Chapter 54 Section 6 Division and Rebellion

The Conservative party's annual conference in Brighton is always difficult.Most of the convention attendees expected it would not happen due to the looming election and felt cheated to lose a victory.The polls show we are behind Labour.Moreover, the debate over the rapid disintegration of Labour's wages policy has drawn even more attention to our thinking, which is also threatened with disintegration: Two weeks before the annual conference, Jim Pryor made ill-advised remarks in a radio interview that made it sound as if the Conservatives supported a 5 per cent capital increase for the government, and not only did he support a statutory revenue policy; revealed that he believed two Conservative governments would also have to enact such a policy.He said: "I think it is very likely to happen under certain circumstances." In my own interview speech, I tried to pull the emphasis back, linking wages, profits, and output, and decoupling from wage standards.Although I have made it clear that I do not support the workers' strike at the Ford Motor plant, I also blame the government's 5% capital increase standard for this.I said that the legal wage standard is actually unworkable.I do not wish to deny the broad interpretation of what I have said as calling for a return to free collective bargaining.

Ted Heath got involved from another angle.In an economic debate at the annual meeting, he warned of the dangers of dogmatism.He said that the government's 5% capital increase policy "is not clear to what extent it is dismantled. There is nothing to gloat about if it disintegrates. We should be sad for our country." I watched him speak from the podium.Jeffrey Howe made a powerful closing statement, taking Ted's intervention speech in stride.He said the next Conservative government would return to "realistic", responsible collective bargaining without government intervention.But when Ted spoke on TV later that night, he went even further.He warned that "free collective bargaining leads to massive inflation".Asked whether the Conservatives would back the government's wages policy at the general election, he replied: "If the prime minister says he's going to address the nation and show that we can't tolerate skyrocketing inflation again, that we can't tolerate going the other way again, I'll be fine. Said I would agree."

This is a threat veiled under a thin veil.A split between the two of us in the general election will result in huge losses.The question of Ted's role in the general election has long worried the party.Peter Thornycroft had met him earlier in the year and had quietly discussed his plans with him.Humphrey Atkins received letters from MPs close to Ted saying that Ted was expected to help in the general election.Arrangements have been made to contact his office in the general election.His intervention speech made this difference clear to the world. Also, the substance of Ted's point seems to me to be completely wrong.There is no point in supporting an irreparable policy, even if it has been favorable in the past (except for a brief period when it wasn't).Also, while opposition to centrally enforced wage policies means we will encounter the odd fellow traveler, including particularly militant trade unionists, opposition to centralization and egalitarianism is largely healthy.As Conservatives, we should not hold our noses at the good pay for those who use their sharp minds and strong arms to produce what customers want.Of course, when this attitude is said to be opportunistic, even by those who claim to be on our side, and is accompanied by open disagreements, such as between cabinet members Jim Pryor and Keith Joseph, it is It is difficult to analyze seriously.But really, an important part of my political strategy is to speak directly to people who have traditionally not voted Conservative, but who now want to give themselves and their families greater opportunities.Therefore, my speech at the annual meeting addressed the union members directly at large sections:

"You want higher wages, you want higher pensions, you want shorter hours, more money from the government, more investment, more-more-more. But, this" more "From where? There is no more. There can be more, and we won't have more unless we produce more. You can no more separate wages from output than you can separate scissors from blades. Be as sharp as a knife. Here, let me say bluntly to the union leaders, you are often your own worst enemy. Why isn't there more? Because most of the regulation deprives you of the only Something to sell - productivity. Pipe jams are like barnacles that cling to our industrial life.They have been attached for almost a century.What was originally designed to protect you from exploitation has now become a major obstacle to your prosperity... I understand your concerns.Your fear that producing more with fewer hands means fewer jobs is naturally greater when unemployment is high.But you are wrong.The right path to defeating unemployment is to produce more goods cheaper so that more people can afford them.

