INTRODUCTION
As we meet here in Scarborough, three things are clear, Britain is in good heart. The Conservative Party is in good heart. And having seen the officers and area chairmen of the YCs at No. 10 last week, I can tell you this, too. The Young Conservatives are in good heart. [Press release begins]
Mr. Chairman, let me say one thing straight away. We are not in an election campaign. This is not an election speech. There will be many more speeches before there is an election. [end p1] And when an election comes, we never assume victory, we work for it—every inch of the way. [Following excluded from press release]
The Young Conservatives are the strongest political youth movement in Britain. You have been going strong for forty years. I must say, none of you look it! In that time you have made a vital contribution to the energy of our party. And “energy” is the right word: Because two past Chairmen of the National YCs are Peter Walker and David Hunt. Two Ministers at the Department of Energy. Two Ministers with an abundance of energy. [Press release resumes] [end p2]
THE NEW CONFIDENCE
Mr. Chairman, we meet at a time when there is a new confidence in this country, a confidence we have seen for a generation.
It's not just that Britain's reputation stands high in the world, although it does. It's not only that the standard of living is higher than it has ever been, although it is. It's not only that there is a whole new attitude in industry, thanks in large part to our trade union legislation, although there is. [end p3]
It's something more. Not only have one million new jobs been created in the last three years, but unemployment has been falling for five months in succession. So at last we have a combination of more jobs and lower unemployment, with all the encouragement and hope that brings.
For that achievement, we have to thank first, all those in industry and commerce. It's business that creates jobs by producing what the customer wants. [end p4]
Second, we have to thank the Nigel LawsonChancellor of the Exchequer for demolishing so many controls and creating the general framework of taxation which has enabled business to flourish.
Third, we want to say a special thank you to David Young and Kenneth Clarke for their tireless efforts to help the unemployed back into work, and to foster the growth of small business and the self employed. [end p5]
It was David Young who had the drive to start the Youth Training Scheme. As I've travelled around the country, I've seen young people—often not having done especially well at school—motivated for the first time in their lives. Their training helps them to get jobs which they couldn't have got before. Now, nobody in the sixteen to eighteen age group need be unemployed. [end p6]
Moreover, everyone who's been unemployed for six months or more will be offered help to enable him to get a job. And we shan't lose contact with them because we want to help every one of them back to the dignity and respect of work. [end p7]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Chairman, your generation scarcely remembers the time when inflation was rising at 25 per cent a year. At that rate a pound halves its value every two and a half years. You can imagine what that did for people's savings. Now that inflation is down to four per cent, both business and savers have real confidence in the future.
I wonder how many of you remember the humiliation we felt when, ten years ago under Labour, Britain went ‘cap in hand’ to borrow money from the IMF. [end p8] Under this Government, the only time we go to the IMF is to lend money to other countries.
It was with a certain satisfaction that I read the headline in last month's ‘New York Times’. “Ten years after bail out, Britain is world's number two creditor” .
That's because Nigel Lawson, and Geoffrey Howe before him, have stuck to policies of sound finance, honest money and good housekeeping. [end p9]
When put to the test, our national finances proved strong enough to —withstand the Falklands War, —withstand the Miners' strike —and to withstand the enormous drop in oil prices.
But there's one thing no economy could withstand: A Labour Government. A Labour Government with its £28 billion of additional expenditure. [end p10]
TAXATION
Labour is the party of high taxation.
But taxation is not like cod liver oil. It doesn't do us more good the more unpleasant it is.
More income tax leads to less incentive. Less incentive—less effort. Less effort—less prosperity. What sort of policy is that? [end p11]
Life's not about the commanding heights of the economy and Government control. It's about families. It's about parents accepting responsibility for their children.
What future is there if the State is so generous with other people's money, that people aren't left with enough to be generous to their own children and their own families? [end p12]
Labour pretend that the tax increases they want would only hit the better off. But it didn't work out that way the last time they tried it. It was the Joel BamettChief Secretary to the Treasury in the last Government who pointed out that they “had to increase levels of direct taxation to the point where further increases did not hit the rich but rather hit workers, not least the quite low paid” .
Now all our opponents want to limit tax relief on mortgages hitting large numbers of home buyers. [end p13]
The home is vital for the family. It's their security for the long-term future. That's why this Government will keep the present system of mortgage relief. [end p14]
BETTER SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr. Chairman, this Government has cut income tax. But because output has grown every year for the last six years, lifting the national income to an all-time high, we've also spent more on our social services.
