme left-wing objectives [applause]. Since we met in this hall about three weeks ago, I've travelled many miles, visiting many constituencies, and we find everywhere we go that there is an overwhelming feeling throughout the country that it's time for a change. People say ‘Look, we can't go on like this. We can't go on as we are. We don't like the decline in Britain. We don't like our neighbours overseas doing very much better than we are. We don't like it that Britain has fallen in the prestige of nations.’ And so frequently they say to me, ‘Give us back our national pride.’ [Hear, hear]

That of course is part of the objective of a Conservative Government. Change is coming, because we just must in fact stop the slide and slither and steady downhill which has continually gone on under Labour. I think myself that it's no accident that it has occurred, but just let's look for a moment and see what has in fact happened. And we certainly can't blame it onto world conditions, because other nations have done so much better than we have in the identical world conditions that we have faced. But the slither and slide which is … is the result of, I think, the most disastrous record of five years this country's had in the post-war period, has resulted in doubling [end p1] of prices, and just remember when our opponents say that they have practically got inflation licked and it's just below 10%;, that 10%; today is 10%; of double the prices that existed when we Conservatives were in power and that's a lot more in pounds, in terms of pounds in your pocket. For they have doubled the prices. They talk about jobs, but it's they in fact who have doubled unemployment, not we the Conservatives. We have a very, very good record in the post-war period on unemployment. You know that income taxation has reached record levels, and you know full well that the understanding with the TUC finally collapsed in the most vicious industrial strife which this country's ever seen. They then invite this country to carry on in that downward direction. It's as if, somehow, they're prepared to accept decline as inevitable.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are not prepared to accept decline for Britain as inevitable. We wish to change it and we shall change it [applause]. We don't believe that Britain's days of vigour, imagination and courage are over, or that we must simply accept things as we are. How could we say to our old people, ‘Look, I'm sorry, you must look forward to another five years in which the value of your savings are to be halved’? Because that's what's happened under the present regime. How could we say to our young people, ‘Well, things aren't very good, but you can't really expect anything better’? Because at the moment we have over 500,000 of our young people under 25 without a job.

So we cannot accept the decline. Nor can we accept that Labour has any of the answers, because if they have had them, isn't it astonishing that they haven't put them into effect in the last five years? [applause] But looking back even further, we must remember that Labour has ruled the country for eleven out of fifteen years, and we really have had a very long time of Socialist philosophy prevailing in this country. It's a philosophy of big government, big battalions, big taxation, big bureaucracy, until the individual says, ‘Goodness me, do I count for anything? Can I make any of my own decisions? Am I entitled to keep the fruits of my own labour in my own pocket to look after my own children?’ And today, people long to be protected from the big battalions, and the world over there is a revolt against heavy taxation by government, there is a revolt against big government, and it is happening too in this country.

As a result of that eleven out of fifteen years travelling in a Socialist direction, it seems as if we are often headed for a different destination than the destination of most of the Western democracies. They have increasing prosperity, with far more of their own money in their own pockets and their own decisions to make. We have prosperity that is not increasing and a diminishing number of decisions to make for ourselves and increasing power by the politicians.

Well, you know there have been a number of people who used to be in the Labour party who have had something to say about this recently. Because one of the outstanding features of the last few years, and particularly the last year, has been the number of former distinguished Labour politicians who have said virtually this: ‘Look, the Labour party's not what it was in the days when we belonged to it. It doesn't have the same ideals.’ And they, so many of them, from Reg Prentice, Dick Marsh, the latest one Alf Robens, have said, ‘It is the Conservative party now which represents [end p2] the ideals of the idealist man and woman in this country and of those who wish to see everyone better off.’ [applause]

