Blog

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, Edward Heath, to the 1967 Conservative Party Conference.

Throughout our history, Mr, President, the abiding inspiration of the Conservative Party has been a deep love of our country and a wholehearted respect and affection for our fellow countrymen; the love of our country, the sea, the cliffs and the sand, of the hills and the beautiful countryside; the respect and pride in its great achievements and in those who have served it so well in the days of Empire and Commonwealth.

Above all, we are mindful of our country’s good name. We have a respect for our fellow countrymen, for their rights in the community, for their individual liberty, for their spirit of freedom and independence. These are shared by others in this country today who, perhaps, are not members of our Party and who do not call themselves Conservatives. These are the people whom we welcome to our ranks and we invite them to join us at this time, because never in our country’s history were these two qualities, love for our country and respect for our fellow countrymen, more necessary than they are in the state of Britain today.

It can give us no comfort and no pleasure that in the councils of the world Britain’s influence today is so low; it can give us no satisfaction that her word counts for so little in the councils of the nations. Sir Alec yesterday, in a far-reaching and far-seeing speech, told us why this was so. It is due, he said, to the fact that the present Government has abdicated its responsibility to the people of this country. We see the trouble spots – difficulty in Gibraltar, chaos in Aden, trouble in Hong Kong, withdrawal from Malaysia and from Singapore. But these are not isolated incidents spread across the world. They all together reflect one thing. They reflect the fundamental weakness at home of the British Government, its loss of nerve and its failure of will.

We recognise that we have clear and specific commitments in the Middle East and in the Far East, and we will carry them out. We do not complain about this Government because Britain today is no longer a super-power. We do not criticise the Government because it has not got the resources of the United States or of the Soviet Union. But we condemn the Government because it fails to maintain British interests abroad. Those interests can be sustained at a cost which this country can bear. No one has given greater study to the make-up of the forces today than Enoch Powell, to whom we listened with such joy at this Conference. He knows – we know – that when this country’s economy is strong, as it would be under a Conservative Government, then it is not only that we would sustain British interests, but that we would then have the resources with which to do it. That is what a Conservative Government will do in overseas affairs.

How sad it is at home today to see this country torn by industrial strife in a way which I cannot remember in my time, which is damaging our trade, which is harming the individual livelihood of our people and which is bruising its very spirit. We see the spread of violence and crime; we see lethargy permeating too much of our industrial life; we see cynicism and disillusionment through large sections of our people. That is the situation here at home today. But, above all, it is characterised by a declining respect for law and order in our community. That can be no wonder with a Government which shows such scant respect for constitutional processes in Parliament and in Government today. From the very first this has been so: the imposition of building licensing without any authority from Parliament; the creation of the Ombudsman without the necessary resolution of the House of Commons; the imposition of ‘D’ Notices when they were proved to be unjustifiable; the attempt to evade the courts by arrogant, high-handed action by the Secretary of State for Education in the Enfield case; the attempt to impose comprehensive education right across this country not through Parliamentary powers, but merely by the use of the financial weapon; the use of that weapon without Parliamentary authority, to achieve the dogmatic purposes of a Socialist Government. All of these are instances of where the Government itself has paid scant attention to the constitutional processes and the law of this country. Until we have a Government which is prepared to observe the law and order and constitution of our country, then we shall not restore respect for it by the people of this country themselves.

Let us look for one moment at the dangers which may confront us. We have already seen that this Government, to achieve its purposes, has postponed the elections in the London boroughs. What more are they prepared to do to achieve their own ends? Delay the implementation of the Boundary Commission for this country in order to save themselves seats?

Let us beware lest they attempt to tamper with the very processes of Parliament itself. The Land Commission Bill, in its original form, would have enabled a man’s house, a man’s property to be seized without any right of appeal – just a buff envelope dropped through the letterbox, that is all there would have been to it. We fought it bitterly in the House of Commons so ably led by Geoffrey Rippon. We fought it night and day, but we failed to alter it. It then went to the House of Lords. It was there that the right of appeal was inserted into that Bill and maintained in the House of Commons later. That is the part which the House of Lords plays in safeguarding the very liberties of the people of this country. Let us, then, beware of what this Government may have in mind to do to our Parliamentary institutions in order the better to achieve their Socialist purposes.

But this situation can only be dealt with by a Government which is sure of its purpose; which is prepared to take clear and difficult decisions in the interests of the people of this country; which will take action without the weakening effects of continuous compromise; a Government which is going to dominate events and not be pushed around by them; above all, a Government which will stand up for British interests abroad and the liberty and interest of British people at home. That can only be done by a Conservative Government.

