The Downing Street Years, 1979-1990

NO U-TURNS

At 2.30 on the afternoon of Friday 10 October 1980 I rose to address the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton. Unemployment stood at over two million and rising; a deepening recession lay ahead; inflation was far higher than we had inherited, though falling; and we were at the end of a summer of government leaks and rifts. The Party was worried, and so was I. Our strategy was the right one, but the price of putting it into effect was proving so high, and there was such limited understanding of what we were trying to do, that we had great electoral difficulties. However, I was utterly convinced of one thing: there was no chance of achieving that fundamental change of attitudes which was required to wrench Britain out of decline if people believed that we were prepared to alter course under pressure. I made the point with a line provided by Ronnie Millar:

The message was directed as much to some of my colleagues in the Government as it was to politicians of other parties. It was in the summer of 1980 that my critics within the Cabinet first seriously attempted to frustrate the strategy which we had been elected to carry out — an attack which reached its climax and was defeated the following year. At the time that I spoke, many people felt that this group had more or less prevailed.

ARGUMENTS ABOUT PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

Battle was to be joined over the next two years on three related issues: monetary policy, public spending and trade union reform. The ‘wets’ argued that because we had embraced a dogmatic monetary theory that inflation could only be brought down by a fierce monetary squeeze, we were squeezing the economy in the middle of a recession. Such dogmatism, they argued, similary prevented our using practical tools of economic policy like prices and incomes control and forced us to cut public spending when, as Keynes had argued, public spending should be increased to lift an economy suffering from lack of demand.

The most bitter Cabinet arguments were over public spending. In most cases those who dissented from the line which Geoffrey Howe and I took were not merely intent on opposing our whole economic strategy as doctrinaire monetarism; they were trying to protect their departmental budgets. It had soon become clear that the public expenditure plans announced in March 1980 had been far too optimistic. In particular, the large turn round from losses towards profitability in the nationalized industries was not going to come about; local authorities, as usual, were overspending; and the recession was proving deeper than expected, increasing spending on unemployment and other benefits. Government borrowing for the first quarter of 1980 looked like being very large. In addition, Francis Pym, Defence Secretary, was pressing for an increase in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) cash limit.

We had decided to have a general economic discussion in Cabinet on 3 July 1980, before our first collective discussion of the 1981–2 public expenditure round on 10 July. Our aim was to confront spending ministers with the full implications for taxation of a failure to control spending, and to smoke out the arguments for reflation, which were almost daily to be found in the newspapers and in the mouths of pressure groups. But I had no illusions that it would be easy to subject my colleagues’ aspirations to a salutary dose of realism.

Geoffrey spelt out to Cabinet how difficult the economic situation at home and abroad had now become. Inflation in the major economies had risen sharply, oil prices had doubled, and the world was moving further into recession — led in this direction by Jimmy Carter’s United States. Although output in the UK had fallen rather less than predicted in 1980, it was likely in consequence to fall faster than expected in 1981. Inflation was slowing, but less rapidly than we had hoped. The background to the public spending round and to next year’s budget was, therefore, bleak. Then the discussion began. Some ministers argued for large increases in spending to stave off unemployment; others argued for prudence. I summed up by reaffirming the present strategy and noting the need to maintain public spending constraints, to reduce public sector pay increases and so to allow government borrowing and interest rates to fall — although within spending totals I was keen to see a higher priority given to dealing with unemployment, especially among young people. Round one went to Geoffrey and me.

But the debate continued inside and outside government. The “wets” arguments came in different forms of varying sophistication, though their central message was always the same: spend and borrow more. They used to argue that we needed extra public spending on employment and industrial schemes, over and above what we had planned and were effectively forced to spend simply as a result of the recession. But this did not escape from the fact that extra public spending — whatever it was spent on — had to come from somewhere. And ‘somewhere’ meant either taxes levied on private individuals and industry; or borrowing, pushing up interest rates; or printing money, setting off inflation. There was also a feeling, which I equally knew I had to resist, that the refunds which I had secured from the European Community budget should be used to finance extra spending. But why should it be assumed that public spending was better than private spending? Why should the fruits of my efforts to rein in the appetite of the European Community automatically be consumed by an almost as insatiable British public sector? I was, therefore, determined to ensure that the Cabinet endorsed the 1981–2 public expenditure total announced in the previous white paper, as reduced by the European budget receipts.

These basic differences between us came out clearly at the public spending Cabinet on 10 July. Some ministers argued that the PSBR should be allowed to increase to accommodate the huge new requirements of the loss-making nationalized industries. But the PSBR was already far too high, whatever the theoretical merits or otherwise of letting public borrowing rise in a recession. The higher it went, the greater the pressure to raise interest rates in order to persuade people to lend the Government the necessary funds. And at a certain point — if pushed too far — there would be the risk of a full-scale government funding crisis — that is, when you cannot finance your borrowing from the non-banking sector. We could not risk going further in that direction. So I emphasized once again the need to stay within the public spending plans — though within them there could be more priority given to assistance for jobs.

The defence budget was a special problem. We had already accepted the NATO commitment for annual 3 per cent real increases in our defence spending. This had the obvious merit of demonstrating to the Soviets our determination to prevent their winning the arms race on which they had embarked, but in two other respects it was unsatisfactory. First, it meant that the MoD had little incentive to get value for money in the hugely expensive equipment it purchased. Second, the 3 per cent commitment meant that Britain, spending a substantially higher proportion of its GDP on defence than other European countries and going through a peculiarly deep recession, found herself bearing an unfair and increasing burden. There were also problems relating to management of the MoD budget. By the end of 1980 the MoD had overspent its cash limit because, with the depressed state of industry, suppliers had fulfilled government orders faster than expected.

As we moved into the winter of 1980 the economic difficulties accumulated and the political pressure built up. It might have been easier to gain support in the battle for tight control of public spending if the second element of the strategy — the money supply — had been behaving predictably. But it had not. On Wednesday 3 September Geoffrey Howe and I met to discuss the monetary position. What did the figures really mean? Measured in terms of £M3, the money supply had been rising much faster than the target we had set in the MTFS at the time of the March budget. It was hard to know how much of this was the result of our removing exchange controls in 1979 and our decision in June to remove the ‘corset’ — a device by which the Bank of England imposed limits on bank lending. Money analysts argued that both of these liberalizations had misleadingly bloated the £M3 figures.[32] As I put it to Brian Waiden in an interview on Sunday 1 February:

By contrast, some of the other monetary measures were undershooting their targets. The ‘wets’ found the wayward behaviour of £M3 a suitable subject for mockery at dinner parties. But for Geoffrey and me it was no such diversion. The arguments about which was the most accurate measure of the money supply were highly technical, but they were of great significance.

Of course, we never just looked at monetary figures to gauge what was happening. We also looked at the real world around us. And what we saw told a somewhat different tale from the high £M3 figures. Inflation had slowed down markedly, particularly prices in the shops where competition was intense. Sterling was very strong, averaging just below $2.40 during the second half of 1980. And here the crucial issue was whether the high exchange rate was more or less an independent factor bringing down inflation, or rather a result of the monetary squeeze being tighter than we intended and than the £M3 figures suggested.

Some of my closest advisers thought the latter. Professor Douglas Hague sent me a paper in which he described our policies as ‘lopsided’ in two respects: first, they were bearing down more heavily on the private than the public sector (which I knew to be true), and second, they were putting too much emphasis on controlling the money supply and too little on controlling the PSBR, with the result that interest rates were higher than they should have been. (I also came to share this view over the next year.) In the summer of 1980 I consulted Alan Walters, who was to join me at the beginning of 1981 as my economic policy adviser at No. 10 and upon whose judgement I came more and more to rely. Alan’s view was that the monetary squeeze was too tight and that it was the narrowest definition of ‘money’, known as the monetary base, which was the best, indeed the only reliable, star to steer by. Certainly, during the autumn of 1980 the narrowest definitions of money suggested that we were pursuing a very severe monetary policy.

