Chapter 41 The fourth quarter is difficult

In the past few months as the leader, although I have encountered many difficulties, I still welcome the autumn party's annual meeting in a good state of mind.Ted and his friends seemed to be trying to keep up the fence, but my few visits had improved my situation.The economic policy of the Labor government has been a mess.Polls ahead of the party's annual conference showed the Conservatives leading Labor by 23 percentage points.My job at Blackpool is to demonstrate that I can build on these achievements with the support of the whole party in this country.At the party's annual meeting, the leader's speech is very different from what other speakers of the Shadow Cabinet speak at the annual meeting.It must be broad enough that the speaker is not criticized for "dodging" a difficult issue.Also, the parts of your speech have to be consistent with the theme, or you'll end up with what I call a "Christmas tree" of oaths and credits, and always use "" I'm going to talk about..." Such a dull traditional opening sentence.A weighty speech should inspire the faith of the party and assuage the fears of doubters, in a sense more like poetry than prose.The author should not try to use flowery words, what matters is the thoughts, feelings and emotions contained in it.Some material may be easily used to write a clear and persuasive essay, but may not be suitable for speaking at all.The speaker must scrutinize the speech carefully, and if it is found to be dangerous and unclear, it must be deleted.But even then, a well-executed speech may read almost pallidly in print.All of these I need to learn all over the next few years.In 1975, when I started to prepare the first draft of the leader's speech for the party's annual meeting, I could not be regarded as having initially mastered this knowledge.

I told my speechwriter that I was not going to give a speech on economic issues.What goes wrong economically is because other aspects of thinking and philosophical principles go wrong.The economic crisis reflects the spiritual crisis of the nation.But when I brought up my ideas for drafting my speech and discussed it with Chris Patton and everyone in the research department, I felt that they didn't understand what I wanted to convey at all.So I sat at home all week and wrote a 6-page manuscript in large letters.I didn't find it difficult at all: the writing kept flowing.But is this a speech?On Sunday morning, as I was revising after rereading, Woodrow "Wyatt" - the former Labor MP turned entrepreneur, author, party sympathizer and close friend - called and I told him I was working on it, and he suggested that I go to his house for dinner at night so he could read the story. The seasoned reporter saw problems that I couldn't. So the two of us began to cut, frame, and re- Organization. When I arrived in Blackpool, I had the opening part of the annual conference speech ready. I found that Chris Patton et al. had written new material. I combined the two parts and produced the first draft. .

In the past, the leader of the party only appeared at the end of the annual meeting, as if descended from the sky, came to deliver his speech to the reverent and humble crowd, and it was Ted who changed this routine.I took it a step further.In addition to arriving early, I took every opportunity to meet with constituency representatives as it was my first time attending the annual meeting as a leader.I know I must win their loyalty.In fact, I went as far as the convention organizers would agree, spending time talking to people off stage when I should have been sitting on stage. In between receptions and seminars, I also check in on the progress of the speechwriters.Adam Ridley assisted in writing Economic Matters.Angus Maude also joined in now and then, and he had, like Woodrow, the knack for making a speech shine with just a few tweaks.Richard Ryder was the general editor of the speech.Gordon Reese used his expertise to teach me how to present this manuscript, taking care not to break the applause and rush to the next after a good passage--a common practice of a less-than-sophisticated or less confident speaker.

It wasn't until Wednesday, however, that I realized that none of the people who worked tirelessly in my suite were what the jargon calls a "wordsmith."We've settled on a basic draft of the manuscript's structure, ideas, and even some clever jokes.But we need someone who has a sense of words to connect the whole manuscript.Gordon recommended playwright Ronnie Miller, who had drafted Ted's radio scripts in the past, to help.The entire manuscript was rushed to Ronnie for "Roniization" (as I always say afterwards).The manuscript was sent back with a new look, or rather, he said, it was finally returned as a speech.Then there was another round of cuts and reprints, all through the night on Thursday.By the time the job was done at 4:30 a.m. on Friday, I felt like I could go inside and sleep for an hour or so.

