Draft manifesto for a National Government

Lord Alport

Lord Alport, a lifelong Conservative, was the originator of the 'One Nation' Group of which Edward Heath and Enoch Powell were both founder members. He was a member of the House of Commons for eleven years and a Minister in the governments of both Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan. He served in Rhodesia as High Commissioner under 'Rah' Butler and Duncan Sandys, and undertook a special mission to Rhodesia as representative of the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in 1967. He has been a resolutely independent Conservative member of the House of Lords for the last eleven years and is one of its Deputy Speakers. He now works in the City of London and is Pro-Chancellor of the City University. The Spectator has no commitment to his opinions, but we think it right that at this time he should have the opportunity of ventilating them through our columns.

We, who belong to all the great political parties in the state, believe that our country faces the most dangerous peacetime crisis of this century. Only as a united nation will we be able to avoid a disaster which could destroy the ordered life and free institutions of Britain. This is, thankfully, not a wartime situation. But the penalties of our failure to confront this crisis will inflict on us the consequences of military defeat. We call on the British people to make the supreme effort and to accept the sacrifices which alone will enable our nation to regain the moral and material stability which is the only sure foundation for Britain's future as a powerful and prosperous country.

As individuals we pledge ourselves to make that effort and to share those sacrifices. The first sacrifice we make is to subordinate lifelong party loyalties, honourable ambitions and the credit for past achievements in public life, to the service of a National Government.

We do not believe that a coalition in Britain can be anything but a short-term expedient. Parties are as important to the long-term well-being of a democratic constitution as is Parliament itself. But in times of crisis — in peace and in war — free institutions are only preserved by the willing concentration, under national leadership, of the willpower of _a great people. This is what we seek to mobilise. We therefore offer an analysis of the crisis with which we are faced and the principles on which our policies will be based. We then outline some of the action we will take during a period of not more than four years, which we consider to be the maximum term for a coalition government.

Part I: Analysis I. Peacetime Britain has been badly governed. For this politicians of all parties are blamed. Mistakes have certainly been made, but for the present crisis the whole nation is responsible. Political leaders and the parties which sustain them in a democratic society are conditioned by the institutions through which they operate. Parliament, with a House of Commons vulnerable to powerful sectional influences, and an unreformed Upper House, partly hereditary and partly nominated, cannot withstand the immense pressures to which it is now subjected. Parliament, in its present form, cannot exercise detailed control over an island nation destined to earn its living in a highly competitive technological age. Our present parliamentary system, evolved to oversee the administration of a defunct Empire and to reflect the pattern of a dissolving social system, must be reformed.

2. Britain has tried, since 1945, to maintain material standards which have been beyond our earning capacity as a nation. No one owes us a living and no other country is committed to keeping us in the style to which we have been accustomed. We have been living partly on borrowed time and money and partly on the accumulated savings of the past. This must stop. We have evolved an affluent, acquisitive, "never had it so good" society. The result is that a sense of vocation and pride of service have tended to be submerged in a struggle to acquire higher material rewards and to maintain outdated social and economic differentials. Yet the desire to serve, and a sense of social responsibility, particularly among the young, have never been greater. This is something which can and must be mobilised in the service of the nation.

3. Historically Britain has always been a country in which there has been mobility within the social structure and a continuous redistribution of power and influence as new groupings arise. Today the manager, the trade union leader, the highly skilled technician, the professional man, the entrepreneur, the broadcaster and journalist have taken the place of the owners of property and the possessors of inherited status. The role of these new groups must be recognised in our political and social system. They, in turn, must shoulder the responsibilities, and submit themselves to the disciplines, which their newly acquired influence and status entails.

4. At the root of the social unease which prevails today is the feeling that for the individual, for the group and for the long descended national communities — English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh — the sense of 'belonging' has been obliterated by the progressive concentration of power in the hands of remote and impersonal authority. The same applies to the organisation of industry — both management and trade unions. Size has become a fetish. Industrial relations tend to be worst where the labour force is largest. The creation of huge local government areas, over-large health authorities, enormous multinational industrial companies, financial conglomerates created by mergers and takeovers, even the growth of outsized universities and comprehensive schools, all defer to the contemporary belief that size, and consequently financial resources, are essential to viability.