If there was uncertainty about the monetary position at this time, there was none at all about the trend in public spending, which was inexorably upwards. Public sector pay was one of the worst problems: the bills we received were largely the legacy of Labour’s failed incomes policy, but they had to be paid all the same, and they set a higher base for future settlements as well. The other main culprit for the enormous increase in public spending was, as I have said, the nationalized industries. Looking at the disappointing figures emerging from the public expenditure round, I wrote at the time that they ‘had undermined the Government’s whole public expenditure strategy’. But there was worse to come.

In September, Geoffrey Howe sent me a note elaborating on the warning he had already given to Cabinet about public expenditure. The increases required for the nationalized industries, particularly BSC, would require larger cuts in programmes than those agreed in July in order to hold the total. To the extent that more was provided, as the Cabinet wished, for industrial support and employment, the corresponding cuts would need to be larger still. The fifth public expenditure round in sixteen months was bound to prompt squeals of indignation: and so it proved.

Indeed, a further note from Geoffrey in early October confirmed that the position was, if anything, deteriorating: the figures were worse than suggested the previous month. The latest forecast of the PSBR for 1981–2 approached £11 billion, far higher than planned. The Treasury had already begun to examine ways in which it might be reduced and were looking at the possibility of increasing taxes on the profits from North Sea oil and gas, raising employees’ national insurance contributions and not fully indexing personal income tax allowances in line with inflation. All of these unpalatable tax options reinforced the necessity for further public spending cuts: we needed a cash limits squeeze on all programmes and a cut in local authority current spending, and we would have to look again at defence spending and at the even more politically sensitive social security budget. (The social security budget accounted for a quarter of total public spending, of which the cost of retirement pensions was by far the largest element. But I had pledged publicly that the latter would be raised in line with inflation during the Parliament.) We were entering perilous waters.

The tactics in handling the new public expenditure discussions were obviously very important. Geoffrey and I decided not to take the whole matter to Cabinet cold, as it were, so I called a meeting of key ministers to go into it first. The Chancellor described the position and outlined the arithmetic.

Our plan succeeded. Without too much grumbling, the Cabinet of 30 October endorsed the strategy and confirmed our objective of keeping public spending in 1981–2 and later years broadly at the levels set out in the March white paper. This meant that it would be necessary to make cuts of the order of magnitude proposed by the Treasury — though even with these reductions we would be forced to increase taxes if we were to bring the PSBR down to a level compatible with lower interest rates.

Much stronger Cabinet opposition surfaced when we began to look at the decisions required to give effect to the strategy which had been endorsed. The ‘wets’ now discovered a new approach. They claimed that they lacked sufficient information to judge whether the overall strategy was soundly based. Without this, they said, they were in no position to weigh the economic, political and social consequences of all the various means of achieving it, including changes in taxation and reductions in public spending. The ploy was transparent. In effect, spending ministers were trying to behave as if they were Chancellors of the Exchequer. It would be a recipe for complete absence of spending control and thus for economic chaos.

The three most important areas of discussion at our meeting on Tuesday 4 November were the Health Service and defence budgets, and the special employment measures which Jim Prior wanted. On Health, we decided that the NHS element in the National Insurance Contribution should be raised rather than the health programme itself reduced — so continuing to honour our manifesto pledge. On defence, the Cabinet accepted that the reductions would have to fall somewhere between what the Treasury demanded and the MoD was then offering. Finally, we agreed on the special employment measures, which I later announced in my speech on the Address, and which provided for 440,000 places on the Youth Opportunities Programme — 180,000 more than in the current year.

Two days later, Cabinet met again to continue the discussion. The financial position of the nationalized industries had worsened even in the short time since we had begun our spending review. Public sector pay was still a headache. If we managed to hold future public service pay increases to 6 per cent, as we wished, we could still expect a PSBR of £12 billion in 1981–2, compared with the £7.5 billion implied by the MTFS. It would not be possible to finance a PSBR of this size and reduce interest rates at the same time. Therefore, in order to avoid high interest rates substantial tax increases would be needed. In my summing up I noted that the position would be still worse, if reductions still under discussion — including defence, social security and education — were not actually agreed. In fact, Cabinet made the final decisions about the package the following week.

The Autumn Statement on 24 November 1980, therefore, contained some highly unpopular measures. Employees’ National Insurance Contributions had to go up. Retirement pensions and other social security benefits would be increased by 1 per cent less than the rate of inflation next year if they turned out to have risen by 1 per cent more in the present year. There were cuts in defence and local government spending. It was announced that a new supplementary tax would be introduced on North Sea oil profits. However, there was some good news: the further employment measures — and a 2 percentage point cut in MLR.

DISSENT BY LEAKS

Few members of the public are experts in the finer matters of economics — though most have a shrewd sense when promises do not add up. By the end of 1980 I began to feel that we risked forfeiting the public’s confidence in our economic strategy. Unpopularity I could live with. But loss of confidence in our capacity to deliver our economic programme was far more dangerous. We were now spending more when we believed in spending less; inflation was high when we proclaimed the primacy of bringing it down; and private industry was faltering when we had been saying for years that only successful free enterprise could make a country wealthy. Of course, we could point to factors over which we had little or no control, and above all to the world recession; and on inflation and pay settlements there was movement in the right direction. But our credibility was at stake. And the very last thing I could afford was well-publicized dissent from within the Cabinet itself. Yet this was what I now had to face.

Public dissent from the ‘wets’ was phrased in what was obviously intended to be a highly sophisticated code, in which each phrase had a half-hidden meaning and philosophical abstractions were woven together to condemn practical policies by innuendo. This cloaked and indirect approach has never been my style and I felt contempt for it. I thrive on honest argument. I am interested in practical options. And I prefer to debate my opponents rather than to undermine them with leaks. I do not believe that collective responsibility is an interesting fiction, but a point of principle. My experience is that a number of the men I have dealt with in politics demonstrate precisely those characteristics which they attribute to women — vanity and an inability to make tough decisions. There are also certain kinds of men who simply cannot abide working for a woman. They are quite prepared to make every allowance for ‘the weaker sex’: but if a woman asks no special privileges and expects to be judged solely by what she is and does, this is found gravely and unforgivably disorienting. Of course, in the eyes of the ‘wet’ Tory establishment I was not only a woman, but ‘that woman’, someone not just of a different sex, but of a different class, a person with an alarming conviction that the values and virtues of middle England should be brought to bear on the problems which the establishment consensus had created. I offended on many counts.

The economic and public expenditure discussions of 1980 repeatedly found their way into the press; decisions came to be seen as victories by one side or the other and Bernard Ingham told me that it was proving quite impossible to convey a sense of unity and purpose in this climate. During 1980 the public was treated to a series of speeches and lectures by Ian Gilmour and Norman St John Stevas on the shortcomings of monetarism, which, according to them, was deeply un-Tory, a kind of alien dogma — though they usually took care to cover themselves against charges of disloyalty by including some fulsome remarks praising me and the Government’s approach. Speaking in Cambridge in November, Ian Gilmour claimed that Britain risked ‘the creation of a “Clockwork Orange” society with all its attendant alienation and misery’, which sounded remarkably like Britain in the ‘winter of discontent’.

Industrial leaders helped worsen the general impression of disarray: in the same month the new Director-General of the CBI was promising ‘a bare knuckle fight’ over Government policies, though when I met the CBI shortly afterwards I am glad to say that knuckles were not in evidence. Then in December Jim Prior was reported as urging us not to use the language of the ‘academic seminar’. But perhaps the most astonishing remark — not his last — was John Biffen’s widely reported admission to the Conservative Party Parliamentary Finance Committee that he did not share the enthusiasm for the MTFS, which he — the Chief Secretary to the Treasury — was trying, with singularly little success, to apply in the field of public expenditure. Not surprisingly, when I met the executive of the ‘22 Committee later that month I found that they had a low view of ministerial efforts at presentation. I most certainly agreed. But it was not simply a question of presentation: some ministers were trying to discredit the strategy itself. This could not be allowed to continue.