Since we last met we have had immense successes in the local government elections, in which every one of you here must have taken part. Never at any time in British history has so much of the local government of this country been under the control of Conservative administrations and so little under Socialist councils. What an opportunity that is for our local councillors – many of them after years and years of tireless effort to achieve control in the local council chamber. As I have gone round the country on my tours I have seen how quickly they are seizing those opportunities, how rapidly they are putting into effect the Conservative policies on which they fought the elections, how carefully they are serving the interests of the electors.

But what responsibilities rest upon them as well. They know that they will be judged by the electorate in their own local elections. But there is much more at stake than that. It is not only the local councillors who will he judged by what they do in these three years; when the election comes – when the General Election comes – then we, the Conservative Party, are going to be judged also on what our local councillors have done, what they have shown themselves to be in the years meantime.

To what are our successes due? They are due to the efforts which have been made in Parliament by my colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet and on the Front Bench and by all the back benchers who support us, all of us working together as a team, fighting ceaselessly, tirelessly. If any of you ever have any doubts – just ask a member of the Government or one of their back benchers what it is like to be in the House of Commons fighting against a formidable Opposition like this. Many of them thought that they were going to a House which would be something nice from 10 to 5, and for the rest they could put up their feet by the fire at home. It has been the most formidable Opposition of modern times, and to the Party here I want to express my very sincere gratitude for the immense amount of work that my colleagues both on the Front Bench and on the back benches have put into this Opposition.

But our success is also due to you, the Party workers. It is you who have worked tirelessly on the doorsteps, who have raised and are raising the funds, who are carrying on the daily job of persuading other people to change their minds and to support us in our cause. So it is to you, the Party workers and to all those whom you represent, that I wish to give the thanks of the Party in Parliament for the work you have done, and for your achievements; because they have been achievements not only in local government but in the by-elections as well. The great victory of Pollok in Scotland, and then Cambridge and West Walthamstow – these are tremendous triumphs in the first eighteen months of a Government.

But, above all, these triumphs are due to one thing. This has been the most difficult period in the Party’s history. After the defeat of 1906 – and in centenary year one might perhaps be forgiven for glancing back for a moment or two – the Party tore itself apart over tariff reform. In 1929, after a great defeat, the Party was then tearing itself apart over India. In 1959, the Labour Party tore itself apart over Clause IV and nationalisation. On this occasion we, the Conservative Party, despite our problems and our difficulties, have maintained our unity, and this is due above everything to the fact that you, our loyal Party workers, kept your heads. It is for that above all that we have to thank you.

But let us be perfectly frank – we have also been helped by the Government. I do not wish to mention names here, but I cannot help mentioning George – we have been helped by George. And we have been helped because all of their policies have failed: those first policies of inflation which won them the 1966 Election failed, and the policies of savage deflation after failed to solve the country’s problems as well. That is clear beyond a peradventure.

And, of course, the confession of failure came when Mr. Wilson reshuffled his Government on August Bank Holiday Monday. When something like that happens on a Bank Holiday Monday I cannot help asking why. It must be done to hide something or other. It was an attempt to hide the failure of three years of Socialist rule – and those failures were so brilliantly exposed by Iain Macleod in his speech to the conference.

It was not only a confession of failure by the Government, but a confession of no confidence by Mr. Wilson in every one of his colleagues. He appointed himself the supreme economic overlord. I must confess to you that this appointment did not give some of us quite all the encouragement which it was meant to do. We remembered that he had appointed himself supreme overlord of the Rhodesian crisis which still, alas, drags on; that he himself made the tour of the European capitals – alas, that situation still drags on; that he himself took supreme command of the Middle East crisis which has been damaging and expensive to this country; and, above all perhaps, it was he who took supreme command of the economic crisis of July 20th 1966 – those panic-stricken, ill judged measures which have led to so much of the trouble in this country today.

We were not, therefore, greatly encouraged, but we were prepared to be fair and to watch events. What did we see? He announced his appointment on the Bank Holiday Monday. On the Tuesday, he sent his telephone number to the Trades Union Congress and the CBI and announced to the world that he was ‘in touch.’ On the Wednesday he rested. On Thursday he announced that all hire-purchase restrictions were to be eased and this would put £100 million into the pockets of the people, to enable expansion to begin. That was on the Thursday. On Friday he announced that all electricity charges throughout the country were to be put up, and this would take rather more than £100 million out of people’s pockets and effectively continue deflation. On the Saturday and Sunday he went to Chequers, there, no doubt, to reflect that he was the first economic overlord ever to make it cheaper to buy a fridge and more expensive to run it at one and the same time.

The by-elections of Cambridge and West Walthamstow showed that the people of this country have rejected the policies of the Labour Government, whether they were the policies of inflation or whether they be the policies of savage deflation. They have rejected compulsory prices and incomes. They want to reject the squeeze and the freeze. In addition, those by-elections showed a disillusionment – disillusionment with the Labour Party and the Labour Government. And who can blame them, after all the promises they were given at the two elections and all the promises which were so speedily broken?