Did you know that the health service is treating a million more patients a year than in 1979? And many of them are now able to receive operations and treatment that simply weren't available a few years ago.
And, of course, new diseases can and do occur. You know how quickly Norman Fowler took the initiative over Aids. [end p15]
But let me make this absolutely clear. Our concern over Aids does not diminish our care and concern for those suffering from cancer, or multiple sclerosis, or heart diseases or all the other illnesses.
There's still so much to do. Every new discovery creates a new waiting list. So although waiting lists are lower than when we came into office, we are making more money available for the specific purpose of bringing waiting lists down. [end p16]
And when it comes to helping pensioners and families on supplementary benefit with their heating bills, did you know that this Government is paying out £400 million a year compared with Labour's £90 million?
Did you know that there are nearly one and a half million more houses or flats than there were in 1979?
Did you know that record numbers of students are going into higher education? [end p17]
Did you know that, under this Government, spending on benefits for the disabled and long-term sick have gone up by more than fifty per cent over and above inflation.
Mr. Chairman, it's a proud record. It is better by a long chalk than anything any previous government has ever been able to do.
It's not only a matter of spending the money. It's seeing that it is used well. [end p18]
EDUCATION
Sometimes I think we describe our achievements, for example in education, more by the money we put in than by how much pupils have learned. Despite the extra money being spent on pupils, standards of education in many schools need to be improved; and many parents are dissatisfied with what their children are taught—as we have seen in Haringey, Ealing, Brent and Ilea.
One of the biggest mistakes ever made was to abolish most of the grammar schools, taking opportunities away from so many children. How much better to have built on their fine record by bringing other schools up to their standard. [end p19]
Today, as many as 25 per cent of ‘A’ level passes come from the 6 per cent of children going to independent schools. The Labour Party's reaction, with typical perversity, is to undermine independent schools. But the lesson we learn is that we must recreate that commitment to excellence in all our state schools: Excellence, not just for the few, but excellence for all. However varied their talents and abilities may be, all must be developed. [end p20]
Parents do not want their children brainwashed by Labour's “peace studies” . They want their children to be able to read, write and add up.
Parents do not want their children banned from taking part in competitive games. They want their children to excel and achieve.
Parents do not want teachers forcing what is called “Positive images for gays” on innocent children. They want traditional values and a framework of discipline. [end p21]
That means a policy of increasing choice and rising standards. It means insisting that every child is taught certain basic subjects. It means taking some powers away from the Haringeys and the Brents and giving them to the parents, governors and head teachers, where they belong. They are the people best able to put things right. [end p22]
Parents don't send their children to school for social engineering. They send them there for what schools are about: a good education. [end p23]
THE LIBERALS AND SDP
Mr. Chairman, I've already had something to say about the Labour Party. I know you wouldn't want me to ignore the Liberals and Social Democrats. That would be most unfair.
The coming together of the Social Democrats and the liberals was presented from the beginning as politically different, something brand new—fresh, clean, and whiter than white. [end p24] [Following excluded from press release]
Well, it's true they have adopted as their theme tune Purcell's Trumpet Voluntary. And if you spell Persil the way the housewife does I suppose you could say that was on the white lines.
Then there's the business of the yellow cravat. Gold, I believe they call it: it looks yellow to me. [End of section excluded from press release.]
Of course, there's nothing wrong in wearing identical ties. But it needs rather more than a tie to tie two political parties together who clearly have little if anything else in common. [end p25]
Not that they're not different. They are. The problem is, the Social Democrats and Liberals are different not so much from the other political parties as from each other—and I'm not just referring to their recent make and mend job on defence, which has only confused matters further, as perhaps was intended.
Take energy policy, for example. Last September, the SDP called for new nuclear plants in Britain. A week later the Liberals voted to phase out nuclear power altogether. [end p26]
Housing? SDP leader David Owen supports the “Right to Buy” . Liberal Simon Hughes would end it.
Mortgage Tax Relief? In the SDP corner Dr. Owen would keep some of it. In the Liberal corner, Mr. Hughes says “That relief would go” .
Trade unions? The two parties can't agree on a clear position. They'll “review” our legislation. On the one hand … but then again on the other … . [end p27]
“Curiouser and curiouser” as Alice observed.