In the last few days, Lord Robens joined the increasing number of people who have left the Labour party and are advising people next time to vote Conservative. He came out with a very telling statement. He said things which I couldn't say, because I don't know quite as well as he does what goes on inside that party. But I don't think his statement has seen quite enough publicity. I am just going to quote one or two parts of it, because it's extremely telling. He said he'd been asked several times about the difference between the Labour Government under Attlee in which he was proud to serve and the Labour Government at present. And he said this. He said, ‘In the Attlee days, the leaders were giants. Today they are pygmies.’ [applause] His words, not mine. He went on to say. ‘Ernest Bevin was Foreign Secretary and Herbert Morrison, Leader of the House. Compare these with David Owen and Michael Foot.’ [laughter and applause] He went on to say the comparison was odious. I thought you signalled that from your applause. He went on to say, ‘No wonder there are defections from the Labour party by people who have served for upwards of fifty years.’ They know that if Labour wins this election, we are heading for the corporate state. And with the abolition of the second chamber, the House of Lords, we are heading for the possibility of a Marxist-dominated Parliament prolonging its life from year to year [applause]. Just two more bits which are worth repeating. He said, ‘The dominant Communist aim is and has been all my political life,’ that was his political life, ‘to secure power. The Communists have failed miserably in free democratic elections but they can get their way by the back door.’ He went on to say, ‘Ernest Bevin, Deakin, et cetera, the union leaders around Attlee, fought the Communists and won. The Communists changed their tack. They started to infiltrate the unions, gain power, and bend the policies of the Labour party.’ And he said, ‘They have largely succeeded.’ He went on to speak about the disastrous winter and the strikes we have just lived through, and he said this, ‘This is no coincidence, it is a deliberate policy’. He said, ‘Income tax, food prices, the different way the tax payers' money can be handled are important, but this election is about whether we are putting our own freedom at risk.’ Now that is what he said. And finally he said, ‘If the citizens of Britain prize their freedom and want to conserve it, then they must vote Conservative this time.’ [applause]

Now, I must point out that some of that is phrased in far more vigorous language than I could use. I should be accused of all sorts of things if I used such vigorous language as pygmies. I mean, truth is neither here nor there in these matters apparently. I quote that because it came from a person who served the old Labour party and served it well for many, many years, but who now advises to vote Conservative.

And I think he did it because he like many, many others appreciates the basis upon which our policies are founded. Because, being Conservative, we found our policies on fundamental individual rights, the rights of families, the rights of men and women and their families, to lead their own lives in their own way with minimum interference by the state, but under a rule of law, under the firm protection of the government and the independence of the judges. So we see the process of recovery in Britain, the recovery of Britain, as the work of individuals. [end p3]

Now, we often are asked what sort of things do we believe in, in simple terms, because we Conservatives reckon we are the party of one nation. It doesn't matter what your background is, where you come from. If you want to use your own talents, be responsible for your own families, work jolly hard and be prepared to help your neighbour, we're the party for you. The great majority of us like to do our job well. We feel we are performing a useful service or producing goods other people are glad to pay for. We don't mind hard work, but we expect to be rewarded accordingly. We strive to put a bit by and to see it grow. Our aim is to do the best we can for our families, and, if possible, to ensure that our children have wider opportunities and better prospects than we had ourselves.

These, we believe, are the ordinary, healthy ambitions of naturally responsible people and these are precisely the aims the Conservative party is striving for [applause]. Let's just go through them; just rewards for inventiveness, energy, foresight and skills; incentives for saving; the creation of real jobs, paid in real money, not confetti money; a nation safe from foreign attack, which stands resolutely in the world for what it knows to be right. Now, those are our aims and objectives, those are the sort of people whom we think should have more support than they have under Socialism.

Now, what are the policies by which we shall seek these ends? They have in fact been spelt out in the campaign. Let me summarise them and then go through a number of them because, you know, throughout this campaign we Conservatives have fought on the positive policies for the future, because elections are about the future of our country and our children and grandchildren. Let me summarise them: reductions in personal tax; simple reforms of trade union law; encouragement to home ownership; the creation of conditions in which new enterprise can grow and small business prosper, in which social services are improved, new and permanent jobs established, the frontiers of state control gradually pushed back, thugs and vandals firmly dealt with [applause]; immigration controlled, yes, but in the best interests of racial harmony, and our national defences rebuilt.

