Chapter 17 Section 3 Ted and Enoch

As a member of the Shadow Cabinet, I participate in the Cabinet's weekly discussions.Discussions are usually held on Wednesdays in Ted's office in the House of Commons.In general the discussions were not very active.We start by looking ahead to the week's parliamentary business and deciding who will speak and on what lines.Maybe a colleague will submit something and introduce it to everyone. But there is no question that we generally do not debate openly because we know we have great differences, especially on economic policy, involving major issues of principle.Ted is a good chair of the meeting, and on issues he is very interested in, such as Europe, a trade union legislation) he will lead the discussion.But more often than not, he lets the speaker moderate the discussion on the issue.

I myself have not made a particularly significant contribution to the Shadow Cabinet, nor have I been asked to.To Ted, and perhaps others, I participated in the Shadow Cabinet mainly as a fixed figure of a woman.My main task is to explain "women" to people, such as Kiri de Canava, Barbara Catland, Esther Lanter, Stella Leamington, etc. indiscriminately As a woman and as a woman thinks and demands on some controversial issues, of course I am very fond of Shadow Foreign Secretary Alec Douglas-Home and I get on well with most of my colleagues.But only three of them were my real friends—Keith Joseph, Peter Thomas, and Edward Boyle.At this time, Edward had completely taken the position of another faction in the party that was opposed to me.

With some tension between most leaders, the atmosphere at our meeting was undeniably awkward.Ted was determined to assume the leadership of the party, but he did not really have full self-confidence.Deputy leader Reggie Maudlin has not recovered from his surprise defeat in the leadership race.Ian McLeod is one of the most politically astute of us.He always has a special sense of how the press will perceive the policies we adopt.Although he was a phenomenal public speaker, he was actually rather reserved and reserved.He grew emotionally estranged from his longtime friend Enoch Powell, who became increasingly concerned about immigration issues and Ian, who was equally concerned but had the exact opposite views.There is no doubt that Enoch is the best talent among us-classics scholar, historian, economist, biblical master.Unlike Ian, Enoch was a phenomenal public speaker, always able to grab the attention of the House of Commons, and indeed any audience, with his impeccable logic and well-controlled passion.But at this time, he is pretty much alone in the Shadow Cabinet.Ted Heath disliked him, and probably feared him.He has fought and lost against income policy.As defense spokesman, he was compelled to attack Labour's policy of withdrawing British troops east of the Suez Canal, despite his own belief that a withdrawal was inevitable.Furthermore, as an MP for the West Midlands, he has seen the impact of mass immigration on his constituency.He has been frustrated by the failure of the Conservative Party to take a strong stance on the issue.

The first modern immigration control measure was formulated by Rab Steller in 1961.Until then, Commonwealth citizens were exempt from restrictions on the entry of foreign immigrants, and the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act - legislation fiercely opposed by Labor and the Liberals - imposed annual quotas on immigrants coming to the UK for employment to limit immigration inflows. In 1965 the Labor government enforced this system more strictly. In 1967, the Kenyan government implemented discriminatory policies against Asian immigrants in Kenya, resulting in a large influx of immigrants into the UK.This has made everyone aware of the scale and impact of immigration in the past, and worried that if it is not controlled, the number of immigrants will be even higher in the future.There is particular concern for those who hold Commonwealth passports but have no ties to the UK, either by birth or descent. In February 1968, Jim Callaghan announced legislation to address this problem.This matter is closely related to the Race Relations Act 1968, a race relations legislation passed by Parliament.The purpose of the law is to prevent discrimination against people of color.Many on the right have opposed it, arguing that the law could make immigrants a legally privileged group that would remove their incentive to fully integrate into British society.

On Monday, February 1968, the Shadow Cabinet discussed the government's Commonwealth Immigration Act, under which the government would introduce new immigration controls.A week ago, we issued a statement setting out our principles for evaluating the measure.Ted.Heath said it was now time for the shadow cabinet to discuss whether the bill adequately met those principled conditions.In fact, the bill includes some of the content we proposed, but it does not provide for the registration of immigrant family members, nor does it provide for the appeal of those who are denied entry, and it does not provide for financial assistance to voluntary deportees.Therefore, the meeting decided to support the bill and also decided to propose amendments when possible and appropriate.But Ian McLeod said he would vote against the bill.He really did what he said.

On Monday 10 April, the Shadow Cabinet discussed another aspect of government policy, the Race Relations Bill.At the beginning of the discussion, Ted Heath spoke first. He said that although the bill itself seemed to have many flaws, he still believed that it was necessary to establish some kind of legal mechanism to improve the situation of immigrants of color in the UK.Shadow Home Secretary Quentin?Hogg expounded his own point of view in more detail.He thinks legislation is necessary, but we should introduce amendments.At the same time, he pointed out that our backbenchers had relatively strong opposition to the bill.Reggie Maudlin agrees with Quentin on both points.I did not participate in the subsequent discussion, which centered on the fact that the bill, while flawed, risked being misunderstood as racist if we voted against it on second reading.The shadow's view to the cabinet is that the best guarantee of good race relations is the belief that future immigration will not be too large and that existing laws will be upheld.In the end, the cabinet decided to draft a well-reasoned amendment, implement a two-pronged approach, and generally require members of the party to vote in favor.Liberal Keith Joseph, Edward Boyle and Robert.Carr reserved his position until he saw the text of the amendment, and they all voted for it, although some backbenchers abstained.