It is sometimes said that perhaps there is not much difference between the two parties. We have had the Labour Government for three years. During those three years they have put up taxation. Let us look at our last three years. We lowered taxation by £450 millions. In three years the Labour Government has raised taxation by £1,000 millions. In our last three years, the deficit on our trade was only £42 millions. In their three years, the deficit is £342 millions. In our last three years, production went up 14 per cent. In their three years, we have had stagnation.

But then it is said, ‘But the Labour Government is spending a great deal on the social services for the people of this country; for every £100 it was spending when it came into power it is now spending £145.’ But what about our last three years? For every £100 we spent £143, a difference of £2. And what is it made up of? The great increase in the unemployment benefit which this country has to pay to the people who are out of work.

People are leaving this country. In 1966, under this Government, more people left in the brain drain than in the last three years of the Conservative Administration put together.

Let no one say that there are no differences in action, in what has happened, under three years of Labour compared with three years of Conservative administration.

They say that they were always blown off course, blown off by the shipping strike, blown off by the Middle East, or blown off by some other strike. But, they tell us, they are always rounding the corner – not, if I may say so, a very nautical way of putting it. In fact, of course, they have only their own policies to blame for their own failures.

Now the time has come when the people of this country are prepared to listen to the policies which we put forward. Our policies are there. They have been debated at this conference, admirably debated, with, if I may say so, replies of a very high standard from those who have answered our debates this week. These policies flow, as I have said, from the abiding inspiration of the Conservative Party, its belief in freedom, its belief in order, its belief in individual responsibility. This is the theme which we put before our country today, out of love for our country and respect for our fellow countrymen. It is because we believe in freedom that we also support private enterprise, as Mr, Maudling, our Deputy Leader, to whom we owe so much, said in his reply to the debate on the Motion this week.

We are the party of private enterprise. Never let us stop saying so. We believe that it should be free, that it should be enterprising, that it should be competitive, and that the Government should support it in all those activities, not subsidise it. Support it, give its backing, enabling it to be free and enterprising and competitive.

It is because we believe in freedom that we want to see the changes in taxation which have been described to you so often. We want to see people having greater freedom of choice with their own resources. We want them, therefore, to have the incentive to use their potential to the utmost.

It is because we believe in freedom that we want to see trade union reform. We want to see the man at the bench able to make the most of his abilities, without being held back by restrictive practices. We want him to be able to look after his family better, without being damaged by the strike activities of a small minority of his colleagues.

We want to see the agricultural system changed, because this will give freedom to the British farmer to expand, and it will at the same time give to any Chancellor of the Exchequer some more resources with which he can help to reduce taxation or improve social service benefits.

We want to see the future resources in the social services used for those who have the greatest need – to give freedom of choice to others, and to give a better service to the poorer sections of the community. It is because we want the citizen to be free to use his own resources to the greatest extent that we want Government expenditure to be controlled and the interference from central Government or local government reduced. Let us leave the citizen free to make his own decisions and to accept his own responsibility.

That, then, is our theme. It is the theme of freedom for our people, order and responsibility. Unless order is restored, then we cannot have our trade unionists working in freedom. This, perhaps, is the most immediate and crucial problem which faces us in this country today. The events which we are now witnessing do not arise from the fact that the trade union movement and its leaders are too strong but, as Robert Carr pointed out yesterday in his brilliant speech and analysis, it arises from the fact that they are too weak, that they do not have influence and control over their members in order to prevent many of the industrial difficulties which so often confront us.

It is because we have a conception of the trade union movement in a modern industrial society which corresponds to the importance of the position it holds, because we want to see the trade union leaders able to influence their members and because we want to see them playing a full part in improving the effectiveness and the efficiency of our industries that we want to bring about the reforms which we have put before you. Let no one say that we do not have detailed policies. The details have been worked out. They have been placed before you. They are there to be discussed. We are willing and anxious to discuss these with every part and sector of industry, trade unionists or employers. However, what I say to the Government is this: you can dally no longer over this matter which is so vital to our national life. It is not enough to have set up a Royal Commission. It is not enough to have emergency powers. The Government must set about the problem of trade union reform without any further delay. Let them go to it.

These policies, flowing from this central theme, form together one cohesive whole. There is no point in our trying to put one into effect on its own; they must be put into effect together.