Early on Thursday evening, I was reading through a freshly written speech when I was called to the telephone to speak to Willie Whitelaw.Willie told me that Ted had arrived in the city and was staying at the same hotel as me (the Imperial Hotel).His suite is two floors down from mine.Over the months some of Ted's friends had urged him to make up with me.No doubt they made Willie think that now was the perfect time for reconciliation.He explained to me that there is an element of ego in this sort of thing and that Ted couldn't come and see me in person.So would I like to meet him?I immediately replied that of course I would.Willie said that was "absolutely fantastic" and said he would call me to confirm.I immediately dived back into the speech.About an hour and a half passed without a call.Since it was about 10 o'clock, and I had a lot of work to do with the speeches, I thought we had to get down to the "work of reconciliation" in earnest.So I called to ask Willie how it was going, only to learn that Ted had other ideas.Obviously, the fighting has not been resolved.

When Blackpool really developed into a seaside resort, the city's Hermitage became a sight in confident mid-Victorian style.There are a variety of cafes, restaurants, bars, a theatre, and the Queen's Ballroom, where the main event of the Conservative Party's annual conference is held. The word "ballroom" is far from being able to truly express the magnificence of its spacious and enlarged hall. Together with the spacious terrace, the gold, powder, and dazzling luxury, it gives people a warm feeling, as if it is a speech. welcome.I've always preferred it to the aloofness and hospital cleanliness of more modern conference facilities.The climax of the Conservative party conference has created a special kind of excitement in Blackpool.For me, although it was almost a sleepless night, I had confidence in my speech and put everything on it.This speech has two purposes: first, it is to make a concluding indictment, not just of the policies of the Labor Party, or even just of the Labor Government, but of the whole socialist method of thought.Second, I use this to illustrate the Conservative Party's view, which not only uses phrases like "free market" and "independence of individuality" formally, but takes these phrases seriously as the basis for future policy.Even reading it today, 20 years later, I can't find anything that needs to be changed, especially the parts that state my credo and beliefs.

Let me make my point: the right of a man to work as he pleases, to spend his income, to own property, to have the state as a servant rather than a master - all are British heritage. ...we must put private enterprise back on the road to recovery—not just giving people more money of their own to spend as they choose, but more money to help the elderly Weak and disabled people.I believe that just as each of us has an obligation to do what we can, so too does government have an obligation to create an institutional framework that enables those within us to do what we want.Either we go down the old road and continue to indulge, or we stop there and say "enough" decisively.

When my speech started and was interrupted by applause and cheers, I relaxed.One can always find something interesting about theatrical effects at each of the Conservative party conferences.And those who are interested can distinguish which are heartfelt applause and which are unnatural perfunctory.These heartfelt applause shocked me.In addition, this scene was very different from any welcome party I have experienced in the past.As critics have said, this is also very different from the annual meeting situation in recent years.Clearly I struck a chord with people not so much in the way I delivered the speech but more in the way I expressed the sentiments of a confident Conservative.The representatives present heard their own voices from the conference podium, so they responded with great enthusiasm.I too was infected by the passion of some of them.Whether it is on stage or off stage, there is a kind of atmosphere, that is, some kind of change is taking place in the situation.

Will this effect still exist outside the Queen's Ballroom?I hope, and in my heart, I am sure that the Daily Mail editorial on this speech was correct: "If this is the sudden right turn her critics claim, then 90 percent of the nation's This has been done many years ago." After a year as Leader of the Opposition, I feel self-reliant (but I still don't feel comfortable in my new role in the House of Commons. I have developed strong links with the parliamentary groups and Conservative Party organizations across the country. For my office I am very satisfied with how well our small team is working. I only hope that the Shadow Cabinet will also be steered in the right direction.