I had the Christmas holiday to consider what should be done. I decided that it was time to reshuffle the Cabinet. The only question was whether a limited reshuffle would serve to change the balance sufficiently in favour of our economic strategy, or whether much more far-reaching changes were required. I decided on the former.

On Monday 5 January I made the changes, beginning with Norman St John Stevas, who left the Government. I was sorry to lose Norman but he made his own departure inevitable. He had a first-class brain and a ready wit. But he turned indiscretion into a political principle. His jokes at the expense of government policy moved smoothly from private conversation to Commons gossip to the front page of newspapers. The other departure, Angus Maude, had employed his own sharp wit in my support but he felt that it was time to give up the job as Paymaster-General, in charge of government information, in order to return to writing. I moved John Nott to Defence to replace Francis Pym. I was convinced that someone with real understanding of finance and a commitment to efficiency was needed in this department. I moved John Biffen to replace John Nott at Trade, and at Geoffrey Howe’s request appointed Leon Brittan as Chief Secretary. Leon Brittan was a close friend of Geoffrey’s. He was enormously intelligent and hard-working and he had impressed me with the sharpness of his mind, particularly in Opposition when he had been one of the Party’s spokesmen on the then vexed issue of Devolution. Two very talented new Ministers of State came into the Department of Industry to support Keith Joseph: Norman Tebbit and Kenneth Baker. Norman had worked closely with me in Opposition. I knew that he was totally committed to our policies, shared much of my own outlook and was a devastating Commons in-fighter. Ken was given special responsibility for Information Technology, a task in which he showed his talents as a brilliant presenter of policy. Francis Pym took over the task of disseminating government information, which he combined with the position of Leader of the House of Commons. But the first half of this appointment was to prove a source of some difficulty in the months ahead.

With this moderate Cabinet reshuffle, I had hoped that we would be able to face our economic difficulties with greater unity and determination. Certainly, both qualities were needed: the criticisms of our strategy were mounting. I counter-attacked. Both in my Weekend World interview on 1 February and a few days later in my speech in the Commons economic debate I replied to the arguments of those who believed that the real problem in Britain was lack of economic demand and who argued that we should remedy it by reflation. I told the House:

But the other side had important allies in the media. A leading article in the Sunday Times, usually a Conservative paper, carried the headline ‘Wrong, Mrs Thatcher, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong’. Indeed, the press was full of hostile comment. And that hit the morale of my supporters. On 27 February I received a memorandum from Ian Gow:

Many of the critics inside and outside the Conservative Party felt that they had detected weakness, were determined to exploit it and saw their chance coming with the 1981 budget.

THE 1981 BUDGET

I shall never forget the weeks leading up to the 1981 budget. Hardly a day seemed to go by without the financial scene deteriorating in some way. At the end of January Geoffrey Howe was still hoping to make serious cuts in capital taxation and to provide substantial assistance for industry, but by the beginning of February the Treasury was already becoming more cautious and pessimistic about the outlook. The PSBR for the current year seemed likely to turn out between £4 and £6 billion more than the figure forecast in the 1980 budget. The current Treasury forecast, which assumed indexation of personal tax allowances and of specific duties and took account of the measures announced in November 1980, showed a PSBR for 1981–2 in the region of £11 billion (nearly 4.5 per cent of GDP), compared with a figure implied by the MTFS of around £7.5 billion (some 3 per cent of GDP). At this point the Treasury believed that we should aim for a PSBR somewhat below £10 billion. There was, therefore, a gap of £1 billion to £1.5 billion.

Personal incomes had been increasing while company profits had been shrinking, so it was clear that any extra taxation should be borne by the personal rather than the corporate sector. The Treasury were talking of raising personal allowances by a minimum of 6.5 per cent — they hoped for 9 or 10 per cent — rather than the full 1.5 per cent required to take account of inflation. They were planning to raise the specific duties on alcohol, tobacco and petrol by one and three-quarters or perhaps twice the rate necessary to take account of inflation. Business — especially the CBI — was pressing hard for a reduction in the National Insurance Surcharge (NIS), but there were problems with this proposal: the full year cost of each percentage point reduction was very large, the relief was indiscriminate and there was the risk that some of it might go quickly into wages. Other possible ways of helping industry — each of which had its own disadvantages — included a cut in Corporation Tax or in the Heavy Fuel Oil Duty. We had in November announced extra taxation on North Sea oil and gas profits. The question now was whether to levy a windfall tax on bank profits. Naturally, the banks strongly opposed this; but the fact remained that they had made their large profits as a result of our policy of high interest rates rather than because of increased efficiency or better service to the customer.

Yet these were essentially secondary issues — and on larger issues there were legitimate disagreements inside the ‘dry’ section of the Government. The main problem was to determine how tight the fiscal stance of the budget should be and the monetary policy which it would be supporting. On this question Alan Walters, who had now joined me at No. 10, had his own strong views. He argued for a larger cut in the PSBR than Geoffrey Howe was proposing. He also believed that the way in which the monetary policy was conducted was defective. But the Treasury were not prepared to move to the system of monetary base control which Alan favoured and to which I was attracted by his clear and persuasive analysis.

And this was much more than a technical disagreement. Alan Walters, John Hoskyns and Alfred Sherman had suggested that Professor Jurg Niehans, a distinguished Swiss monetary economist, should prepare a study on our monetary policy for me. Professor Niehans’s report which I read in early February, though framed in highly technical language, had a clear message. It was that North Sea oil had probably not been a major factor in sterling’s appreciation; rather, tight monetary policy had caused the pound to rise so high, imposing such pressure on British industry and deepening the recession. The report argued that we should use the monetary base rather than £M3 as the main monetary measure and suggested that we should allow it to rise in the first half of 1981. In short, Professor Niehans thought monetary policy was too tight and should quickly be loosened. Alan emphatically agreed with him.

My doubts at this time about the Treasury’s conduct of monetary policy, however, were more than matched by the concern I felt at the steady growth in its estimates of the PSBR — the target by which we steered our fiscal policy. On 10 February 1981 Geoffrey Howe and I met to discuss the budget strategy. Geoffrey now told me that the forecast for the PSBR had been updated and showed not £11 billion but £13 billion. He was now talking about raising income tax allowances by only 6 per cent rather than the 10 per cent he had earlier envisaged — though he still wanted a substantial enterprise package. I told him that our primary concern must be to boost industry and that this meant giving priority to a reduction in interest rates, which would also help get down the exchange rate. If there were to be a choice between cutting the NIS and a lower PSBR I preferred the latter.

I was worried by the prospect of a 2 per cent addition to the RPI as a result of the indirect tax increases which were being proposed. I was sure it would be better to achieve further public expenditure cuts. But I had to agree that the chance of achieving these, given Cabinet attitudes, was very slim indeed.

At this meeting Alan Walters continued to press the view that we should allow the monetary base to grow more quickly. We also discussed the timing of any interest rate cuts which we would be able to make.

The starkness of the choices before us was now becoming clear. Later that day Alan sent me a note which summed up the problem with the PSBR. We were confronted with rapid and huge changes in the figures which made the strategic planning of the budget very difficult. But one thing was clear. The trend of PSBR forecasts was upwards. The likelihood was that we would budget for too low a reduction in the PSBR, as we had in 1980–81. To repeat that mistake would either force us to introduce an additional budget in late summer or autumn, or put great strains on the funding of government borrowing. In the last resort it might lead to a funding crisis, and it would certainly force us to increase interest rates, keeping sterling high and increasing the already severe squeeze on the private sector. We had to avoid such an outcome. We might still get things right in time — but only if we made painful decisions now, and presented them effectively, as the only possible response to the costs of the last wage round and nationalized industry losses. What we needed was a budget for employment.