Sometimes people say to me, ‘What would you advise the Government to do today or tomorrow? You must know.’ However, there is no point in telling the Government what to do. First of all, they ignore all advice. Secondly, this assumes that we would have got into this position ourselves, and nothing can he further from the truth than that. Even more, it assumes that this Government would be able to put into effect the policies which we have put before you at this Conference. That assumes that a Labour Government can have the confidence, either in this country or abroad, which a Conservative Government would inspire.

I am not going to say to you today whether this Government ought to consider the parity of the £. I do not believe it should, but I am not going to discuss it in detail. Nor am I going to say whether there ought to be import controls, surcharges or whether there ought to be a little more reflation or deflation. Those are matters which the Government of the day must decide on their own responsibility. However, in this country so many have become so obsessed with the daily problems of the management of the economy that they are entirely failing to pay attention to the fundamental reforms which have got to be brought about in our economic life if we are, once again, to have a strong, stable and prosperous economy. It is our task constantly to put before the people of this country the measures which have to be taken by a Conservative Government directly we get back into power. That is what we shall continuously do.

It can only be done by all of us together, by you, our loyal, hardworking Party supporters, by us in the House of Commons, by the National Union and by the Shadow Cabinet. I know how much is involved. I know full well the chores which go with political life. Having always fought a marginal seat, I know what is demanded of our Party workers up and down the country, and how generously they give of their time, their energy and their thought. Our only desire is to serve you and to serve the people of our country.

However, you must sometimes ask yourselves, ‘What is the purpose?’ We are sometimes still accused of materialism. I do not believe that to improve the conditions of life for the people of this country, which Disraeli, nearly 100 years ago, told us was one of the three main principles of the Conservative Party, is something which is to be condemned.

However, there is much more to it than that. Our purpose is to give a strong, secure and material base on which our fellow countrymen can enjoy the culture, the recreation and the spiritual activity which they want and which they deserve. I always feel that when we think of our purpose like that, then it makes all those chores worthwhile. I do not believe the people of this country yet recognise what modern life can hold for every one of us. I do not believe in telling people that they should work harder. What I do believe is that they should work more effectively and that we should use all the resources at our command – our savings for capital, our plant and industry and the new techniques which Ernest Marples is exploring for us. We should use all these things to enable each of our fellow countrymen and women to have more time, more leisure, which they can use for their own interests. I believe they should have the freedom to decide for themselves how they are going to build their own lives, the lives of their family and their children.

Sometimes it is thought that progress interferes with much of this. It is true that technical advance very often carries grave disadvantages, but these are accepted for the overall benefit which it brings. However, what surely is important is that we should look to our land, our countryside, the cliffs and the sea, to make sure that for all of our people there are those recreational facilities which will enable them not only to escape from their daily tasks, but to avoid many of the disadvantages of technical advance, and there find that refreshment of body and soul which is more and more essential for us as modern life becomes more and more complex.

Therefore that is our purpose. I believe it is a great one, worthy of all that our Party has been able to achieve in the past and worthy of giving us that inspiration for the future.

It is worthy of our great traditional inspiration, love of our country and respect for our fellow countrymen and women. This, I believe, is what they want. They want to show the traditional character of the British people.

Therefore, when you ask me what I want to achieve as Leader of the Party, I would say this: I want to restore confidence to the British people, and I want the whole of the Conservative Party now to devote all of its energies to doing just that.

It was Lord Randolph Churchill who said, ‘Trust the people.’ We trust the people to take their own decisions on their own responsibilities. The British people can trust us. They have no cause to be disillusioned with the Conservative Party. We have told them the truth, and we have been proved right. We shall go on trusting the people. But now we have one task as you go back to your constituencies, and that, more and more in the interests of our country, is to rouse the people. Let us go forth and rouse them to the situation which exists today, to the policies which are needed to put it right, and, above all, to the Party which alone is able to do it.

So often I think of those words at the end of King John which I give you here today: ‘Nought shall make us rue, As long as England to herself do rest but true.’

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, Edward Heath, to the 1965 Conservative Party Conference.

Lady Davidson, I want first to say how absolutely wonderful it is for all of us here to have you presiding over this final session of the Conference. Your typical approach and stimulating introduction have reflected the high spirits of this Conference which are obvious to us all. We thank you for the start you have given to us for our final session. We would like to say ‘Thank You’ for the splendid record of service which you and your husband have given so unstintingly to our Party. It is nearly half a century of service. I have to confess to you, Lady Davidson, that my early recollections of your entry into politics are slightly hazy. All I can say is that they are very much clearer than those of the present Chairman of the Party, who was not even born at that time!

It is a great pleasure to have Lord Davidson with us today, because he is part of our Party’s history. Ill though he is, we are glad that he has been able to come and give us that sense of continuity of our Party in all its activities during these past decades. So together we express to you our intense gratitude. Thank you for the welcome you have just given to me. We miss you from the House of Commons, because you were always our guide and friend. There was no need for us to adopt the present method of the Labour Party and have a lady in the Whips’ Office; there you always were, to look after us. I hope it will not be misunderstood if I say that to all of us – and especially my generation – you were indeed our mother.