We will do everything in our power to do our part as a government and rebuild a free and prosperous Britain.We believe in realistic, responsible collective bargaining free from government interference.Labor does not believe this.We believe in competition, free enterprise and profit, whether it's business big or small.Labor does not believe this.We believe in drastically cutting your income taxes.Labor doesn't believe it.We will create conditions where the value of the money you earn and save is preserved. " In the next six months this strategy will be successful, but in the short term it is uncertain because the party is divided on this issue and opinion polls show that the public wants us to support the government and oppose the unions.It's no surprise that we finished the conference season 5.5 percentage points behind Labor.

The spirits were tense for the campaign, and the general discipline of both parties relaxed when the prospect of an imminent general election was withdrawn.Within the Labor Party this problem is concentrated on economic issues.On our party's representation in Rhodesia, first in the Annual Conference and later in the House of Representatives. Inside the shadow cabinet, Peter Carrington was most vocally opposed to accepting an amendment that would obligate us to lift sanctions when he debated Rhodesia at the annual meeting.Peter's line was that, while the sanctions were largely futile, their removal in the eyes of the RPF would constitute de facto recognition of the so-called "internal settlement" earlier that year.Following this solution, Ian Smith has brought into government moderate black parties that claim to represent a questionable black majority.Peter argues that bringing the parties together on the Rhodesian dispute puts us in a very weak position when we have already taken a side.In defense of this distorted and unpopular line, John Davies gave a rambling speech, interrupted by loud questions.He looked exhausted and I saw him rub his head when he sat down, it was painful.I leaned over and asked him what was wrong and he said his head was in pain like it was going to split and he hadn't slept in 3 days.I didn't want to hear the news, and I told him he had to go back to London immediately for a brain scan.At first he disagreed, then he agreed and I used my car to pull him back.An examination revealed that he had a malignant brain tumor, and he died of illness a few months later.

The debate at the annual meeting fueled the mood in the parliamentary caucus.Reggie Maudlin is one of the backbenchers staunchly opposed to the cabinet's line of abstention in the House vote on sanctions.I don't really like this route myself, and I'll join the ranks of voting "no" because other circumstances are more or less the same.But it would be better for the entire backbench to rebel than to lose shadow cabinet members at this delicate time.Eventually 114 Conservatives rebelled against the will of the stewards, including two junior speakers, and they left the front bench with them - the largest Conservative revolt since 1945.

A few days later I reorganized the shadow cabinet, Francis Pym replaced John Davies, John Biffen came back in charge of small business, appointed Mark Carlyle to replace Norman St John-Stevers in charge of education, Norman He also serves as the Speaker of the Shadow Council.With the election looming, I'm basically bringing the factions together. I put the embarrassing wage policy debate to rest a bit before the end of the year.We failed to win the Berwick and Rawson East by-elections in October and several backbench friends publicly complained about Ted Heath's intrusive speech in Blackpool.I went to the ITV news station to speak out to excuse him, and maybe I was doing more than merciful.In the weeks following the annual meeting, I temporarily heeded the cries of a group of colleagues led by Pod Thornycroft to adopt the wage policy proposed in "Sound Economic Thinking."I made this sense in my speech at Paddington the week before Christmas.

A difficult year is coming to an end.We are trailing Labor in the polls, and we are behaving as if we would rather be in opposition than a potential government forever, a blunder that the current government happily exploits.In the House of Commons, the government attempted to sanction the Ford Motor Works for exceeding the 5 per cent capital increase for its workers, and we succeeded in defeating the government.At this point, the Prime Minister was able to paint a picture of how a responsible minority government was thwarted by Conservative opportunism and unable to defend the national interest.The next day there was a "vote of confidence" vote debate in which the government survived with a majority of 10 votes - and my speech was very poor.

It is true that we have made some progress in reforming the party and public opinion in the direction I think it needs to be.Some events have worked in our favour, such as the scenario at Glenwick, notably the failure of the "social contract" to deal with the trade unions.With Labour's wages policy bankrupt, we retain the option to make our own wages policy, which doesn't bother me as much as it once did.More importantly, our platform does not explicitly commit to change, especially with regard to trade union legislation, which I believe must be done.At least in this regard, we still have a long way to go.