On Friday 13 February I had a further meeting with Geoffrey Howe. Alan Walters was also present. The latest forecast for the PSBR was between £13.5 billion and £13.75 billion. The tax increases Geoffrey was proposing would reduce it to something between £11.25 billion and £11.5 billion, but he did not believe it was politically possible to go below £11 billion, and in his view an increase in the basic tax rate had to be ruled out. But Alan argued strongly that the PSBR should be lower still. He told us that a PSBR of, say, £10 billion would be no more deflationary than one of £11 billion because the latter would actually be worse for City expectations and for interest rates. Alan concluded by arguing that we had no alternative but to raise the basic rates of income tax by 1 or 2 per cent.

Alan was the economist. But Geoffrey and I were politicians. Geoffrey rightly observed that introducing what would be represented as a deflationary budget at the time of the deepest recession since the 1930s would be difficult enough; doing so via an increase in the basic rate would make it a political nightmare. I went along with Geoffrey’s judgement about the problems of raising income tax, but I did so without much conviction and as the days went by my unease grew.

When Geoffrey and I had our next budget meeting on 17 February, he said that he too had been having second thoughts. He was now prepared to contemplate a basic rate increase. But his concern was whether it might not be better to raise the basic rate of income tax by 1 per cent and personal allowances by about 10 per cent, thus reducing the burden on people below average earnings. I confirmed that I in turn was prepared to contemplate this, but I also told him that I was coming to the view that it was essential to get the PSBR below £11 billion.

My advisers — Alan Walters, John Hoskyns and David Wolfson — continued to argue for this much lower PSBR with great passion. Keith Joseph also strongly backed this view. Alan, who knew that he could always have access to me more or less when he wished — as in my view any really close adviser should if a prime minister is not to be the prisoner of his (or her) in-tray — came in to my study to have one last attempt to get me to change my mind about the budget. He ran over again the reasons why we could never have lower interest rates — which was what the economy desperately needed — unless we had lower borrowing, which now meant higher taxes. I know today that he went away still believing that I was not persuaded. But the more I wrestled with the problem in my mind, the more accurate his analysis seemed. The budget he was arguing for would be unpopular with the public, mystifying to many of my strongest supporters in the Commons and the country and incomprehensible to those economists still stuck in post-war Keynesian orthodoxy. Its consequences for my administration were unpredictable. Yet I knew in my heart of hearts that there was only one right decision, and that it now had to be made.

Geoffrey Howe and I — without Alan who was engaged on some other business but with Douglas Wass, the Treasury’s Permanent Secretary — met for a further discussion of the budget on the afternoon of Tuesday 24 February. Geoffrey still envisaged a PSBR for 1981–2 of £11.25 billion. I said that I was dismayed by such a figure and that I doubted whether it would be possible to cut interest rates, which we badly needed to do, unless government borrowing was reduced to a figure around £10.5 billion. I said that I was even prepared to accept a penny on the standard rate. In the light of all the taxpayers’ money which had gone to coal and steel there would at least be a clear explanation for this.

Geoffrey argued against a penny on income tax — on which I was not too difficult to persuade for I was horrified at the thought of reversing even some of the progress we had made on bringing down Labour’s tax rates. But he also argued against the need to bring down the PSBR further, and on this last point I was not persuaded at all. We had further inconclusive discussion about alternative ways to raise tax. Time was growing very short. Geoffrey was still prepared to hope for the best as regards the effect of an £11.25 billion PSBR figure on interest rates. But he knew that I just could not accept this. He went away to think further about what should be done.

Early the following morning, Alan came in to see me when I was in the flat packing my hats into boxes for my trip to the United States that afternoon. I told him that I had insisted on the lower PSBR he wanted. But I still did not know quite how Geoffrey would react. Then shortly before I left for America Geoffrey came in to see me. Having consulted his ministerial colleagues in the Treasury that morning he had accepted that we should have a smaller PSBR, below £11 billion. Rather than increase the basic rate of income tax he proposed the less unpopular course of withholding any increase in tax thresholds — though this was still an extraordinarily bold move when inflation remained at 13 per cent. This was the turning point. I was glad that Geoffrey had accepted the argument and I was pleased that he had found a way of increasing tax revenues that did not run counter to our long-term strategy of reversing Labour’s high tax rates. Our budget strategy was now set. And it looked as if we would be able to announce a reduction of 2 per cent in MLR in the budget the following Tuesday.

There was one other change announced in the budget, apparently technical but of great significance: the change to planning public expenditure in cash rather than what were called ‘volume’ terms. Each minister would be given a cash budget within which to keep his expenditure. Since the spring of 1980 we had been considering how this should be done and I discussed it with Geoffrey Howe and others in the Treasury over lunch there on 28 January 1981. It would have seemed distinctly odd to any company finance director, or housewife for that matter, how the government in those days used to work out its annual expenditure. The Chancellor would make his assessment of government revenue in cash, but spending decisions were made in terms of the volume of services it was desired to deliver, and denominated in what commentators used to call ‘funny money’ — neither the prices at the time of the spending decision, nor those when the money was actually spent. The result was that the Treasury never knew until far too late in the day the cash consequences of decisions on spending. Cash limits on some government spending had already been introduced, but paradoxically, this increased the confusion as spending which had been planned in volume ran up against them. From now on everything was to be planned in cash — though, of course, departments would still have to estimate the volume of services which their cash limits would enable them to afford. This imposed the sort of financial discipline on government departments with which the private sector had to deal. The ‘cash limits’ approach had the valuable consequence of bearing down on real public expenditure. It also gave departments a much stronger interest in seeking out the most efficient way of delivering the services expected of them.

Unsurprisingly, however, it was not the adoption of cash planning which grabbed the budget headlines, but rather the severity of the tax increases. The budget was very unpopular. But some of the leader columns were more favourable than the headlines and no one could doubt that this was a coherent budget which had required a good deal of courage to introduce. In the eyes of our critics, of course, the strategy was fundamentally wrong. If you believed, as they did, that increased government borrowing was the way to get out of recession, then our approach was inexplicable. If, on the other hand, you thought, as we did, that the way to get industry moving again was above all to get down interest rates, then you had to reduce government borrowing. Far from being deflationary, our budget would have the reverse effect: by cutting government borrowing and over time easing the monetary squeeze, it would allow interest rates and the exchange rate to fall, both of which had created severe difficulties for industry. I doubt that there has ever been a clearer test of two fundamentally different approaches to economic management.

The economists themselves realized that this was so. At the end of March 1981 no fewer than 364 leading members of the profession published a statement taking issue with our policy. Samuel Brittan of the Financial Times defended us, and so did Professor Patrick Minford from Liverpool University, who wrote to The Times answering the 364; I in turn wrote to congratulate him on his brilliant defence of the Government’s approach. We had made our decision: the task now was to hold the political line and, where possible, to win the political argument while waiting for the strategy to work. I was confident that it would.

The dissenters in the Cabinet, meanwhile, had been stunned by the budget when they learnt its contents at the traditional morning Cabinet on budget day. The press was soon full of leaks expressing their fury and frustration. They knew that the budget gave them a political opportunity. Because it departed so radically from post-war economic orthodoxy, even some of our supporters would not wholly believe in the strategy until it started to yield results. That might not be for some time. So it was clear that the Party in the country must be mobilized in support of what we were doing. The forthcoming Central Council of the Conservative Party in Bournemouth provided an opportunity for me to do this. I had decided some time before that I would try not to go to every Central Council because the number of party political occasions I was under pressure to address each year was enormous: there were separate conferences of the English, Scottish and Welsh parties, the Women’s Conference, Local Government Conference and Conferences of Young Conservatives, Conservative Students and Conservative Trade Unionists. However, I soon learnt that Central Council provided an opportunity which I could never afford to miss. Certainly that was true on this occasion. John Hoskyns and I worked late on Friday night and early into Saturday morning on my speech, which I delivered later that day. In it I threw down the challenge:

I got a good reception. For the moment at least, the Party faithful were prepared to take the heat and to back the Government. But that determination might erode over the summer unless the Government stuck together.

