Jump to content
 

Speech Archive

Jump to comments

Leader's speech, Bournemouth 1985

Neil Kinnock (Labour)

Location: Bournemouth

Commentary:

“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions.  They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council - hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers". 

These are probably the most famous words ever delivered by Neil Kinnock, whose ‘Parliamentary Report’, presented at Bournemouth on October 11th, 1985, has since become recognised as a symbolic turning point in the history of The Labour Party. The extract above, was widely replayed on television then and since.

From the perspective of a rhetorical analysis the key word in the passage is ‘scuttle’. 

In Book III of The Rhetoric I Aristotle explores the power of metaphor to communicate an idea, by bringing something vividly ‘before our eyes’. In Kinnock’s speech ‘scuttle’ adds a characteristic of insects to the image of the – already insect-like – black cabs, conjuring up in the mind an image of a kind of infestation, one that feeds not on any chaos but on the ‘grotesque’ kind. The phrasing thus definitively characterizes Militant in Liverpool as not merely incompetent or silly but as sinister, and perhaps also as an 'alien' external force rather than the authentic working-class self-consciousness it claimed to be. 

All this was just one part of a speech worth examining in full, for these passages do have a place in the overall scheme.

After the opening formalities Kinnock launches a full-throated attack on the Tory government. He does so through a structured sequence of rhetorical questions, asking how the ‘Party of the family’, the ‘Party of freedom’ and the ‘Party of enterprise’ can be enacting policies or presiding over a situation so at odds with these descriptors. The questions, then, drive a wedge between how the Tories conceive and present themselves, and what they are actually doing; between ‘appearance’ and ‘reality’.  This theme is - in various ways - sustained across the speech.

In the middle of the speech there are some extremely interesting passages on the theme of change. Kinnock describes our ‘time of rapidly and radically changing technology…shifts in the whole structure of the world economy’ and refers to the development of new aspirations, such as those made possible by the social liberation women. He then makes the case that the country must adapt to such changes, and that only Labour can do so in a consensual way, that helps people to manage that change (the implicit comparison is with the ‘brutal’ way in which the Conservative government forced change in the mining industry).

What is so interesting here is that these themes of change and adaptation would become the governing centre of Blairism a decade later. But where Blair would use them to argue for the withdrawal of government from various arenas – in order to open up ‘choice’ - Kinnock develops a theory of contemporary social democracy in which government intervenes in social and economic life but as an ‘opportunity’ or ‘servant’ state.

These passages, then, coming out of the establishment of a gap between appearance and reality, urge on the Labour Party, an acceptance of - and an adaptation to - the reality of social and economic change. This in turn paves the way for the critique of militant as unrealistic, rooted in own self-obsession. The end of speech refers back to ‘realism’ and to ‘the plain realities and needs of our country’.

There is much more that could be said about this speech and its reception. But we will make only one further point. One ‘reality’ Kinnock urges his party to attend to is that of what people really believe, and how one might engage with them: “We must not dogmatise or browbeat”, he says, “ We have got to reason with people; we have got to persuade people.  That is their due.  We have voluntarily, every one of us, joined a political party.  We wish a lot more people would come and join us, help us, give us their counsel, their energies, their advice, broaden our participation.  But in making the choice to join a political party we took a decision, and it was that, by persuasion, we hoped that we could bring more people with us.  So that is the basis on which we have got to act, want to act”.

The fusing of reason with persuasion (a fusion catalysed by passion and belief), with the goal of bringing about voluntary and conscious belief, the basis of meaningful consent: this is the activity, the art, of rhetoric. For recognising that, this website has no hesitation in considering Kinnock to be one of the great orators of British Politics. 

Thank you.  Comrades, Alan, I think you must be all Welsh to give a welcome like that. (Laughter) But wherever you come from, I do thank you and I think movement, the country, will have got that message that you gave them there and then very loud and very clear.  There is no mistaking that.  (Applause)

Comrades, before I present my parliamentary report this year, I want to mark the fact that at this Conference we see the retirement of an unusual number of our senior comrades in the trade union movement and also, of course, we have seen this year the retirement of our General Secretary, Jim Mortimer.  I want to take this opportunity of paying tribute to all of those people, together with those who are perhaps not so distinguished, for their lifetime of service to this working class movement.  (Applause)

Today, however, we learn with deep sadness that one of those retired friends died this morning.  Terry Duffy was blunt, irascible, not always easy to agree with, but as honest as the day was long, and we mourn his death and the fact that he had to endure with immense courage months of a dreadful illness.  We send our sincere condolences to his family, and to Terry and to the many others who have made such a contribution to our movement we say thanks for all that they have done.  (Applause)

Comrades, this week in which our Conference meets is the 333rd week of Mrs Thatcher’s government.  In this average week in Tory Britain 6,000 people will lose their jobs, 225 businesses will go bankrupt, £400 million will be spent on paying the bills of unemployment, 6,000 more people will be driven by poverty into supplementary benefit; and in this week in the world at large over $10,000 million will be spent on armaments and less than $1,000 million will be spent on official aid; and in this week over 300,000 children will die in the Third World.  These are the real challenges that we have to face, at home and abroad.  These are the concerns of our nation; they are the crises of our world.  These are the problems which we in our party address and must address this week and every other week.  Only we will address them this week and every other week, because that is what our party is for.