My family life has also entered a new track.Dennis is officially out of BMW, although he's busy with his other businesses.The twins, both 22, are leading their own separate lives: Carol is about to finish her training as a lawyer and will go to Australia in 1977 to become a journalist.Mark is still studying accounting.Fllard Street is our home in London, where I entertain guests and in my Parliament room when Parliament is in session. Two weeks after the Conservative Party Conference we moved into an old flat at Scotneyburg in Lambert (we rented a house at Cote Apartments as a transition after selling the "Mount" ).Our friend Simal Kazaletkir, a former MP, also owns an apartment there.He held frequent luncheons and seemed to know everyone within miles of Fang Yuan.Oh old friend Edward Boyle had a house not far away.Other neighbors were the Longfords, Edward Crankshaw (who was Hezberg's historian), and Malcolm Muggeridge.But the most engaging discussions took place around the dinner table at Simar Kazalet-Keir's house.For me it was a break from the high tension and heated political atmosphere of Westminster.When we say goodbye after a meal, I often resolve to try to learn more about a topic or broaden my reading.For example, when discussing communism, Malcolm Muggerich said that the whole mentality of communism can be experienced in Dostoyevsky's "The Possessive", and he suggested that I read This book. "I read the book, found he was right, and delved further and deeper into Russian thought and literature.