THE COAL STRIKE WHICH NEVER WAS

Thankfully, strikes occupied far less of our time during 1981 than they had in 1980, and the number of working days lost due to strike action was only a third of that in the previous year. But two disputes — one in the coal industry, which did not in the end result in a strike, and another in the civil service, which did[33] — were of great importance, both to budget decisions and to the overall political climate.

A foreigner unaware of the extraordinary legacy of state socialism in Britain would probably have found the threatened miners’ strike in January 1981 quite incomprehensible: £2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money had been invested in the coal industry since 1974; productivity at some of the new pits was high, and a slimmed-down and competitive coal industry could have provided employees with good, well-paid jobs. But this was possible only if uneconomic pits were closed, which the National Coal Board (NCB) wished to do. Moreover, the pits which the NCB was intent on closing in a programme it put forward in early 1981 were not just uneconomic but more or less exhausted. On 27 January the Energy Secretary, David Howell, told me about the closure plans. The following afternoon Sir Derek Ezra, NCB Chairman, visited Downing Street and briefed me in person. I agreed with him that with coal stocks piling up and the recession continuing there was no alternative to speeding up the closure of uneconomic pits. I had long regretted that past governments had made such an enormous commitment to coal: if we had spent more on nuclear power, as the French had done, our electricity would have been cheaper — and, indeed, our supplies more secure.

As in the cases of BSC and BL, it was the management which had to implement the agreed approach and, inevitably, the Government found itself dragged into a crisis we had neither sought nor predicted. The press was soon full of NCB plans to close 50 pits and a bitter conflict was predicted. The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) was pledged to fight closures and although Joe Gormley, its President, was a moderate, the powerful left-wing faction of the union was bound to exploit the situation and it was well known that Arthur Scargill, the hard-left leader, was likely to succeed Mr Gormley as President in the near future.

At a meeting with the NUM on 11 February the NCB Board resisted pressure to publish a list of pits which it was proposing to close and denied the figure of 50. However, the Board failed to mention the idea of improved redundancy terms, which was already being discussed by the Government, and instead undertook to join the NUM in an approach to us seeking a lower level of coal imports, the maintenance of a high level of public investment and subsidies comparable to those allegedly being paid by other governments to coal industries abroad. Far from acting as management might be expected to do, the NCB Board was behaving as if it entirely shared the interests of the union representing its employees. The situation quickly deteriorated further. I was lucky to have a private, independent and knowledgeable source of advice in my press secretary, Bernard Ingham who, before working for me in Downing Street, had spent some years in the Department of Energy and was convinced from the start that the department was far too complacent about the threat posed by a strike.

On Monday 16 February I had a meeting with David Howell and others. Their tone had entirely changed. The department had suddenly been forced to look over the abyss and had recoiled. The objective had now become to avoid an all-out national strike at the minimum cost in concessions. David Howell would have to agree to a tripartite meeting with the NUM and the NCB to achieve this. The tone of the NCB Chairman had also changed in short order. I was appalled to find that we had inadvertently entered into a battle which we could not win. There had been no forward thinking in the Department of Energy about what would happen in the case of a strike. The coal stocks piled at the pit heads were largely irrelevant to the question of whether the country could endure a strike: it was the stocks at the power stations which were important, and these were simply not sufficient. I had by now even less confidence in the NCB management. It became very clear that all we could do was to cut our losses and live to fight another day, when — with adequate preparation — we might be in a position to win. When my attitude became clear one official could not prevent himself expressing disappointment and surprise. My reply was simple: there is no point in embarking on a battle unless you are reasonably confident you can win. Defeat in a coal strike would have been disastrous.

The tripartite meeting was due to take place on 23 February. In the interim, we were hoping that the NCB would be able to make a more effective presentation of their case and to prevent the NUM continuing to make all the running. Indeed, we were advised that unless we held the tripartite meeting earlier than planned the NUM Executive might vote for a strike ballot. On the morning of 18 February I met hurriedly with David Howell to agree on the concessions which would have to be offered to stave off a strike. There was still considerable confusion as to what the facts really were. Whereas the NCB had been reported to be seeking 50 or 60 pit closures, it now appeared that they were talking about 23. But the tripartite meeting achieved its immediate objective: the strike was averted. The Government undertook to reduce imports of coal to the irreducible minimum, with David Howell indicating that we were prepared to discuss the financial implications with an open mind. Sir Derek Ezra said that in the light of this undertaking to review the financial constraints under which the NCB was operating, the Board would withdraw its closure proposals and re-examine the position in consultation with the unions.

The following day David Howell made a statement to the Commons to explain the outcome of the meeting. The press reaction was that the miners had won a major victory at the expense of the Government, but that we had probably been right to surrender. This was not, however, the end of our difficulties. We agreed to improve the redundancy terms for coal miners, to finance a scheme for conversion from oil to coal in industry and to look again at NCB finances. As is always the case once corporatism takes a grip, it became extremely difficult to bring the tripartite discussions to an end without provoking a crisis and equally difficult to ensure that the whole question of government finance for the NCB did not come onto the agenda. It had already emerged at the tripartite meeting on 25 February that the NCB was in far deeper financial trouble than we had known. They were likely to overrun their external financing limit (EFL), which had already been set at some £800 million, by between £450 and £500 million and were expecting to make a loss of £350 million. We would need to challenge these figures and examine them in detail, but we could not do this — as the NCB Board undoubtedly realized — when the NUM knew almost as much about the NCB’s financial position as we did. Therefore, our aim must be to draw a ring fence around the coal industry by arguing that coal was a special case rather than a precedent. We must seek to avoid any commitment for the years beyond 1981–2. Above all, we must prepare contingency plans in case the NUM sought a confrontation in the next pay round.

We confirmed these decisions at a meeting of ministers on 5 March. David Howell skilfully handled the next tripartite meeting on 11 March, at which it was understood that we would not need another tripartite meeting until the NCB’s financial position had been resolved. Meanwhile, he had been instructed to prepare a memorandum on contingency plans and circulate it by Easter.

Having managed to ease the Government out of an impossible position — at what I knew to be a high political cost — I concentrated attention on limiting the financial consequences of our retreat and preparing the ground so that we would never be put in such an awful situation again. David Howell had been shaken by what had happened. He feared a repetition of the events of January. There was much argument between him and the Treasury about the new EFL for the NCB and the level of investment we ought to finance. We had to agree to an EFL of well over £1 billion. Similarly, the threat of strike action constrained what we could do immediately to increase our capacity to endure a future strike. It was clear that coal stocks at the power stations must be increased, but it was impossible to take this action without its becoming known, and the faster stocks were transferred the more visible it would be. Jim Prior advised that we should not even discuss the matter with the industries involved, on the ground that it would be provocative to do so. The Department of Energy was very slow in giving effect to the decision that 4–5 million tons should be moved by the time that the NUM pay negotiations took place in the autumn. We were told that the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) would probably have to acquire extra land if higher stocks than this were to be built up. I held a meeting on 19 June to review the position. It seemed to me that the risks of moving coal stocks had been exaggerated. After all, stocks at the pits had increased from 13 million to 22 million tons over the past 12 months and it was natural that there should be some extra movement.