Now, let me say a few words about most of those things. I want everyone to be quite clear about the positive policies which we Conservatives stand for. Let's have a look at taxation. Now, over-taxation is really transparently foolish. This Government has over-taxed its people, it's over-taxed the pay packet. Now, most of us are willing to work for our families and neighbours, but we are really not so willing to work for the Chancellor of the Exchequer although a lot of us do a lot of it already [applause]. In a free country, people will work hard if it pays them to do so. Present taxes are so high that for many it is not worthwhile working hard and for some it's not worthwhile working at all. So the first step to recovery therefore is to lower tax on earnings.

Now, the rumour has been put about that it's only people on top earnings who will gain. What nonsense! We need to cut the tax on earnings at all levels of earnings, because the characteristic of this Government has been very high taxation on very low earnings and high taxation on comparatively low pensions income. I was in Putney the other day, and I was told of the case of a widowed lady, aged 64, income of £24 a week—not exactly a fortune—made up partly of the national insurance pension, partly [end p4] of a pension which she got from working, in having an occupational pension scheme, £24. I was shown the demand for tax: £1.15 per week. Really that is a disgrace! Really it is a disgrace! She ought not to be paying tax at all. And there are many pensioners on very, very modest incomes, who will come to me and say ‘Look, I've got a bit of my own pension, I've got a bit of my own savings, I've put a bit by. It's already halved in value, but look at the tax I pay on the income I've got.’ Now, these people too will profit from Conservative reductions in taxation. And so they should, because it is they who built Britain to what it is today [applause].

So it is cutting tax on earnings and savings at all levels of income. Now, why do I put such stress on this? There is a number of reasons. First, I believe that people are entitled to more of their own money to spend in their own way. Second, I believe they spend it more economically themselves than it would be spent if it were handed over to government, go through a great big bureaucracy and rather less of it come out the other end. So it's better value for Britain. But thirdly, because unless we have those incentives, we shan't get people to worker harder, we shan't get small businesses to start up and grow and we shan't get the expansion we need, and if we don't get the expansion we need, we shall go on doing exactly what we have been doing, squabbling about how the existing shekels are parcelled out between existing groups, and that's one of the reasons why we have had such strife this last winter.

So there are a number of reasons, but there is a fourth one. It is that we Conservatives believe that people are entitled to decide how their own money is spent, and that government should be very slow to go on taking more and more, because to do so means them making the choice of how our money is spent regardless of whether we want it or not. But that, of course, is Socialism, substituting government's choice over your money for your own choice about how to spend your own money yourselves. And that is why, in a way, we have had such a debate on television and radio about whether we should cut tax. About … And they don't like it when we say that you have to cut out waste in the public service. Do you remember we talked about that when I was here last time? And they don't like it when I say we might have to recoup a certain amount by, in fact, putting a little bit on VAT—not a lot, but the point is this: if money goes back into your pocket, you have the choice about how you spend it, or whether you save it, or whether you put it towards buying a house, or repaying the mortgage. If you don't have it in your pocket, you have no choice at all.

And I would like to make it absolutely clear for those people who will have more in their own pockets, right across the earnings band. They may choose to spend on things which just don't attract Value Added Tax at all. You've got the money in your pocket and you're a young couple, you can say, ‘Right, that's marvellous. I can repay my mortgage more quickly, pay off the capital sum’—no Value Added Tax. If you're a housewife, you say ‘Thank goodness! I've got more to spend on food, or we can have better quality food this week’—no Value Added Tax on food. Nor will there be under a Conservative Government. Many young mothers are desperately worried about how in the world they're going to find the money to pay for the children's shoes and clothes—no Value Added Tax. And many old people are desperately worried about how in the world they'll find the money to pay for their fuel bills—no Value [end p5] Added Tax. They might want to go on a train journey to see relatives—no Value Added Tax. Some people might even want to save it—no Value Added Tax. All of those things they have a choice to do. With more money in their pocket, they may of course spend it on things which do attract more Value Added Tax, but at least they have got the choice, the choice which is denied you under Socialism, the choice which only a Conservative Government will give you [applause].