We had a great first Christmas at Scotney.But there is no doubt that I think 1976 will be a year of testing for me.Britain is in an economic crisis which, if sustained, will soon involve the International Monetary Fund as a direct force in the operation of the British economy.The Labor government has no idea what to do about it, not least because it's losing its small parliamentary majority, but we in the Conservative Party are having a hard time turning this to our advantage, apparently because people see trade unions as It is powerful and omnipotent.So we're always at the disadvantage of being forced by the question: "What are you going to do to union organizations?" or, more ominously, "What are you going to do to unions?" Add to this the widespread criticism of Shadow Pavilion's performance, which of course included me.I am determined to make some necessary reforms.On January 15, 1976 I reorganized the team.The reorganization of the opposition party team always has a strong farce color.The layout of the Leader of the Opposition's parliamentary suite prevented me from controlling people's comings and goings, and from treating my lucky and unlucky colleagues with the appropriate nuance.There are always awkward encounters.Fortunately, a reorganization won't spill a lot of blood on the carpet. I am delighted that John Biffen is willing to join the Shadow Pavilion as energy spokesperson.He was probably the most eloquent and effective critic on the backbench at the time when the policies of the Heath government were making a U-turn, and I welcome him on board.If the promotion of John Biffen meant that we were serious about correcting the totalist mistakes we made in the past, the reappointment of Douglas Hurd—a close aide to Ted—as the party's spokesman for Europe shows How Dak feels about himself, I don't hold a grudge against anyone who did Heng under him.I put Willie in place of Ian Gilmour as Home Secretary and Ian Gilmour in charge of Defence, and he became a very dynamic and effective spokesman for the Shadow Cabinet - if he stops there, all The people involved will be able to live more easily.Other job arrangements are like playing a game of grabbing seats.I moved Patrick Jenkin to social services to replace Norman Fowler, who became transport spokesman outside the Shadow Cabinet, and Francis Pym, who recovered from his illness, took over agriculture. The rebuilt Shadow Pavilion faces three major strategic issues.First, as already mentioned, this is the question that commentators keep repeating: "If you formed a government, how would you deal with trade unions?" We desperately need a convincing answer, because with the Coming, the possibility of the collapse of the Labor government is growing. The problem is exacerbated for us by not being able to rely on the well-known industrialists of the CBI, who are horrified by the "three-day week" and the collapse of the Heath government.Keith, Geoffrey, Jim and I met with the leaders of the Confederation of British Industry in January 1976.We heard an anecdote: members of the CBI will apparently be "intimidated" if we don't support the government's income policy.They themselves have decided to support the policy for another year and possibly two.They dislike dividend control and struggle to get rid of price controls.This is all good.But it was clear that they weren't being honest enough, either with me or with themselves.Not only are they terrified of nerves, but they are even interested in controlling wages in a declining world—and in the "meetings of the local industrial and agricultural committees of the National Economic Development Board"—commonly known as the "Little National Economic Development Board"—that Interested in a whole totalist approach.These are a bunch of managers who have no hope of getting back to actually running their companies. I disagree with this defeatism.I still agree with Jim Pryor: we have to show that if we form a cabinet we can create a working link with the unions. In my speech to the Young Conservatives in Scarborough in early February, I took up this theme, stating that "the more we have a majority, the more clearly it is that people in the union vote Conservative. So it is not difficult to argue with responsible unions Leaders getting along." Admittedly, that didn't help us much. On the following Friday, February 13th, we at the Shadow Pavilion had a day of discussion, mainly based on a paper by Jim Pryor.The paper urges us to both show voters that we have consulted the TUC when shaping our policies, and show the TUC that these policies lead to prosperity and jobs.But can all this be achieved without the necessary reforms?I have doubts.I emphasized that we have always been willing and able to get along well with the unions, and I made this point through interviews and speeches in February.This aroused the dissatisfaction of my right-wing supporters.Ultimately this line of thought failed, not because of opposition from the right wing of the party, but because the British Trades Congress failed to produce any meaningful response. After Jim's paper was discussed, another year passed, in 1-977 , I met the TUC leaders informally and privately: the meeting itself was quite cordial, but surprisingly there was no real convergence of views.In any case, the Glenwick incident and the "closed factory" controversy had begun to cast a cloud over our relationship by then.No matter how much Jim believed there would be strategic benefits in "talking straight" with the unions, we didn't achieve anything meaningful.And when the "winter of discontent" of 1978-79 came, our bad relationship with the British trade unions turned out to be an unmistakable advantage for us. The government initially held a three-vote majority in parliament over all other parties combined, but this majority continued to shrink until it disappeared in April 1976.How we can best use this situation is the second problem we have.This is obviously beneficial to the opposition, but there are potential difficulties.The press tends to exaggerate our actual chances of defeating the government, which after all has a sizeable majority over the Conservatives.So when something is barely implemented, our domestic supporters are often resentful, disappointed, and want to blame the people involved. What's more, our occasional victories don't seem to suggest that we can do much.The government's position is precarious, but it can still get by. On Wednesday 11th February (on my first anniversary as party leader) we won a motion to cut the salary of Industry Minister Eric Varley by £1,000 - a formal expression of our rejection of government policy one of the ways.Then, in March 1976, when a vote was held on the government's spending plans amid the sterling crisis, the government was defeated by a left-wing revolt.Then, as it should be done in such circumstances, I call on the Prime Minister to resign.On the following Tuesday, Harold Wilson actually resigned, and before he announced it, I received a note from him informing me of it. I have nothing good to say about Harold Wilson's two terms as Prime Minister.Undoubtedly, he has principles, but due to his ingenious evasion, his principles are blurred, so that it is difficult for friends and enemies to determine what his principles are.But I still regret his departure for a number of reasons.Personally, I've always liked him.I appreciate his sense of humor and know his kind heart.He was also an orator in Parliament, and I was usually only equal to him in Parliament at best. And so did his successor, Jim Callahan.He projected a patriarchal demeanor in Parliament that was actually arrogance.This makes it difficult for me to seriously criticize government policy without