The real question in my mind was whether — even if we could substantially increase the rate of movement of coal to the power stations — we would in practice be able to resist a strike that winter. It was evident from the NUM Conference which took place in Jersey in July that the left wing of the union had become obsessed with the idea of taking on the Government and that Arthur Scargill, by this stage certain of the presidency, would make this his policy. Willie Whitelaw, as Home Secretary the minister in overall charge of civil contingency planning, had overseen a study of how to withstand a coal strike that winter. He sent me a report on 22 July, which concluded that a strike this year probably could not be withstood for more than 13–14 weeks. The calculations took account of the transfer of coal stocks which we had put in hand. In theory, endurance could be increased by power cuts or the use of troops to move coal to the power stations. But either option was fraught with difficulty. There would be huge political pressure to give in to a strike. The union might see what was up if we set about increasing oil stocks for power stations. In August I reluctantly concluded that no such action should be taken in advance of that year’s NUM pay settlement. We would have to rely on a judicious mixture of flexibility and bluff until the Government was in a position to face down the challenge posed to the economy, and indeed potentially to the rule of law, by the combined force of monopoly and union power in the coal industry.

THE URBAN RIOTS OF 1981

Over the weekend of 10–12 April, riots broke out in Brixton, South London. Shops were looted, vehicles destroyed, and 149 police officers and 58 members of the public were injured. Two hundred and fifteen people were arrested. There were frightening scenes, reminiscent of riots in the United States during the 1960s and ‘70s. I accepted Willie Whitelaw’s suggestion that Lord Scarman, the distinguished Law Lord, should undertake an enquiry into the causes of what had happened and make recommendations.

There was a lull; then on Friday 3 July a battle in Southall between white skinheads and Asian youths erupted into a riot in which the police quickly became the main victims, attacked with petrol bombs, bricks and anything else to hand. The mob even turned on firemen and ambulancemen. Over the weekend, Toxteth in Liverpool was also the scene of violence: once again there were outbreaks of arson, looting and savage attacks on the police. The Merseyside police reacted vigorously and dispersed the mob with CS gas.

On 8 and 9 July it was the turn of Moss Side in Manchester to experience two days of serious disorder. The police presence was initially kept deliberately low, in the hope that ‘community leaders’ could calm matters down. This they singularly failed to do and so the police had to move into the area in strength. Willie Whitelaw told me after his visits to Manchester and Liverpool that the Moss Side riots had taken the form of looting and hooliganism rather than direct confrontation with the police. In Liverpool, as I was to learn, racial tension and bitter hostility to the police — in my view encouraged by left-wing extremists — were more important.

The riots were, of course, a godsend to the Labour Opposition and the Government’s critics in general. Here was the long-awaited evidence that our economic policy was causing social breakdown and violence. In the Commons and elsewhere I found myself countering the argument that the riots had been caused by unemployment. Behind their hands, some Conservatives echoed this criticism, complaining that the social fabric was being torn apart by the doctrinaire monetarism we had espoused. This rather overlooked the fact that riots, football hooliganism and crime generally had been on the increase since the 1960s, most of that time under the very economic policies that our critics were urging us to adopt. A third explanation — that racial minorities were reacting to police brutality and racial discrimination — we took more seriously. Indeed, it was for this reason that we had invited Lord Scarman to investigate and report on the causes of the riots immediately after the Brixton riots in April. Following his report we introduced a statutory framework for consultation between the police and local authorities, tightened the rules on stopping and searching suspects, and brought in other measures relating to police recruitment, training and discipline.

Whatever Lord Scarman might recommend, however — and whatever Michael Heseltine might achieve later by skilful public relations when he had begun to investigate the problems of Merseyside — the immediate requirement was that law and order should be restored. I told Willie on Saturday 11 July that I intended to go to Scotland Yard and wished to be shown how they handled the difficulties on the ground.

After a briefing at Scotland Yard I was taken round Brixton. At Brixton Police Station I went into the canteen to thank the staff there — as I had thanked the police officers themselves — for all that they were doing. I also talked with the West Indian ladies in the canteen. They had gone into work throughout the disturbances, determined that the police should be supported with proper canteen facilities whenever they needed them at any hour of the day or night. They were clearly as disgusted as I was with those who were causing the trouble.

Later I returned to Scotland Yard where I had a long discussion with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir David McNee, his Deputy and Assistant. They had a number of worries: they told me that they wanted to see sentences administered quickly on the offenders — something which long delays at the Crown Courts often prevented; they were concerned that their powers of arrest were insufficient; and above all, they needed proper riot equipment, as a matter of urgency. I promised them every support. It was something of a shock to contemplate the kind of equipment the British police now required, which included a greater variety of riot shields, more vehicles, longer truncheons, and sufficient stocks of rubber bullets and water cannon. They had already received vital protective helmets from the MoD, but these had had to be altered because the visors provided inadequate protection against burning petrol. Afterwards I stressed to Willie the urgency of meeting these requirements.

On Monday 13 July I made a similar visit to Liverpool. Driving through Toxteth, the scene of the disturbances, I observed that for all that was said about deprivation, the housing there was by no means the worst in the city. I had been told that some of the young people involved got into trouble through boredom and not having enough to do. But you had only to look at the grounds around those houses with the grass untended, some of it almost waist high, and the litter, to see that this was a false analysis. They had plenty of constructive things to do if they wanted. Instead, I asked myself how people could live in such circumstances without trying to clear up the mess and improve their surroundings. What was clearly lacking was a sense of pride and personal responsibility — something which the state can easily remove but almost never give back.

The first people I talked to in Liverpool were the police, whose comments and requirements for equipment were similar to those in London. I also met councillors at Liverpool City Hall and then talked to a group of community leaders and young people. I was appalled by the latter’s hostility to the Chief Constable and the police. But I listened carefully to what they had to say. There were two people with them who appeared to be social workers, and who began by trying to speak on their behalf. But these young people did not need anyone to speak for them: they were articulate and talked about their problems with great sincerity. The press were rather confused when, contrary to what they had been expecting, the youngsters told them that I had indeed listened. But I did more than listen: I had something to say myself. I reminded them that resources had been poured into Liverpool. I told them that I was very concerned by what they had said about the police and that while the colour of a person’s skin did not matter to me at all, crime did. I urged them not to resort to violence or to try to live in separate communities from the rest of us. Before I returned to London I also talked to the Catholic Archbishop and the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, who had jointly won national attention as great advocates for their city.

The whole visit left me in no doubt as I drove back that evening that we faced immense problems in areas like Toxteth and Brixton. People had to find once again a sense of respect for the law, for the neighbourhood, and indeed for themselves. Despite our implementation of most of Scarman’s recommendations and the inner city initiatives we were to take, none of the conventional remedies relying on state action and public spending was likely to prove effective. The causes went much deeper; so must the cures.

The rioters were invariably young men, whose high animal spirits, usually kept in check by a whole range of social constraints, had on these occasions been unleashed to wreak havoc. What had become of the constraints? A sense of community — including the watchful disapproval of neighbours — is the strongest such barrier. But this sense had been lost in the inner cities for a variety of reasons. Often those neighbourhoods were the artificial creation of local authorities which had uprooted people from genuine communities and decanted them into badly designed and ill-maintained estates where they did not know their new neighbours. Some of these new ‘neighbourhoods’, because of large-scale immigration, were ethnically mixed; on top of the tensions which might initially arise in any event, even immigrant families with a very strong sense of traditional values found those values undermined in their own children by messages from the surrounding culture. In particular, welfare arrangements encouraged dependency and discouraged a sense of responsibility, and television undermined common moral values that would once have united working-class communities. The results were a steadily increasing rise in crime (among young men) and illegitimacy (among young women).