On Sunday, April 21, 1968, two days before the parliamentary debate, I woke up to find that the front pages of the major newspapers were all about Enoch Powell's speech on immigration in Birmingham the previous afternoon.The speech was strongly worded, some of which were not without vicious intent.But I sympathize with his concern and discontent over the massive influx of new Commonwealth immigrants into the UK.I also think it's a threat not only to public order, but also to the way of life in some communities.Their spirits have begun to sink because of unsatisfactory housing policies, reliance on social security and the arrival of a "permissive society".While some of his speech may sound like a racist, I'm sure Enoch was anything but a racist.

At about 11 o'clock Ted Heath called and said, "I'm calling everyone in the shadow cabinet and I've come to the conclusion that Enoch must resign." Let's say it's a statement.But I replied that I do think it's better to let things cool down than exacerbate the crisis at the moment.Ted didn't listen to me at all. "No, no," he said, "he's got to resign, most people think he has to." In fact, I later learned that if Enoch didn't go, several people in the Shadow Cabinet would resign. This is tragic in several respects, and in the short run it deprives us of the political gains of advocating for tougher controls on immigration.Immigration is a concern across the political spectrum and across society, as evidenced by the London dockworkers march in support of Enoch.In addition, in reality, Ted's policy is not very different from Enoch's policy on this issue; although Enoch's speech made the Conservative Party's policy on immigration clearer, in fact We both want strict restrictions on immigration from Commonwealth countries, "and we are all ready to provide financial help to those who wish to return to their countries.

But the long-term ramifications of Enoch's resignation over the incident and under the circumstances go far beyond immigration policy.After resigning, he was free to start thinking about a series of policies from a rational level, freed from the constraints of having to make compromises due to collective responsibility. His policy thinking covered economics and foreign affairs, what was later called "monarism" and the reduction of government control , denationalization, ending regional policy, etc., and finally he opposed Britain's entry into the European Common Market.Leaving Enoch alone to promote these ideas has served both good and bad for those on the right in our Shadow Cabinet and later on.On the one hand, his political shift to the right makes it easier to put forward plausible theories without being accused of taking extreme positions.Ted and Enoch, on the other hand, were at odds with each other, and it was likely to be perceived as disloyal to question any of the policies proposed by the leader.In addition, the various claims made by Enoch belong to a unified whole, and it is more difficult to only agree with one or two of them.For example, his anti-price and income policies: interventionism and views on totalism would be more acceptable if they were not linked to his views on immigration or Europe.

At that time, other Conservatives tended to take the same position on issues other than Europe.Ted offered me the opportunity to plot this route.The annual speeches of the Conservative Political Center aim to introduce some important rational ideas to those who come to Conservative Party conferences.It is usually up to party leaders to decide who gives the speech.No doubt it appears that a poll or a Tory adviser suggested that it might be a good idea for me to speak on a subject that appeals to 'women'.Fortunately, I can choose the topic myself.So I decided to choose a topic that would appeal to thoughtful people, both men and women.My title is, "What's Wrong With Politics?"

There is no better way to clarify your thinking than to articulate your own insights to others.I knew that many big issues were being discussed in politics at the time, and whatever one might say about the 1960s, those years were a time of lively thought and lively debate, even though many of the ideas for change came from the left.I borrowed a bunch of philosophical, political, and historical books, white papers, parliamentary records, and various speeches, and took them back to Lamberhurst's home.With no one to guide or help me, I just slog along, like the adage's iceberg, with a lot of labor behind my final document. I start by listing why so many people are disenchanted with politics.Part of the reason is indeed that people are more educated, read more newspapers, and criticize things more.Others are of the politicians' own making, and the political program is full of promises, which become more powerful as the welfare state expands.This leads me to what I believe to be the main reason why the public has become increasingly withdrawn from politics: too much government.Political parties compete to promise that they will take the economy to a higher level.And the notion that government could do all this gave socialists an opportunity to massively expand state control and intervention.This in turn makes ordinary people feel that they have too little say in their own and family life.The left proclaims that the answer lies in creating a structure that allows people to participate democratically in political decision-making, but the real problem is that politics itself has become involved in many decisions that it should not be in charge of.As government regulation has expanded, a political mindset has developed that seeks scale—that is, the argument that a large unit can improve efficiency.In fact, the opposite is true, and small units, small businesses, families, and ultimately individuals should once again be the focus. In addition to these ideas, part of my report at the Politics Center was on price and income policy.Sticking to the cabinet line on both issues, condemning coercive policies while avoiding voluntary ones, I have added the following paragraph: We are now putting too much emphasis on controlling income that has nothing to do with government functions, while ignoring the basic role of the government-controlling the money supply and managing demand.Greater emphasis on this role and less emphasis on specific external controls would achieve more economic results, which would, of course, mean that the government itself would need to exercise the same self-regulation it is eager to ask others to do.This means spending in the many public sectors should not exceed what tax and real balances can bear. In retrospect, the above thoughts show how much I understood these issues, and how much I did not understand.I realized then that the money supply was at the heart of all policies to control inflation, but I did not see that controlling the money supply would remove the need for any income policy, nor did I see that monetary policy itself was the way to control demand. Partly, I think, because of the attention I received while lecturing at the Politics Centre, I was asked to write two articles on general political philosophy for the Telegraph early the following year.In these articles, I go further on the same subject.In particular, I made the point that ideological conflict between opposing political parties is necessary for an effective democratic functioning.Therefore, the pursuit of "consensus" is fundamentally depriving the people of their right to choose.It's wrong to talk about keeping big issues out of politics" or to suggest that people who think differently about an issue are "playing the political game." I refer to this specifically when I talk about nationalization or free enterprise A little. But I should have done so on a range of other issues, notably on education. Soon education became my main political concern. The plans for comprehensive schools pursued by socialists not only threatened Britain's Schools, but also a threat to long-term social progress. Later, whether I was the leader of the opposition party or the prime minister, I said repeatedly: the demand for "consensus" itself is full of misunderstandings.