And so, of course, our top economic priority is cutting the tax on the pay packet and on savings. But, you know, every small businessman or big businessman or self-employed person who is struggling to run their own business, will start to tell you about something else, about the number of forms which have to be filled up, about the amount of time they have to spend answering requests from government, statistics that have to go in. And, really, one of our people did a very interesting calculation. In our Small Business Bureau at Conservative Central Office a thousand firms have joined, and we calculated that if every one of a thousand firms received just one ounce of government paper in the post every week for a full year, that would amount to one and a half tons of paper in all. There'd be one million pages, which would take you ten years to read [laughter]. The pile would be two hundred feet high, which is roughly thirty five Labour MPs laid end on end [laughter and applause]. And if you calculate those figures for the whole country, there are some 800,000 individual small businesses and the pile would grow to thirty miles high, and that, for the record, is 28,000 Labour MPs, ladies and gentlemen [laughter]. So, you really see, when I just put it in that way, that really I just do that as an illustration, there really is a ridiculous amount of paperwork, and every time we put that burden on our small businesses, you're taking them away from doing the job of serving the public, of going out to fetch in business, of exporting, of designing new products for tomorrow's world and competing with their competitors. That's one reason why they are finding it so difficult to live in the present Socialist world and to expand their business in accordance with their talents and ability.

And you will also find that we need to set the man on the shop floor free from the man in Whitehall, because the amount of interference in big business by government has become almost excessive. You know, if you are really doing well in business and really making a good profit, so you've got good prospects for the future, sure as God made little apples—and I understand He did—you'll get the Price Commission coming in to see you. And that, in fact, again takes up all your time and stops you from looking after the subject of your business. And its very, very ironic, Mr Chairman, that during the years when we've had the Price Commission, prices have risen faster than at any other period in our history [applause]. Because the fact is, to keep prices down, you need more competition. Not more Price Commission, but more competition. Just take British Airways as an example. You know, it wasn't government who reduced air fares, it was the competition of Freddy Laker that did it! [applause]. And so, if we're to run our economy properly, if we're to get the expansion, we must start by cutting tax, and we must start, also, by cutting the amount of form filling.

Now, one of the most serious problems we face is, how are we going to get jobs for our young people? Now, I do refer to genuine jobs. I know that there is a time when [end p6] they have to have artificial jobs, because to do something is better than to do nothing. But, you know, it isn't really very much prospect for a young person to say, ‘Look, you must do a totally artificial job for a time,’ when what they are longing for is a job with a company with profits with good prospects. How do we get it? Governments can't do it. Governments don't create wealth. It comes back again to these same small businesses. The small business of today is the big business of tomorrow. If you look at the big family names today, they started in a small way forty, fifty years ago, and unless you keep those new small businesses starting, where are tomorrow's big businesses? And so, all of the time, we must do every single thing to encourage today's small businesses to start, to encourage them to expand.

There's been a very interesting study recently in the United States. It said that four new jobs in five—four new jobs in five—come from firms less than five years old. Now, that shows you that they are changing the whole time, that that is an enterprise society. We want ours to be an enterprising society so that we have the new jobs for our young people here. You know a party which discourages new business, stops new jobs. That's the central lesson of the five Labour years, and if we hadn't had that stoppage of new jobs, we'd have very many more jobs for our young people now.

Well now, those are the policies on prices, on tax, and on jobs, and I must say one final thing about prices. I believe that if we went on as we have been under Labour, then the kind of society that we've known would be in very severe danger in the future. You just think. There would be no purpose in thrift at all or in self reliance, if every five years the value of your savings was halved. And very soon you wouldn't have people being thrifty or self-reliant. Somehow, they'd come to rely on confetti money and then they'd turn to governments for the solution to all their problems. They wouldn't find them, but they would soon become the tools of government, instead of government serving the people. So it is absolutely vital that we return to sound money.

Now, can I have a look at the third thing which I mentioned? And that was trade unions, and some of the problems we have to face. Now, Mr Chairman, we spoke about this last time I was here, but quite a lot has been said about it during the course of the election campaign. Now, point number one, you can't just run away from this problem. If you do, the problems we've seen in this last winter will occur again. Now, you know, the first person who tried to tackle it was, to do him justice, Harold Wilson. He saw that during their period of Labour Government, and he had difficulty with the unions, during the 1966/1970 period, that you needed to bring in some changes in the law and he was prepared to, he published them. And who was it who said, ‘No, you can't do it,’ and saw it into the wastepaper basket? It was the present James CallaghanPrime Minister. So they had a go. We had a go between 1970 and 1974, and I think the whole history would have been different had we, in fact, won the 1974 election [applause]. Well, maybe we tried to do too much all at once, and we can't do too much all at once again. But still the problems are going on and they won't go away.