No one supposes that in a nation of over 50 million the scale of social and industrial organisation can be the same as it was in simpler age when the population was half the size. No one believes that there is any realism in the politics of "three acres and a cow." No responsible citizen doubts that modern technology requires that the resources needed for research and development to sustain our competitive power must involve massive concentrations of money and manpower. While accepting this, it is no less important that the scale of our industrial organisation should bear a practical relationship to the limitations of human capacity and reflect the just claims of an increasingly well-educated population to feel personal involvement in the various forms of employment in which they spend their working lives, and in the making of decisions which directly affect their welfare and the environment in which they live.

The same principle applies to the administration of our social services, both public and voluntary. Our aim in these must be to mobilise the resources of the powerful and well-endowed, the young and the talented to mitigate the human disadvantages imposed by poverty, sickness, age and inadequacy on many of our fellow citizens.

We seek a humane and efficient economic, organisation and a just, compassionate socia system to which all can contribute and from which all can fairly gain.

5. But all this is only possible within the structure of an ordered law-respecting society. We live in an era when violent crime is a growth_ industry. Let us not get the problem out ott proportion. Modern crime is not new — excep for its present volume and for the publicity by which it is surrounded. A free society has the duty, not only to repress crime by its support for its established forces of law and order, hut also by its determination to uphold the authority of its courts and of the legal system which they administer. It must also have the right to control the manner in which the actions of criminals are glamorised and,,

sometimes, rewarded by modern methods er publicity.

6. All the countries which make up the United Kingdom have their own pride of identity and achievement. Their diversity is the basis of our national strength. This must be recognised in the constitutional relations between the regions and the centre, but the fundamental unity of the nation must be preserved. On this depends the ultimate progress and security of all of us in a desperately dangerous world. On it also depends our ability to exercise our influence internationally. Britain is not a Super-Povkr. Yet it has made an historic contribution, through the Commonwealth, by its sacrifices in two World Wars and by its ideals of political freedom and individual tolerance, to the total sum of human progress. It is not our purpose now to opt out of our responsibilities to Europe, to the Commonwealth or to the World.

To sum up, we are all aware of the contribution which all the political parties have made to the evolution of modern Britain, if only because, to

some small extent, we have spent our lives in that service under different party banners. The contemporary Conservative, Labour, Liberal and Nationalist parties represent many, of the real issues facing our country. But at a time of national crisis a sense of unity and common effort must replace the divisiveness, which they tend to foster and which is, too often, fed by irrational prejudice and purely partisan ideas. Britain cannot survive as a group of zenophobic, off-shore islands, attempting to organaisneitsefltfeanccording to the tenets of out-of-date,

d o irrelevant, economic and social

theories. Britain cannot prosper if the inventiveness and the creative energies of its people and its world-wide reputation for financial integrity and skill, are strait-jacketed by tight, over-centralised control. The ownership of resources is secondary to the importance of efficient production and competitive power. In some cases, national participation; in others, free individual enterprise; in others, forms of co-ownership or industrial co-operation may be applicable. What really matters is that the approach should not be rigid or doctrinaire, but should be aimed at mobilising the abilities of the individual citizen and the resources of the nation-to provide for Britain, effective power, and for its people, an improved standard of living.

It would be dishonest to pretend that any political or social system can or should eliminate differences springing from the infinitive variety of human capacity and aspiration. A social system which is insensitive to, and unable to reward and encourage, individual achievement, will kill the dynamic which lies at the root of progress. But a country Which is as mature as ours must have not only _ohesion and order, but a pervading sense of rairriess in the relations of its citizens with each Other and in the relations of the individual and the group with the state as a whole.