Many happy things have happened to me this week, for which I want to thank you all. There have been many kindnesses, which I have greatly appreciated, and other things as well. I found in my Daily Mirror yesterday – I read it avidly, as no doubt you always do – that the barbers of West Bromwich had banded together and come to the conclusion that, seen from the back, my haircut was the best in the country. I can only apologise to you all that this splendid panorama has been reserved for the members of the National Executive Committee.

We have got to know each other well, and this is all-important in our political life. To come and be here at the Conference throughout has been of immense help to me, and perhaps, Madam President, Sir Max and Sir Clyde, who have done so much to make this Conference a success, I may express the hope that the invitation to the leader to be present may become part of the permanent pattern of our Party Conference. I think it will mean a new relationship between the Party as a whole and the Party at this Conference, lacking, I hope, nothing of the past but also being in tune with the times today. It has been a good Conference. Just think of all those fellows in Transport House with their eyes glued to the television screen, just to see that everybody was being fair to us and fair to them.

It has been a good Conference, and at Bexley, my own constituency, a fortnight ago – I had to get a plug in somewhere – I asked that this Conference should face facts realistically, frankly and courageously. Madam President, that is what we have done. We have done it to an even greater degree than I ever dared to hope.

Just look back over those splendid speeches from the hall: frank, honest, sometimes critical. Gone are the days of praise and platitudes – well, almost gone! A little praise is very agreeable sometimes, and the speeches from the platform show that I am right to be proud of the splendid team we have heard during the whole of this Conference. They are men of great experience: Mr. Maudling, the Deputy Leader of our Party, always at my right hand and by my side; Sir Alec Douglas-Home, a man of great experience with a wealth of negotiating experience; Iain Macleod; Enoch Powell; Peter Thorneycroft; Sir Keith Joseph; Tony Barber; and the other members of the Front Bench who have spoken; and Sir Edward Boyle, who not only spoke here during the Conference but addressed a great gathering of 2,000 people at CPC. It was a great intellectual gathering which had come to listen to what, I am told, was a very detailed, sustained argument about forecasting, or indicative planning, as it is technically known. This interested me greatly. I somehow feel that indicative planning is not really endemic in the British character. The forecast for the night of the CPC meeting – broadcast far and wide in every hotel – was heavy rain. Yet 2,000 people came to this hall without a single umbrella between them. It only shows that weather forecasts themselves are not enough. Somebody has got to do something about it. Then there were the younger members of the Front Bench: Margaret Thatcher, Peter Walker, David Price. They also made admirable speeches.

Did I really hear it said at Blackpool that Mr. Wilson, looking at the Government, said that man for man they could more than match us, more than match this team? Look again, Mr. Wilson, look again.

He had better look at some of the others as well. I will not mention their names; it would not mean anything to you. I will mention their Departments. What about the Minister of Transport in the present Labour Government? He has done absolutely nothing to alleviate our traffic problems, but he is the only Minister who produces jam today as well as promising jam tomorrow.

Then there is the President of the Board of Trade. Poor Mr. Jay – reduced to carrying George Brown’s bags to international conferences. When there is good news, that is; when there is bad news he has to open the bag and read it himself.

And Mr. Willey, the Minister landed without any natural resources. And the Postmaster General, Wedgwood Benn, that would-be whiz kid who always gets the wrong number – even when adding up his election expenses.

But there is one matter which is beyond a joke, and that is the Minister of Technology. In Londonderry a fortnight ago I challenged him to stand up and be counted, separate from the block vote, straightaway. I said, ‘Resign as General Secretary of your Union or resign as Minister because you cannot do both with honour.’ But he has not stood up to be counted. So I ask Mr. Wilson when he is going to restore the collective responsibility of his own Cabinet. Unless he does so, and until he does so, the whole country knows that despite the fine words, he is too weak himself even to deal with Mr. Cousins.

Now to return to our own Conference. On Wednesday I called for a change of mood, that we should put the emphasis on individual effort and enterprise, on the importance of choice for us all, on the need for freedom and independence to stand on our own feet. The outstanding thing about this Conference in Brighton this week has been that the mood is already changing. It is clear here in this Conference. It is a mood, too, of realism. Let me affirm that to the eyes of the world which are upon us.

Our task is to change the mood of the country as a whole. We know our line of advance. Let us see that other people do. Let us heed the wise, stimulating words of our young Chairman, who has just been speaking to you. We have presented and discussed our policies. We know them. Let us see that everyone else does. Let that be our resolve as we leave this Conference.