Now, as you know, I offered the Prime Minister the chance so that I would support him if he would do some of the fundamental things that needed doing. He didn't. And I must tell you that I think the Labour party would find it extremely difficult to [end p7] make the requisite changes in trade union law. Why? Because 90%; of the funds of the Labour party come from trade union funds; because the trade unions control their conference, they control the National Executive of the Labour party and that is why Labour can't take the steps the country is crying out for to be taken.

But we will have to take them, and I don't flinch from it in any way. We talk about this country still being a free country. What freedom is there for the man who's lost his job and his livelihood, because he refused to join a union where a closed shop had been imposed? What freedom is there for him? And under Labour, he gets no compensation for his loss of livelihood whatsoever. That was what Jim Callaghan and Michael Foot did to a chap who had jolly good jobs, done them very well and then because they didn't want to join the union, lost their job. So we, the Conservatives, shall make some changes in closed shop legislation. We shall give a right to compensation. We shall give a right to an appeal to a court of law. We shall say that you can opt out on grounds of personal conviction. We shall say that there is no right to impose a closed shop on a chap who has been employed in a business and done his job well for years. Those things will be done. They must be done if we are, in fact, to preserve the freedom and right to work of a person who wants to work and to do his job well [applause].

And that's not the end of it. You saw the picketing scenes on television. You saw the ports blockaded. You saw factories picketed, supplies unable to go in or get out, even though in that factory there was no dispute between the employer and the employees of any kind whatsoever. And so we must change the law on secondary picketing, the law on picketing. People have a right to go about their lawful business [applause]. People have a right to go about their lawful business without let or hindrance. That too, the law on picketing, we must change.

But then, you know, if you go up and down the country, you will get a tremendous number of people coming to you and saying, ‘Well, we didn't want to go on strike, but we weren't consulted, we weren't consulted at all.’ And sometimes when you do see them consulted, they have to go into a great big public meeting in a field and suffer the courage of having to put up their hand to indicate their view when they know it might be unpopular with their mates around them. Ladies and gentlemen, that's once how Members of Parliament were elected, until in fact Parliament said, ‘This isn't fair. People must be able to do it by secret ballot that no-one can get at.’ And so we Conservatives shall offer, for the taxpayer to pay, I will say the taxpayer, but it will be money very well spent, to pay for postal ballots for the election of union officials and for any other vitally important decisions which they have to take, so that those members of trade unions have the same right as we have in parliamentary elections, to make their vote in private, where no-one else can see, and no-one else can know how they have voted, and therefore it cannot affect or influence their own particular personal future in any way. That, too, we shall do. Ladies and gentlemen, in doing it, we shall have the vast majority of trade union members with us, because they too … [applause].

Can I just deal, quickly, with two other areas? We are finding a tremendous response all over the country from many of the municipal housing estates because people there [end p8] are being … We always have rival speeches when the television chaps are here! Now, don't worry! They've got their job to do. It's all right, all right. We'll just have a little bit of competition, that's all. That's all! You don't have to shoot any more if you've got enough! [laughter and applause]. You've just got to get used to it. It's a running commentary in the background.

Now, where were we? Housing—a tremendous response from the municipal housing estates. Why? Because we're giving them an opportunity they've never had before, an opportunity to become home owners, the first stage towards being a mini-capitalist [applause]. Very good, first stage towards being a mini-capitalist! And we want more mini-capitalists. They're proud independent people and they can't be shoved around by the government as much as those who have no resources behind them at all. And so they're having an extra opportunity. Ooh, they'll never get it from … they'll never get it from a Labour Government. We find council estate after council estate where people had applied with Conservative local authorities to purchase their houses, and then Peter Shore, the Labour Secretary of State for the Environment, went and stopped it. And I say to them, ‘Well, after you've got a Conservative Government, we will start it again and you shall have the very chance they have denied you.’ [applause]

But again, you see, it all stems from a totally different attitude on the part of Labour Governments and Conservative Governments. Labour Governments want people to be dependent upon government for more and more and more, to be dependent on them for subsidies for jobs, to be dependent upon them for houses, to be dependent upon them for which schools their children can go to and they attempt to deny choice by denying variety in schools. Because Labour wants people to be dependent on government, and we believe you get a proud people when you get more and more people independent of government, with their own houses, with their own savings, with their own pensions and able to live in their own way. So we're getting a tremendous response from that and I hope also in this constituency, where we shall have a new generation of home owners because of steps we've taken.