All that was needed for these to flower into full-scale rioting was the decline of authority and the consequent feeling among potential rioters that they could probably get away with mayhem. Authority of all kinds — in the home, the school, the churches and the state — had been in decline for most of the post-war years. Hence the rise in football hooliganism, race riots and delinquency over that period. There had even been one or two cases when the nervous indecision of the police — for instance in withdrawing officers from riots until reinforcements arrived — had both encouraged the rioters and undermined the confidence of law-abiding members of the community. What perhaps aggravated the 1981 riots into a virtual saturnalia, however, was the impression given by television that, for all these reasons, rioters could enjoy a fiesta of crime, looting and rioting in the guise of social protest. They had been absolved in advance. These are precisely the circumstances in which young men riot, and riot again — and they have nothing whatever to do with £M3.

Once we had solved the problem of the British economy, however, we would need to turn to those deeper and more intractable problems. I did so in my second and third terms with the set of policies for housing, education, local authorities and social security that my advisers, over my objections, wanted to call ‘Social Thatcherism’. But we had only begun to make an impact on these by the time I left office.

MORE CABINET DISSENT AND THE SEPTEMBER 1981 RESHUFFLE

It was the 1981 budget, however, which throughout the summer continued to agitate the Cabinet. Some ministers were long-standing in their dissent. Others on whose support I had counted in the past began to fall away. The irony was that at the very time the opposition to the strategy was greatest, the trough of the recession had already been reached. Whereas in 1980 the dissenters in the Cabinet had refused to face up to the true seriousness of the economic situation and so had insisted on higher government spending than we could afford, in 1981 they made the opposite mistake by exaggerating the bleakness of the economic outlook and calling for even higher spending in a bid to reflate the economy out of recession. Surely there is something logically suspect about a solution which is always correct whatever the problem.

One of the myths perpetuated by the media at this time was that Treasury ministers and I were obsessively secretive about economic policy, seeking always to avoid debate in Cabinet. In view of past leaks that might indeed have been an understandable approach, but it was never one we adopted. Geoffrey Howe was anxious to have three or four full economic discussions in Cabinet every year, in the belief that it would help us to win greater support for the policy; I doubted whether discussions of this sort would achieve a meeting of minds, but I went along with Geoffrey’s suggestion as long as it generated practical results, and in particular greater realism about public expenditure.

At the Cabinet in mid-June there was a general discussion of the economy lasting two hours, based on several Treasury papers dealing with various elements in the debate. The main paper was a full survey of recent economic developments and the economic prospect. It showed that the public finances had been placed on a sounder basis: we had cut borrowing and repaid some international debt. Interest rates at 12 per cent in the UK were now substantially below those in the US and France, and lower than those of the major industrialized countries generally. Industrial production had ceased to fall, though unemployment — a lagging indicator, as always — was still rising. The tax burden was up; but we were at least financing that spending in a sound way — and honest money was essential to sustainable recovery.

Other ministers, however, saw little that was positive in this picture. They believed that unemployment over three million — the figure now predicted — was politically unacceptable and that higher government spending should be used to accelerate and strengthen economic recovery. My own analysis was entirely different: the way to achieve recovery was to ensure that a smaller proportion of the nation’s income went to government, freeing resources for the private sector where the majority of people worked.

All these arguments came to a head at the Cabinet discussion on Thursday 23 July. I had more than an inkling of what was coming. Indeed before I went down to the Cabinet Room that morning, I had said to Denis that we had not come this far to go back now. I would not stay as Prime Minister unless we saw the strategy through. Spending ministers had submitted bids for extra expenditure of more than £6.5 billion, of which some £2.5 billion was demanded for the nationalized industries. But in view of past overspending and of the tax increases which had taken place already, the Treasury urged reduced public spending for 1982–3, below the totals derived from the March white paper. The result was one of the bitterest arguments on the economy, or any subject, that I can ever recall taking place at Cabinet during my premiership. The ‘wets’, of course, argued their case with redoubled vigour, strengthened by the lack of any evidence that our policies had turned things round. Some argued for extra public spending and borrowing as a better route to recovery than tax cuts. There was talk of a pay freeze. Even those, like John Nott, who had been known for their views on sound finance, attacked Geoffrey Howe’s proposals as unnecessarily harsh. All at once the whole strategy was at issue. It was as if tempers suddenly broke. I too became extremely angry. I had thought that we could rely on these people when the crunch came. I just was not interested in this kind of creative accounting that enabled fair-weather monetarists to justify an about-turn. Others, though, were as loyal as ever, notably Willie, Keith and, of course, Geoffrey himself who was a tower of strength at this time. And indeed it was their loyalty that saw us through.

I had said at the beginning of the government ‘give me six strong men and true, and I will get through.’ Very rarely did I have as many as six. So I responded vigorously in defence of the Chancellor. I was prepared to have a further paper on the issue of tax cuts versus public spending. But I warned of the effects on international confidence of public expenditure increases or any departure from the MTFS. I was determined that the strategy should continue. But when I closed the meeting I knew that there were too many in Cabinet who did not share that view. Moreover, after what had been said it would be difficult for this group of ministers to act as a team again.

Much of this bitter disagreement found its way into the press — and not simply in reports of what had been said in Cabinet derived from nonattributable ministerial comments, but also in the form of scarcely coded public speeches and statements. There were particularly embarrassing comments from Francis Pym and Peter Thorneycroft, who between them were meant to be responsible for the public presentation of our policies. At Francis’s suggestion I had authorized the recreation of the ‘Liaison Committee’, at which ministers and Central Office were supposed to work together to achieve a coherent message. In August it became clear that these arrangements were actually being used to undermine the strategy.

Geoffrey Howe had said in the House of Commons that the CBI’s latest Industrial Trends Survey provided evidence that we were now at the end of the recession — a remark which may have been slightly imprudent, but which was strictly true. The following weekend Francis Pym in the course of a lengthy speech observed: ‘there are few signs yet of when an upturn will occur. And that recovery when it comes in due course may be slower and less pronounced than in the past.’ This forecast would have been bold even from an economist; coming from Francis it verged on the visionary. For good measure he added that ‘in our industrial policy we must work as partners with industry and with the trade unions to identify the key sectors of the economy and the most promising export markets’ — the kind of neo-corporatist incantation which signified total rejection of the economic strategy. Even Peter Thorneycroft, who had been a superb chairman of the Party in Opposition, joined the ‘wet’ chorus, describing himself as suffering from ‘rising damp’ and saying that ‘there [was] no great sign of [the economy] picking up.’ Given that these comments came from the two men in charge of presenting government policy, they were extremely damaging and easily seen (in that inevitable metaphor) as ‘the tip of the iceberg’.

Trade union reform was another subject of Cabinet disagreement. We had issued a green paper on trade union immunities on which comments were to be received by the end of June 1981. When they came in, these showed a desire among businessmen for further radical action to bring trade unions fully under the rule of law. But Jim Prior and I disagreed about what should be done. I wanted further action to restrict trade union immunities, which would make union funds liable to court action. Jim’s proposals would not have achieved this. His analysis was, indeed, fundamentally different from mine. In his reading, history showed that the unions could defeat any legislation if they wanted to. I believed that history showed nothing of the sort, but rather that governments in the past had failed the nation through lack of nerve — drawing back when the battle was nearly won. I was also convinced that on the issue of union reform there was a great reserve of public support on which we could draw. Indeed, as I told Jim, I thought that there was a real risk that people would consider that we had done very little to tackle trade union power.

The differences between Cabinet ministers over the economic strategy — and between myself and Jim Prior over trade union reform — were not just ones of emphasis but of fundamentals. If the goals I had set out in Opposition were to be achieved they must be reaffirmed and fought for by a new Cabinet. So it was quite clear to me that a major reshuffle was needed if our economic policy were to continue, and perhaps if I were to remain Prime Minister.