An Appeal This, then, is the basis of our appeal to the nation. If we win its support, the government we form will not be a government of party or Personalities, but a government of national service. We believe that such a government will be able to restore confidence both at home and abroad. We believe that such a government will be able to build the economic and social foundations on which the reformed parliamentary institutions of our country, the standard of living of our people, the unity of the United ICingdom and the influence of Britain in Europe and in the world will be sustained and prosper. When in four years' time or less, the British nation, united or divided, pronounce their verdict on our achievements and our failures, We will accept their decision with the same sPirit of service with which we intend our Policies to be inspired.

Part II: Action

,Since 1945, at successive elections, the parties nave felt obliged to set out a detailed programme of the legislative and administrative action to which they would be committed if returned to power. To some extent all these have been framed with the short term object of attracting votes. Once in power, the parties have tried conscientiously to carry out their respective Mandates, regardless of the changed realities With which power has confronted them and the unexpected situations which suddenly arise. National policy has veered uncertainly; resources have been wasted; confidence has been eroded, the unity of the nation has been undermined.

In ordinary times we accept all this as the Irice we must pay for party government under our democratic constitution. But these are not ordinary times. Today we ask for what is called a 'doctor's mandate' at a moment of history when the life of the nation is at stake.

The immediate future is too uncertain for us to enter into binding commitments respecting our legislative programme, much of which might Prove irrelevant, or to solicit support by cataloguing the material benefits which we believe our policies will confer on the taxpayer, tile industrial worker, the middle class or the ?id age pensioner. We can only describe, as we nave done, the principles and the attitudes with Which we will approach our task and the broad senPe of the action to be taken to stem the onset of economic collapse and to carry us through the subsequent phase of national convalescence.

1. We must stop the continued fall in the Purchasing power of the pound.

Inflation is worldwide. In Britain it has been caused partly by excessive public expenditure, Partly by the general rise in wage levels and by creating an element of artificial profitability, Partly by the escalation of world commodity Prices, particularly oil, and partly by the Progesssive debasement of our currency. A National Government will set up powerful Machinery for financial control, presided over 1,_)Y a small Cabinet committee of ministers who have no direct departmental duties. This will be responsible for the allocation of national financial resources, the formation of financial Pnorities, the control of money supply and the framing of budgetary policy. It will be the Peacetime 'crisis' equivalent of a War Cabinet. . We set out below certain changes we will Introduce in the basis of British executive government. This will enable this cabinet c9rnmittee to include representatives drawn directly from the trade union leadership, from

industry and from those expert in financial management.

A National Government accepts the principle of the 'Social Contract', but that contract must be seen to be with the nation as a whole and must embrace management, shareholders, retailers and wholesalers and the professions, as well as organised labour. We believe in a voluntary incomes policy, but to be successful it must be supported by a national commitment of restraint and sacrifice, if it is to work.

There are signs that the terms of trade may be moving in our favour. But if it is necessary, in order to maintain the value of the pound sterling abroad, to control imports, we will not hesitate to do so. If this creates scarcity in the availability of basic consumer commodities or raw materials, particularly petrol and domestic oil, we will in the interests of fairness institute a rationing system for as long as the scarcity lasts.

We will also mobilise the productive capacity and the efficiency of British agriculture in our support.

2. We must ensure greater investment in, and the progressive re-equipment of, British industry.

Our taxation policy will be designed to enable industry to earn profits and to make certain that it uses its profitability to promote development and future growth. It will also be designed to encourage industrial exports and the Invisibles' earned by the overseas operations of our financial institutions. It is in the national interest that the City of London should retain its status as the great international banking centre of the . world.

But the scale of modern industry and the cost of research and development means that there will be a continuing need to supplement the resources of both the private and public sectors with government funds. A special Cabinet committee, under the general control of the Cabinet budget committee will be responsible for the detailed distribution of these resources as between the public and private sectors. It will have the power to set up appropriate administrative machinery for this purpose.

In general, the aim of the National Government will be to revitalise Britain's industrial competitive power. We have tended in the past to rely on the artificial stimulation of devaluation. In engineering for instance, our exports have comprised traditional products requiring a large raw material content and a small element of technical skill. In Japan, Germany and the United States it has been exactly the opposite. It is not surprising that our standard of living and our earning capacity have fallen behind them. This situation must be reversed. A real national effort can achieve this in a comparatively short period of time.