Realism, I said. We are realistic. What a contrast with Blackpool. Did you notice that George Brown in one of his happier moods said, ‘This has been a great year for Britain.’ A great year for Britain? Do we really read it aright? Where has he been living all this time? Has it been a great year for industry? The longest period of 7 per cent bank rate since 1921. The toughest credit squeeze since the twenties. Investment and modernisation programmes curtailed. Costs rising and production static. A great year for agriculture? The farmers, whom I am getting to know better and better, thought the weather was the biggest hazard they had ever had until they met this Government. Was it a great year for education, with the building programmes: universities, the technical colleges, colleges of education – the CATS – all severely cut? A great year for motorists, with the road programme slowed down? For the taxpayers, with taxes going up more than at any time since the last Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer? For the householders, with rates higher than ever before? For the ‘young marrieds’ with many home loan schemes closed down and with mortgage rates higher than for twenty years? Was it a great year for all of them?

Oh yes, I remember well that Mr. Wilson came to London and made a great speech, and said: ‘We shall provide specially favourable interest rates’ for those who are going to buy their own homes. He referred to a 4 per cent rate. Nothing specific – nothing in small print even, but just the implication – 4 per cent. This was enough to bring George Brown rushing down from the North to my own constituency, and what did he say? He implied that what he had in mind was 3 per cent. At any moment I expected to be overwhelmed by Jim Callaghan coming down and saying ‘2 per cent.’

We have the highest mortgage rates since 1945, and prices rising faster than for years – and what did George Brown say here? ‘We will tackle the problem of rising prices at the roots.’ Well – he did; he manured the roots.

Was it a good year for sterling – under threat for eleven months and supported by £1,100 million of additional debt? They sat there waiting for something to turn up, and in August, when another £1,000 million standby turned up, they preened themselves on having found the solution to our problems. A great year, indeed!

Yes, it has been a great year for the public relations men, stimulated by keen competition from the Prime Minister. It is the only competition in which he is really interested. He has his army of ‘admen’ in the basement – they must be getting pretty close to the bottom of the barrel now, looking for the glowing terms with which Mr. Wilson can pat himself on the back – ‘a dynamic Government,’ ‘a purposive Government,’ ‘an honest Government,’ ‘a frank Government,’ ‘a Government imbued with the Dunkirk spirit,’ and ‘a Government with guts.’ What self-adulation – and the latest word is ‘gritty.’ It goes back to David Lloyd George – sand in the works.

What is their defence for all these broken promises, for the blunders, for the incompetence and for the very high debts? The so-called £800 million deficit. Let us deal with this once and for all. It is time the people of this country recognised the truth, and it is very relevant to the judgment of last year, 1964, and it is very relevant to those of you who from the hall in our debates on policy and economic affairs asked us questions about the management of the economy next time.

Mr Wilson’s favourite trick is bitterly to attack those whom he accuses of selling sterling short. I will tell you the name of the man who in the past year has done far more than any other to sell sterling short: that is Harold Wilson himself. He did it by his politically-motivated exaggeration of the £800 million so-called deficit. We have suffered enough from this lie, and we must suffer no more. Let us look at it.

Of the £750 million overall deficit, £350 million was British investment overseas – solid assets like the Shell share in the Italian petrochemical industry. Those are assets of which Mr. Wilson is proud to boast when he travels abroad. Of the remainder, another £100 million was due to aid for the developing countries – and we in the Conservative Party are not ashamed of that, and we were always pressed to do more by the Labour Opposition.

But there was a gap, and I will tell you why. It was because during 1963 and 1964 the Conservative Government, under Mr. Maudling’s guidance, was deliberately trying to break out of the cycle of recession and expansion which we had experienced since the war: a stable expansion, more modernisation, greater competition, intensive regional redevelopment – all these together formed a coherent policy. And, as part of this expansion, we forecast a high level of imports in 1964. They were needed for our expansion, but they were higher because of stockpiling from fear of the restrictions which a new Labour Government might impose on our manufacturers. And by our policies we were encouraging exports to rise to catch up with our imports.

And, of course, the myth about this has been exploded by the Labour Government themselves. It has been exploded in their own National Plan – page 69, chapter 7, subsection 4. Go and read it, Mr. Brown, go and read it, and you will find there a fairer balance set out of the situation. It acknowledges and accepts all these facts, and demolishes the myth of the White Paper of 26th October of last year.

Let me remind you that Mr. Wilson himself supported this policy. Indeed, Labour, pressed us to expand faster. And on this policy of a steady expansion depended many of our hopes for the future, But what have the Government always done? They have always accused Mr. Maudling and our Government of refusing to take necessary action last year because of electoral considerations, refusing to take advice to deal with the economy. In fact, Mr. Maudling put up Bank Rate in January. He put another £100 million on the Budget in April. There is not one word of truth in the accusation that advice from any quarter to act was refused or rejected, and certainly never for electoral considerations.