appearing to be blah.In a larger sense Mr Callaghan is a moderate cover for his leftist party and its trade union backers.As a result, he expressed views and attitudes on issues such as education, family policy and the rule of law that were never reflected in government policy.His tactics were brilliant, but he was not strategically successful - until finally, in the "winter of discontent", the entire moderate image of Labor collapsed like a house on the beach.But until then, he has shown himself to be an extremely capable party leader; within three years of his tenure as prime minister, he has a real feel for public opinion; Policy breaks with Keynesian economic thought.He is a formidable opponent. In the weeks since Jim Callaghan became prime minister, relations between the government and the opposition had faltered as Labor played tricks on bills to nationalize the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.After lobbying by one of our backbenchers, Robin Maxwell-Hislop, the Speaker ultimately ruled that the bill was a mixture and therefore needed to go through a special (and time-consuming) procedure in the House.Labor announced that they could ask the House to set aside the relevant rules of procedure, effectively defeating the Speaker's ruling.That's despicable enough, and there's more to it than that.Several MPs from both parties were uncomfortable that night, so arrangements were made for one-on-one bipartisan not to vote.It just so happened that the Labor Party had one more sick MP than us that day, and no MP from our party would not vote together with his counterpart.There were two votes that night, the second immediately following the first.There is a tie for the first term.By convention, the government loses when the speaker votes to keep the status quo, signaling to the government's parliamentary stewards that they are missing a vote for the next - and very important - bill.So they went out and found a Labor MP who had been paired—that is, he and a Conservative MP had agreed that neither of them would vote that night.They pushed him into the Labor Party polling room, and the government won by a one-vote majority. With the Labor Party having effectively lost its majority, the appeal to them to do such a thing is clearly strong.But it is totally unacceptable to nationalize the two major industrial sectors by only one vote, breaking the prior agreement.Both sides were furious.Michael Heseltine, who is our leading Opposition speaker in this debate, the spokesman for industry, feels insulted and grabs the scepter that's been placed between the two sides and tries to hand it to Labour's MPs, as a symbol of their breach of parliamentary tradition.What he did was in itself a grave affront to parliamentary order, as Jim Pryor himself realized when he calmed Michael down. The action I took was less drastic. I demanded that all arrangements for Members not to vote be cancelled, withdraw cooperation on parliamentary business, and ask the government to re-vote on the bill.This is done to create the biggest problem for the government: not only do all their MPs - no matter how prominent - have to be present for important votes, but the government doesn't know how long it will take to run its business - a lot of it Both require an agreement with the opposition to pass.This went on for a month until Mr Callaghan asked to see me and with some agitation he said we couldn't go on like this.I told him it was nothing to me.In the end we agreed to let the government and opposition parliamentary stewards look into the facts, and when their reports showed we were right, the prime minister backed down and had a second vote on the controversial issue.This time Labor's parliamentary stewards made sure they were all present and won. With this opposing sentiment, we have decided to table a motion of no confidence in the government.If we don't, we'll be blamed for not doing enough to fight the machinations of a government that loses its majority.But there is another side to everything, and if we fail, we look stupid.And we are likely to lose because the small party is afraid of calling a general election too early and will be seduced anyway by the sweet promises of the government's parliamentary stewards.Of course it turned out to be so.It took almost three years for the government to step down because it lost its majority. At the same time the economic situation is even worse. In February 1976 the government announced a reduction in spending of £1.6 billion in 1977-78 and £3 billion in 1978-79 (equivalent to £6 billion and £11.5 billion respectively in today's terms).While that sounds like a lot of money, it's actually only a small part of a huge program of increased spending. In December 1975, the International Monetary Fund approved an application for a standby line of credit to help Britain tide over the crisis.Nevertheless, there was a full-blown sterling crisis in March. In June, the British pound faced heavy pressure again. The UK had to borrow more standby credit from the International Monetary Fund, which had to be repaid after 6 months. If it could not repay, the UK had to ask for more international standby credit.At that time, inflation was falling, but huge interest rates combined with no real reduction in public spending and public debt left the government unable to control the underlying financial and economic problems. A new round of sterling crisis in September could lead to the humiliating transfer of control of the economy to the International Monetary Fund.This round of sterling crisis is the result of a completely justifiable loss of confidence in the international markets in the economic management of the Labor government. No matter how difficult the situation is for the country, life for the opposition should have been expected to be easier.but it is not the truth. This is our third problem.We are expected to support the Labor government's hesitant and belated move to use financial controls.That's fair.But there is also a wider pressure, however laudable, to act responsibly in dealing with the self-inflicted ordeal that the Labor government has inflicted, which is bound to constrain my attacking style. For example, the party's annual meeting in 1976 was held against the background of the government's unstoppable financial crisis, which should have been a triumphant event.But no.We in Brighton felt a neurotic need for responsibility, for caution.In practice, of course, nothing I have said about the government's economic policy will give financial markets a worse view than where it is.But just the day before I spoke, interest rates rose to 15%.Before I finalized the draft, I called a shadow cabinet meeting in Brighton to discuss the position we should take.Reggie Maudlin helped me rewrite the badly edited paragraphs on the economy.The article was poorly written, and it was in a small hall that was temporarily arranged. The atmosphere was not harmonious enough. It may also be due to my lack of confidence that the speech was not delivered well.Then I went to a branch of the conference next door and gave an extemporaneous speech.Several reporters who heard the speech were full of praise.But since it was not written down, there are no traces of the speech. On the whole, conventional party politics in 1976 was full of frustration and fruitlessness.The government has faltered despite the Conservatives' commanding lead in opinion polls and Labor's disappearing majority in the House of Commons.We took an open move to the TUC, but there was an impasse.The International Monetary Fund supervised our country's economic policy, and the atmosphere of extreme crisis began to ease.But on a more fundamental level, our business is picking up.