Now, Mr Chairman, I'm … we're going on just a little bit, but I haven't had time to talk to you as much as I normally do in an election, which may be a mixed blessing for you, but never mind. Let's just talk about something else that has loomed quite large in the election. There have been a number of suggestions about what Conservatives would do with pensions. Well, let me tell you what Conservatives are going to do with pensions. There are five things straightaway that I can tell you about.

First, if prices go up, pensions will go up to protect the value of pensions against price increases. So with any increases in prices our old age pensioners need not worry. It will be picked up in the pension increase, so they are in fact protected against increase in prices. As a matter of fact, we did even better than that when we were in government last time. Sir Keith Joseph, whom they always try to paint as a rather hard-faced person, was in fact one of the best Secretaries of State for Social Security we ever had. He introduced a number of things into pensions, but also he managed to keep the value of retirement pensions abreast not only of the cost of living but actually of average earnings. Now, being a modest man, he didn't boast about it, unlike [end p9] Labour, who are apt to boast about anything which they do, but we in fact have the record of keeping them up with average earnings. As far as the increase in November which has already been announced is concerned, it will of course be carried into effect. So, point number one, if pensions go up … if prices go up, pensions will go up to take it into account, and we'll hope to do better than that and keep it fully abreast with earnings.

Point number two: there is something which many of you have been on to me about for some time called the earnings rule. You know what it is. If pensioners earn a little bit after retirement then there comes a time when every extra pound they earn is docked off their pension. That will be abolished over the lifetime of a Parliament so our older folk can go out and earn something if they wish, earn a little more if they wish and keep it in their own pockets without having their pensions docked. That's point number two.

Point number three: we shall continue to pay the annual Christmas bonus. We, the Conservatives, introduced it. It's not a Labour measure at all. We Conservatives introduced it. Fourth, we shall exempt the pensions of war widows from tax altogether. That is the least we can do [applause]. And fifth, of course, pensioners would benefit from the reductions in income tax. So that in fact is our policy for pensioners. It is a good policy and I hope that by this time it has got home to everyone. They will of course also benefit, as will everyone else, from the increased emphasis that we shall give to the importance of maintaining law and order through maximum support of the police and the judges in the difficult role which they have to perform [applause].

There was during the election, Mr Chairman, a very interesting incident which some of you might have seen on television. The dialogue went like this:

Mum: ‘What about bright youngsters?’ Shirley WilliamsSecretary of State for Education: ‘They don't do any worse in comprehensive schools.’ Mum: ‘In this area, believe you me, they do.’ I may say that we have some very good ones, but she had a problem one. Secretary of State for Education: ‘Believe me, love, I've got the figures, and I know you're wrong.’ Mum: ‘Well, I've got the children.’ [laughter and applause]

Now, you see the point. You can't tackle a policy for education by saying, ‘You're going to have one sort of school and nothing else and you've got to go to it. Doesn't matter if it's not the right school for your child, doesn't matter if your child would benefit from going to a smaller school. If they're not available, I'm very sorry, you can't go to them.’ Now, we tackle this first, where the grammar schools still exist, by keeping them, and second, by restoring the direct grant schools which, as you know, are a mixture of free places and places which are paid for according to income, and thirdly by saying, ‘Look, if we've got a child that really is not getting a good education locally, when really it has great gifts, then let's, for heaven's sake see that that child is [end p10] sent to an independent school and find a free place for that child.’ Isn't it better to do justice to the children than to the dogma of Socialist politicians? [applause]

Now, those are some of the policy measures by which we shall implement the objectives that we have. I want just finally to have a word on a different aspect. Much of politics is fought about what you might call the economic factors or the material factors, and sometimes too little attention is given to the moral factors. But you know, in the end, it's the moral factors which decide the status and pride of a nation. Sometimes our opponents try to claim that they have the moral case. I've never understood this, because theirs is the case for compulsion, and I've never seen what's moral in compulsion. I've never seen what's moral in claiming and boasting that you can spend other peoples money better than they can. Never.