But Mr. Wilson put political interest before the national interest. He broke the confidence on which our expansion depended. What mock horror he shows now at the state of affairs he says he found when he took office. What he forgets is that five weeks before the Election he accurately predicted the trade position. What he forgets is that two weeks after the Election he himself officially stated there was no need for measures of restriction. At the same time, he knew that the deficit this year was going to be halved – he was told so, and he said so in his own White Paper. Plus is no new discovery as a result of the Government’s policies of the past year. There were seven weeks when they knew the position, seven weeks when they said it was manageable. The crisis only came after their exaggeration and their muddle. The mess was created by Messrs. Wilson, Brown and Callaghan – messers indeed.

This Conference will be remembered for our policy document, Putting Britain Right Ahead. What we have done here is to work together on our action plans for the next Conservative Government. These plans you can put to the people. There are five of them which I wish to put before you to sum up our discussions.

First, our action plans to give all those who have already retired individual care and attention.

Second, our plans to give all those who retire in the future the real security for themselves and their families of a pension which can really be called their own.

Third, our plans for helping the young marrieds to find a home of their own, and a home at a reasonable price.

Fourth, our plans to ensure that the earner enjoys the prosperity that he himself, and only he himself, will be creating.

Fifth, our plans for giving the customer, whether the motorist or the commuter, the hospital patient or the housewife, better service and, above all, steadier prices.

All of these plans derive their strength from the two great driving forces of modern Conservatism. First, our belief in the virtue of a property-owning democracy, which Iain Macleod elaborated in his speech here. What does it mean? For us, it means three things: a home owning democracy, a share-owning democracy, and a pension-owning democracy. The other force, which has been emphasised time and again at this Conference, is our belief in the individual, the man and the woman, the individual as taxpayer and as a member of a trade union, the individual in the school and in old age, the individual at work and at play. Here, all around us, as well as in the rest of our country, we see the immense richness of diversity of individual character and personality and, let it be said, often eccentricity, which is the great source of our strength as a nation. It is this which we must nourish.

This Conference will be remembered, too, as you, Sir Max, recalled, for the debate on Rhodesia, in which passionate feelings were expressed with reason and in which the Conference reached a firm and clear decision. There were two young men yesterday who, I think this Conference will agree, showed great courage in the speeches which they made. One of them was Jonathan Aitken, son of a dear friend of many of us here, Bill Aitken, who, alas, died so recently – but with whose great uncle, I am afraid, I sometimes disagreed. His was a remarkable speech.

I wish to say a few words about Rhodesia. Last Saturday I saw Mr. Smith. I did so only after the negotiations between the two Governments had broken down. My main object was to find some means of re-starting the dialogue between the two Governments, of seeing that the negotiations continued. We could not leave the British Government to sit in Whitehall and Mr. Smith to go off to Salisbury, possibly to take the drastic step of a unilateral declaration of independence. I did not believe that this could possibly be allowed to remain where it was.

Later that night, we saw Mr. Wilson. As a result of the points we raised, there was a further meeting between Mr. Wilson and Mr. Smith on Monday, and I was glad of it. Later that evening, I issued a statement, after the meeting of the Shadow Cabinet, urging further negotiations. On the Tuesday, Mr. Wilson made the proposal for a Commonwealth Mission. It may seem strange to some that, if such a proposal were going to be made, it was not discussed with Mr. Smith when he was in London. But at least it means that another method of keeping negotiations open is being examined.

The position the last British Government took up, which has been followed by the present Opposition, was clearly stated yesterday by Sir Alec Douglas-Home. A unilateral declaration of independence would be invalid. Its impact would have the gravest consequences. The whole Commonwealth, the old members of the Commonwealth as well as the new, have made that abundantly plain. In these two respects the present Government’s policy has followed ours, but the handling of the negotiations is the Government’s responsibility alone. They have not, and cannot have, a blank cheque from us on that. We are free to criticise the conduct of the negotiations, and, if I may say so, the Government themselves need to look again at the psychology of their handling of these negotiations and their relations with Rhodesia.

To all our citizens in this country, in these very difficult moments, I would say how greatly I deplore the use by anyone of the emotive words, words like ‘treason’ and ‘traitors,’ which can do nothing whatever to help to bring a solution to this problem. As an Opposition we shall concentrate all our efforts on securing a solution by negotiation.