3. We must enable Parliament to exercise greater control over the policies of the government and to make greater use of the abilities and experience of its members.

We hear much about strong governments. What is needed is a strong Parliament. We have already referred to the vulnerability of Parliament to sectional pressures. There are traditional arguments in favour of the present system of territorial representation, but the present electoral system needs revision. A Speaker's Conference will examine our present electoral machinery with a view to producing more equitable distribution for political representation and greater independence for the individual member of Parliament.

An unhealthy situation has arisen from the increase in the number of ministers, which has resulted in between a third and a half of the governing party in the House of Commons being placemen of the executive. The present system also means that no one can serve in the government who is not also a member of the legislature. This will be changed. In future a strictly limited number of ministers, of Cabinet and lower rank, will be eligible to be included in the government, and these will not be required to have seats in either House of Parliament.

The powers of the Parliamentary committees, particularly those concerned with national finance, will be strengthened and their officers entitled to salaries on scales equal to those of ministers of a corresponding rank. It will be the constitutional duty of departmental ministers to appear, from time to time, before these committees to answer for the departments. The remuneration of members of the House of Commons will be increased to ensure their independence and to release them from any financial subservience to sectional interests.

The Upper House will be reformed and made a more useful component of our Parliamentary system.

4. We must ensure that our national investment in health, education, housing and social

security within the limits of our resources corresponds to the needs of a stable, progressive twentieth-century state. Inflation is undermining the various welfare services on which the social health of the nation depends. We have already indicated our policy of strict financial control which we believe will mitigate its effects. Our first priority is to earn, by our industrial and Commercial effort, the resources which are needed to sustain our social commitment as a nation.

We make no promise that, in the short term, it will be possible to bring about any material improvement in the standards of our welfare services. Here again it is necessary to establish priorities. In the case of health we regard the prevention of disease as being of vital importance. Adequate resources must be made available for research and physical health education and recreation.

In the case of national education the expansion of universities and higher education has out-stripped both demand and capacity. The size syndrome is not applicable to education. What matters is that the standard of teaching at all levels should be maintained and that opportunities of further education should be available to all who can, and wish, to take advantage of them. Housing is an important social service, since availability and, preferably, the ownership of a home of one's own is the basis of the health and security of family life. The improvement of housing conditions and the extension of home-ownership will be a priority in the social policy of a National Government. We regard the support of the elderly as a major commitment. We will be more concerned to see that old age pensions are indexed to the cost of living than any of the other sources of income. This, the most vulnerable group in our nation, needs special protection from the ravages of an unprecedented inflationary situation.

5. We recognise that, within the United Kingdom, the nations which it comprises should have the right to regulate their domestic affairs through their own nationalinstitutions. Narrow nationalism has, too often in the past, been the enemy of progress and the seed bed of violence and war. But a mature and realistic political system must acknowledge the strength of community loyalties, and defer to the aspirations which historic tradition and racial consciousness creates. If it is the clearly expressed wish that there should be a Parliament in Edinburgh and elected Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, under the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster, it would be the aim of a National Government to fulfil these aspirations.

6. We must make a constructive contribution to European unity, to the Commonwealth — and beyond — in the interests both of our own

security and of our material well-being.

We believe that there is a case in equity for the revision of the conditions of our membership of the European Community, but we regard ourselves as committed to the cause of European unity and we are fully prepared to play our part in development of its institutions, particularly the electoral basis of the European Parliament, and of its political cohesion.

We regard NATO as an essential shield for our national defence to which the strength and preparedness of our defence services will continue to make an appropriate contribution. We believe that through our historic connection with the countries of the Commonwealth, Britain can exercise a profound influence for peace and progress in the counsels of the Third World.

This, then, is our programme. We believe that at this critical moment in the life of our country, we speak for Britain. We only hope that, amid all the clash and clamour of the crisis, the good judgement of the British people will enable us to make ourselves heard.