And, ten days ago, at the very time [David Owen and David Steel]the two Davids were shown on television side by side.
In the House of Commons they were in fact voting in different directions: One with the Conservatives, one with Labour.
One can't help feeling that, faced with patchwork politics of this order, the two leaders must be wondering, in the manner of the Old music Hall song: [end p28]
[Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 1800 7 February 1987]
“David, David what are we going to do? I'm half craz-ed trying to be like you. [End of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 1800 7 February 1987.] Pretending that we're united I ought to be delighted But where's the fun in crying “We're one” When everyone knows we're two?” [end p29]
LAW AND ORDER
Mr. Chairman, to return to more serious matters, the police have been much in the news recently whether at Wapping or at Glasgow. So it is worth making one thing quite clear. Policing in this country operates on the principle that the rule of law must be upheld and the Queen's Peace maintained impartially and without political interference. The duty of the police is to the citizen and to the law. The Government does not give orders to the police as to how, when or where to enforce the law. [end p30] [Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 1800 7 February 1987] The moment a politician had the authority to order the police to search this property and not that one, to prosecute one person rather than another; at that moment, law, liberty and human rights would perish. [End of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 1800 7 February 1987.]
Any attempt to make the Police accountable to local councils and local politicians would undermine this fundamental principle.
Moreover, it's just not good enough for the Opposition to condemn violence while at the same time condoning demonstrations which lead to violence. [end p31]
Let us hope that the terrible chapter of Wapping is over. The first disorders were more than a year ago. Ugly scenes disfigured our television screens time and time again.
Those engaged on peaceful picketing and peaceful persuasion do not throw bricks and broken paving stones. Nor do they wield scaffolding poles or sawn-off railings. [end p32]
Month after month, more police were injured: some 572 in all.
While all this was going on, what did the Labour opposition do? As in the miners' strike, they criticised the police.
Experience has shown that such demonstrations inevitably attract the violent mob, most of whom have nothing to do with the dispute in question. Once again, decent trade unionists will have been sickened by what they saw. [end p33]
Let us hope that this time the lesson will have been learned and that the violence at Wapping will not be repeated anywhere else.
Mr Chairman, there's a feeling in the country that some of the sentences being passed in the courts are too lenient in relation to the crime committed. This Government has not hesitated to increase the maximum sentences available. Since we came to power, we have made life imprisonment the maximum sentence for drug trafficking and attempted rape. [end p34] And this year, we have a Bill which would also increase to life imprisonment the maximum penalty for carrying firearms for the purpose of committing crime.
The Lord LaneLord Chief Justice has also advised the judges that for serious and violent offences, severe punishments are to be expected.
Even so, concern about sentencing persists.
As you know, I cannot comment on any particular case. [end p35]
But can I remind you of what I said, eighteen months ago, when I addressed the American Bar Association in the Albert Hall in London.
I quote: “The feeling is also growing in our country—and elsewhere—that some of the sentences which have been passed have not measured up to the enormity of the crimes. This Government therefore recently brought before Parliament a bill including a clause which would have enabled the Court of Appeal to review the appropriateness of a sentence passed in the lower court. [end p36] “Decisions … would give a guide to the kind of sentence which might be expected in similar cases in the future … “Sadly, the clause did not get through. I say sadly, because those who so strenuously opposed the clause appeared to ignore the very real anxiety of ordinary people that too many sentences do not fit the crime.” [end p37]
I continued: “This issue is not closed. Our constituents are constantly reminding us of the depth and strength of public feeling and we shall bring the matter back before Parliament so that this concern can be met.”
That is the commitment I gave in 1985. We have honoured it. This year in the Criminal Justice Bill, now before Parliament, we have brought in a very similar clause. I hope that this time it will get through both Houses of Parliament. [end p38]
DEFENCE
Mr. Chairman, when some of your officers came to see me at No. 10 they told me of the deep concern of young people for peace. And when peace is shattered, it is young people who bear the brunt of war.
Defence goes much deeper than having the necessary armed forces however professional, however brave. It requires a total resolve and commitment to defend the values of our free society. Our personal liberty. Our system of justice. The independence of our country. [end p39]
That's why I find so utterly despicable the activities of those on the Left who —interfere with Cruise missile convoys —publicise the movements of our nuclear weapons —and take pride in exposing our military secrets.