This Conference made it abundantly clear yesterday that the overwhelming majority present wish to do nothing to prejudice that. This is why it overwhelmingly supported the Resolution. As your Leader, I bear an immense responsibility in this matter. With my colleagues I shall continue to discharge it, knowing that you have given us your confidence. Today, at the end of this eventful week everyone here prays that there will be no unilateral declaration of independence by Rhodesia. We pray that with all our hearts. Our views are known to the British Government, and, on behalf of us all, I should like to send this solemn message to Mr. Smith and his colleagues: ‘We believe that a middle way must be found. If there are still thoughts of unilateral action, then turn back from the brink.’

In that debate yesterday, and throughout the week, many of you spoke of the consequences, for good or ill, of change. We are just twenty years since the end of the Second World War. There is no particular magic in that figure, but a whole generation has now come to manhood who knew nothing of it, and those of us who did now realise how far off it all is. To my generation, who had just reached manhood before the last war, how different the situation is. Some of us were born along this coast, looking across the Channel always towards Europe, loving our country and outward-looking. Then we used to take our chance without any money to get across to Europe and to wander round and see it. Why? Because Europe still then, and only twenty-five or thirty years ago, was the hub of power in the world as a whole; it was the centre of affairs still as it had been for centuries. Then it all changed. Now today this is a time, twenty years after that cataclysm, when men’s minds are again beginning to question so many of the things they have since taken for granted; to question the things in their daily lives, in their jobs, in their families and in their country. This is happening all over the world where people are trying now to find a fresh equilibrium. Even in the year since the last election this process has moved apace. The first practical steps have been taken towards nuclear weapons in China. We have seen the polarisation of the Sino-Soviet conflict. For us in some ways the most important of all, we see the changing balance between the two sides of the Atlantic. Whether it is in trade, in industrial goods or in farm produce, whether it is in the international financial arrangements, whether it is in the defence of the west as a whole, the old arrangements are being questioned and new ones have to be worked out.

How different the situation was when these arrangements were first made. Europe was weak then, and across the Atlantic they were powerful. They gave generously of their strength, and as a result Europe today is rebuilt, prosperous and flourishing in trade and finance. The more clearly the changing balance between the two sides of the Atlantic is understood, then the greater are our chances of redressing the balance without friction between friends. It is in this position today that I want Britain to be able to exert her influence.

I want again to have a British policy. I do not want this in any nasty nationalistic sense; I want it in order to be able to perform our duty internationally as we do here, with the traditions of centuries and she experiences of ages, to do our duty as we see it. I want us to do our duty in the Western Alliance, in Europe, in the Commonwealth and the developing countries as a whole. Alas, today this Government has neither the power nor the will to pursue such a policy; overburdened with debt it is inhibited from pursuing effective action. Therefore, it is we who must pursue a British policy.

What we have to do now is to carve out a new place for Britain in the world, carve it out without nostalgia, without bitterness and without regret, but with imagination, skill and with determination. That is what our discussions this week have been about. Change has been constantly on our lips. Change in attitudes, change in skills, change in policies, and in people. But the change most necessary is a change in Government.

In this world where the constant need is to understand change, the Labour Party today, as we see them, have all the wrong attributes. Why? Because they consist of one part revolutionaries and three parts stand-patters. They are revolutionary optimists wishing to march back into the 19th century to the time of the birth of their doctrine. They are evolutionary pessimists finding every conceivable argument why day-to-day change should not take place. They are rooted in vested interest. They are avid for the status quo. It is no paradox, strange though it may seem, that in a period of rapid change like this, what the nation needs is leadership from a progressive and modern Conservative Party, for it is only we Conservatives who will get moving and seize the opportunities which exist for us as a country. It is only we Conservatives who will act, and it is only we Conservatives who will remember and care, as change goes on, for the individuals – and there are always many who find it difficult and uncomfortable. Above all, it is only the Conservatives who will have the foresight and the sense of history to keep and protect those elements which are fundamental and valuable in our society, to keep the things which make this country the place where we want to live.

The moral of this is plain. We must regain power, but power has to be won. We must work to bring it back. There is no easy way. I did not disguise this when I became your leader. It must be clear to every one of us here at this Conference. Once again, it is the efforts of the individual men and women which count. Let us face this fact realistically. The Government today is still on trial by the people of this country. But we also know that the day of reckoning will soon come. It will come when the people of this country find that words are no substitute for deeds; that publicity is no substitute for policies; and that gimmicks are no substitute for government. We here, every one of us, and those whom we represent in our constituencies can bring that day nearer. We do so as we capture the hearts and the minds of our fellow citizens by our own personal influence one upon another. You, Madam Chairman, with all your long experience of politics, will know that that is in fact the only way. But great is the prize. It is to guide the destinies of Britain in this ever-changing world. It is that upon which we set our hearts here at this Conference today. It is that prize and nothing less which together we will win.