So let me try to prove that the moral case is on the side of the free society, because, you know, it really is. It so happens that the economic success of the Western world, as against the Communist world, comes from freedom, because if people are free to do things for themselves you find they do more. And then the whole standard of living rises, because if you get the benefit from your own efforts, the whole standard of living goes up, and you get … you get the economic results. I was always very amused when one of our very human economists—and they're not all human [laughter]—said, ‘You know, those who've done most for the world have seldom been those whom their neighbours would have picked out as likely for the work.’ Well, it often happens, but in a free society, they in fact come to the top as a result of their own effort.

But the fact is [shuffling papers]—we're trying to drop masses and masses and masses of manuscript!—if you have freedom, you have the chance to exercise your abilities. You only become a responsible person by making decisions. You need a society of responsible people and for that you must allow them to make their decisions themselves. Socialism tends … tries to deny that choice. Choice really is the basis of being able to make decisions, and ultimately you'll find that Socialism leads to total coercion, to making decisions for you, instead of being able to make the decisions for yourself.

Socialism will impose many, many, many detailed laws, and the more it seeks to impose its authority, the less respect that authority receives, and you can see just exactly what is happening in taxation. The more living standards are squeezed by taxation, the greater is the temptation to evade that taxation. Now, that's what's happening now. The more you've got the coercion on, the more you have to pay more and more in tax, the more people turn to say, ‘All right, I'll take it in cash,’ and then they don't return it. And we that were once an honest nation in tax matters, have lived to see one of the Inland Revenue officials say he thought there was some eight thousand million pounds which was escaping income tax. So you get the coercion, you get people trying to get round it, because they want to profit their families, and so your whole standard of honesty declines because the burden put on you by Socialism was too high and the policy was basically wrong. The more pay and prices are controlled, the more those controls were somehow avoided, because somehow businesses had to run. It was no earthly good people telling them they couldn't pay a certain amount … [end p11] couldn't pay more than a certain amount for a skilled engineer if they needed a skilled engineer. The more controls you put on, the more people try to evade them, the less the state's authority has respect, and the lower and lower become the standard of honesty in your society. And so you really do get the case for … the moral case is the case for the free society. It not only produces better benefits, but it does enable you to do things on your own responsibility, in your own way and it does enable a much higher standard, a moral standard, to be achieved, and so I think we should too proclaim that.

Now, as tomorrow approaches, the choice is clear. It really is towards a state which I believe will be totally alien to what Britons want. To a more and more state-controlled state, state-controlled people, more and more controls and I believe a heavier and heavier burden of taxation. Our way is totally different. Our way is towards a much freer state, lesser tax, more decisions made on the spot, more decisions made by people who know the job and the work they're doing, and that is truly the better way, truly the better way [applause].

Our way is the path to freedom. It is also the path to the rule of law, because when I hear the Prime Minister talking about a free for all, I just have gently to remind some of his colleagues of this fact. You cannot have freedom unless you have the law, a rule of law, very, very strongly enforced, and that is the only enforcement government is really entitled to do. You must have the law strongly enforced. You cannot have freedom except under a rule of law. So it's no accident that we're the law and order party, but we're also the freedom party. Both, and both I believe are what our people want.

Mr Chairman, you know one of our great former politicians said this. ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ A very telling remark. So everyone must come out and vote tomorrow for the most crucial decision that we shall have to take in the next 25 years. What Edmund Burke said is even more true today. I was just quoting from him, but it was 200 years ago. The price of liberty is always unceasing courage and underlying vigilance. We must keep those liberties, we must keep those liberties under the law, and tomorrow that nation will have its opportunity to demonstrate that courage and that vigilance. And I hope that it will take it by voting Conservative for the future of our children and grandchildren [applause].