I preferred to have a Cabinet reshuffle during the recess if possible, so that ministers could get used to their departments before being questioned in the House. I also believed that as matters usually got fairly difficult at the end of July, it was better for all of us to have a holiday before decisions were taken. It was not, therefore, until September that I discussed the details with my closest advisers. Willie Whitelaw, Michael Jopling (the Chief Whip) and Ian Gow came over to Chequers on the weekend of 12–13 September. For part of the time Peter Carrington and Cecil Parkinson joined us. The reshuffle itself took place on the Monday.

I always saw first those who were being asked to leave the Cabinet. I began with Ian Gilmour and told him of my decision. He was — I can find no other word for it — huffy. He left Downing Street and denounced government policy to the television cameras as ‘steering full speed ahead for the rocks’ — altogether a flawless imitation of a man who has resigned on principle. Christopher Soames was equally angry — but in a grander way. I got the distinct impression that he felt the natural order of things was being violated and that he was, in effect, being dismissed by his housemaid. Mark Carlisle, who had not been a very effective Education Secretary and leaned to the left, also left the Cabinet — but he did so with courtesy and good humour. Jim Prior was obviously shocked to be moved from Employment where he had come to consider himself all but indispensable. The press had been full of his threats to resign from the Government altogether if he were asked to leave his present position. I wanted this post for the formidable Norman Tebbit, and Jim could not intimidate me by threatening himself. So I called his bluff, and offered him the post of Northern Ireland Secretary. He asked for time to consider, and after some agonizing and some telephoning he accepted my offer and became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in place of the debonair Humphrey Atkins, who succeeded Ian Gilmour as the main Foreign Office minister in the Commons.

I moved David Howell from Energy to Transport. It gave me great pleasure to promote the immensely talented Nigel Lawson, the intellectual author of the MTFS, into the Cabinet to take his place. Nigel turned out to be a highly successful Secretary of State for Energy, vigorously promoting competition, taking a real grip on his department and building up coal stocks for the inevitable struggle with the miners.

Keith Joseph had told me that he wished to move from Industry. With his belief that there was an anti-enterprise culture which had harmed Britain’s economic performance over the years, it was natural that Keith should now wish to go to Education where that culture had taken deep roots. Accordingly, I sent Keith to my old department to replace Mark Carlisle. Norman Fowler returned to take up Health and Social Security, the portfolio he had held in Opposition, replacing Patrick Jenkin who took over at Industry from Keith. Janet Young, a friend for many years who had first become involved in politics as leader of Oxford City Council, became Leader of the House of Lords, the first woman to hold the post, taking over Christopher Soames’s responsibility for the civil service.

Perhaps the most important change was the promotion of Norman Tebbit to replace Jim Prior at Employment. Norman had had experience of dealing with industrial relations as a trade unionist himself. He had been an official of the British Airline Pilots’ Association and had no illusions about the vicious world of hard-left trade unionism, nor, by contrast, any doubt about the fundamental decency of most trade union members. As a true believer in the kind of approach Keith Joseph and I stood for, Norman understood how trade union reform fitted into our overall strategy. Norman was also one of the Party’s most effective performers in Parliament and on a public platform. The fact that the Left howled disapproval confirmed that he was just the right man for the job. He was someone they feared.

I had already agreed with Peter Thorneycroft that he should cease to be Party Chairman. I had been unhappy about some of Peter’s actions in recent months. But I would never forget how much he did to help win the 1979 election. He was one of an older school of political leaders — a man of force and character — and remained a friend. I appointed Cecil Parkinson to succeed him — dynamic, full of common sense, a good accountant, an excellent presenter and, no less important, on my wing of the Party.

The whole nature of the Cabinet changed as a result of these changes. After the new Cabinet’s first meeting I remarked to David Wolfson and John Hoskyns what a difference it made to have most of the people in it on my side. This did not mean that we would always agree, or that there would not be the regular arguments about public spending. There would always be some dissent and Jim Prior at his own request remained a member of ‘E’ committee, the economic committee of the Cabinet. But it would be a number of years before there arose an issue which fundamentally divided me from the majority of my Cabinet, and by then Britain’s economic recovery, so much a matter of controversy in 1981, had been accepted — perhaps all too easily accepted — as a fact of life.

The day after the reshuffle, The Times leader entitled Prima Inter Pares, summed up reaction to the changes I had made:

I could accept that.

THE 1981 CONSERVATIVE PARTY CONFERENCE

The ‘wets’ had been defeated, but they did not yet fully realize it, and decided to make a last assault at the 1981 Party Conference in Blackpool that October.

The circumstances on the eve of the conference were grim. Inflation, which had fallen sharply since 1980, remained stubbornly at between 11 and 12 per cent. Largely as a result of the US budget deficit, interest rates had been increased by 2 per cent in mid-September, temporarily wiping out the reduction made possible at such cost by the budget in March. Then, shortly after I arrived at Melbourne for the Commonwealth Conference on 30 September, I received a telephone call to say that we would have to make a second increase of 2 per cent. So interest rates now stood at an alarming 16 per cent.

Above all, unemployment continued its inexorable rise: it would reach the headline figure of three million in January 1982, but already in the autumn of 1981 it seemed almost inevitable that this would happen. Most people were unpersuaded, therefore, that recession was coming to an end and it was too soon for the new sense of direction in Cabinet — which I knew that the reshuffle would bring — to have had an effect on public opinion.

We were also in political difficulties for another reason. The weakness of the Labour Party, which had initially worked in our favour, had allowed the newly formed SDP to leap into political contention. In October the Liberals and SDP were standing at 40 per cent in the opinion polls: by the end of the year the figure was over 50 per cent. (At the Crosby by-election in the last week of November Shirley Williams was able to overturn a 19,000 Conservative majority to get back into the Commons.) On the eve of our Party Conference I was being described in the press as ‘the most unpopular prime minister since polls began’.

Of course, the statistics were misleading at this point. Interest rates would have been higher still had we not taken the action we did in the budget. We were able to begin reducing rates again within weeks. And demographic factors were as important as the recession in explaining the rise of unemployment. The low birth rates during the First World War meant that fewer people were retiring in the early 1980s than in the early 1970s. At the same time the number of young people entering the labour market reached record levels as a result of the 1960s ‘baby boom’. Between 1979 and 1981 the economy had to provide an extra 83,000 jobs a year just to stop unemployment rising.

But that was not how it seemed at the time — and the ‘wets’ determined to exploit our apparent difficulties to the full at Blackpool. I witnessed what seemed to be a concerted attempt to swing the Party against the Government’s policies both in the Conference Hall and at the fringe meetings outside. In a speech to the Selsdon Group the critics were brilliantly answered by Nigel Lawson. Nigel pointed out that it was no argument for them to take refuge in political generalities:

In the conference economic debate no less a figure than Ted Heath spearheaded the attack. He argued that there were alternative policies available but that we just refused to adopt them. The debate was well mannered in form, well versed in content and passionate in feeling. Both sides delivered serious economic analyses at a high level — and the stakes themselves were very high. A rebuff for the platform would have emboldened back-bench ‘wets’ to step up their attack when Parliament resumed, with unpredictable consequences; a rebuff for the critics, which is what they received, would strengthen our moral authority. In answer to Ted Heath, Geoffrey Howe, who summed up our case with a cool, measured and persuasive speech, reminded the conference of Ted’s own words in his introduction to the 1970 Conservative manifesto:

‘I agree with every single word of that,’ said Geoffrey. His speech won over some of the doubters and ensured that we had a comfortable win. Nevertheless, in my own speech later I felt the need to fasten down our victory by taking the arguments of Ted Heath and others head on:

Even though the ‘wets’ would continue to be sceptics for another six months, our policy had already begun to succeed. The early signs of recovery in the summer of 1981 were confirmed by statistics in the following quarter, which marked the start of a long period of sustained economic growth. Political recovery followed in the wake of these early signs of improvement, with better poll figures in the spring of 1982. We were about to find ourselves in the Falklands War, but we had already won the second Battle of Britain.