It's not the government whom they are attacking and undermining. It's the freedom of our people which they put at risk. It's the potential enemy they are helping. They use freedom to undermine freedom. [end p40]
Our Party knows that freedom can be preserved only by strong defence: that only our independent nuclear deterrent can guarantee our security.
I can understand people's fears about the destructive powers of nuclear weapons. But you have to remember that it is war which is terrible. And nuclear weapons have prevented war.
In the First World War nearly nine million soldiers, sailors and airmen died. That was conventional war. [end p41]
In the Second World War nearly eighteen million soldiers, sailors and airmen died and about as many civilians. That too was—until the very end—conventional war.
But since 1945, it is the nuclear deterrent that has prevented war in Europe. The nuclear deterrent stopped the killing. The nuclear deterrent has saved the young people of two generations from being called up to war as their parents and grandparents were. The nuclear deterrent has been the best policy for peace this century. [end p42]
Labour try to persuade young people that getting rid of Britain's nuclear weapons on our own will make them safer, will reduce the risk of war.
I believe that our young people have too much sense to fall for that. Of course, they would like to see a world in which there were far fewer nuclear weapons. They want to see that world brought about by agreements which are fairly negotiated and whose results can be verified at every stage. It will not be brought about by one-sided disarmament, which would leave our enemies strong and Britain weak and vulnerable. [end p43]
Yet that is Labour's policy. Mr. Chairman, that policy would leave us open to nuclear blackmail. It is a foolish policy. A dangerous policy. A policy for a weak and powerless Britain. To that policy the British people will, I believe, give a robust, resounding reply: “Never” . [end p44]
THE POLITICAL DIVIDE
Mr. Chairman, the political divide in this country has never been sharper. Labour want less and less power to the people; more and more power to the State.
That's why Labour hate selling council houses.
That's why Labour want to nationalise more industries.
That's why Labour do not want people to buy shares.
That's why Labour want to take more and more of people's earnings in tax. [end p45]
That's why Labour want to direct people's pension funds.
That's why Labour want more and more controls over industry.
That's why Labour don't mind inflation because it suits them to devalue the savings of the people.
And that's why Labour can't stand success, because it represents independence.
Theirs is a doctrine of the past, for the past, and by the past.
It has been tried in other countries. It has produced neither prosperity nor freedom. [end p46]
FREEDOM IS STIRRING
But freedom is stirring all round the world. I was particularly struck by one rather remarkable speech which was recently delivered.
I quote: “A number of industries, enterprises and associations have begun working on the basis of complete financial autonomy …” “Restructuring is reliance on the creative endeavour of the masses …” “Encouragement of initiative …” “High respect for the value and dignity of the individual.” [end p47] “… a house can be kept in order only by someone who feels that he owns this house.”
In case you are wondering, that was from the famous speech delivered by Mr. Gorbachev less than a fortnight ago. I found it deeply interesting, indeed fascinating. The message to be drawn is that Communism does not make provision for human nature, human talent and human desire for freedom. For the first time since the war, Marxism and the class struggle which it perpetuates, is on the defensive. [end p48] Not because we have banned it. Not because we have confronted it with bullets and bombs. But because it has been found wanting.
How ironic that, just at this time, the British Labour Party should be moving further and further to the left. It can't stand the wider spread of property among the people, or the total irrelevance of class struggle in the modern world.
For us the modern world means that millions of householders have become home-owners, when once they were the dependents of municipal landlords. [end p49]
It means that millions of people have become shareholders as nationalisation gives way to privatisation.
It means that hundreds of thousands of men and women have launched into self-employment as state industry has declined and private enterprise blossomed.
It means a huge increase and variety in the range of goods and services, once beyond the dreams of most of us, but now within our grasp. [end p50]
It's true that there are some who publicly criticise those who aspire to a higher standard of living. But the truth is that human aspiration in all its fullness—the arts, the sciences, commerce, travel, intellectual pursuits—all these have never had greater scope than that opened up by the material benefits which western capitalism, uniquely, has brought into existence.
It remains for the great qualities of the human spirit—responsibility, generosity, sacrifice—to transform this material opportunity into a worthy human achievement. That is the promise which opens up before you today. It calls for the endeavour of each and every one of you to turn it into the reality of tomorrow.