The Tories do not see things like that. They do not believe that these are great problems of substance at all.  They think that all of the woes are simply a matter of ‘presentation’, as they put it.  Presentation – that is what their ministers tell each other, that is what their Conference will tell itself next week, that is what the Prime Minister uses to explain everything: it is all a matter of presentation.  The unemployment does not really exist, the training centres have not been shut down, the Health Service is safe in their hands: it is all just a matter of presentation.  Indeed, they are so convinced of that that they have now got rid of Mr John Selwyn Gummer.  He has been sent off to the Ministry of Agriculture, where doubtlessly the expertise that he gained as Chairman of the Tory Party in handling natural fertiliser will come in very handy.  (Applause)

In little Selwyn’s place we have Mr Norman Tebbit, charged with the task, so the newspapers tell us, of explaining the government to the country.  The last person to have that commission was Dr Goebbels.  (Applause) Whilst Lord Willie Whitelaw, so the newspapers tell us, retains responsibility for co-ordinating the presentation of government policy.  Norman and Willie – surely arsenic and old lace!  (Applause) Still, to give the devil his due, Mr Tebbit has been very frank about his whole function.  A few days ago he said: ‘I don’t mind being blackguarded for what we’ve done, but I don’t want to be blackguarded for what we haven’t done.’

He will not mind then if I ask him to take a little time off from commissioning young Tories to litter the streets of Bournemouth – (Applause) – and give us a few explanations.  Ask him to explain, for instance, how the self-acclaimed party of law and order comes to preside over a record 40 per cent rise in crime in our country in the last six years.  (Applause) How does the declared party of school standards contrive a situation in which Her Majesty’s inspectors can describe the schooling system as ‘inadequate, shabby, dilapidated, outdated’, and then on top of that the Government goads the most temperate of professions – the teachers – into taking prolonged sanctions in the schools they work in?  (Applause) How does the party of the family cut child benefit, cut housing benefit, reduce nursery schooling, turn hundreds of women into immigration widows?  How does the party of the family hit the old and the sick by cutting funds in the health and social services?  How does the party of the family, indeed of the country and the suburbs, isolate the villages and the suburbs by destroying public transport services?  (Applause) How does the party of the family, above all, so arrange things that this year there is the lowest number of public housing starts in the whole of modern history, the same year in which a Prime Minister makes provision for her retirement with a £450,000 fortress in Dulwich?  (Applause) Is that the mark of the family party?

How is it that the party that promised to roll back the state has arrived at the situation where 1,700,000 more people are entirely dependent on the state because of their poverty during the time the Tories have been in government?  How can the party of freedom, the friends of freedom, illegalise trade unionism in GCHQ Cheltenham?  How can the party of freedom abolish the right to vote in the Greater London and metropolitan county councils?  (Applause) How can the party of freedom prosecute Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting?  How can the party of freedom make secret plans to surrender completely the sovereignty of the British people in the event of war?  How can the party of freedom do that?  (Applause) That did not happen when the Panzer divisions were at the French coast, when this country was in its most dire jeopardy.  The institutions of freedom in this country were maintained.  We insist that at tall times of national gravity, at any time of public jeopardy, there is all the more reason for us to sustain the values and the institutions of our democracy in this country.  That is what we tell the party of freedom.  (Applause)

How does the party of enterprise preside over record bankruptcies?  How does the party of tax cuts arrange that the British people now carry the biggest ever burden of taxation in British history?  And how, above all, does the party that got the power by complaining that ‘Labour isn’t working’ claim in the name of sanity that there is a recovery going on, when unemployment rises remorselessly to the point where this Thursday they will record 3.4 million British people registered unemployed even on their fiddle figures?  That is an awful lot – 3.4 million – of moaning Minnies, even for the most malevolent Maggie to try and explain away.  (Applause)

They are the paradoxes, they are the inconsistencies, they are the hypocrisies that Norman Tebbit has got to try and explain.  No wonder they have given him a professional fiction writer as deputy chairman.  (Applause) But even if Jeffrey Archer was a mixture of the inventive genius of Shakespeare and Houdini and Uri Geller all rolled up into one, he still would not be able to do the trick, because the British people have rumbled.  They have rumbled the methods, the motives, the style of the Government.  They now understand.  The great majority of the British people, including very much those who are not disadvantaged, are now alarmed and ashamed by the way that this Government rules, the divisions it creates, the dangers that it creates in our country.  Their concern is recorded in every opinion poll, it is obvious in the statements of clergymen, it is even apparent amongst the soggier elements of the Conservative Party; and the breadth of that concern is evidence of the breadth of decent values and attitudes amongst the British people.

The Government ignores those feelings.  They propose no concessions, no changes.  All we get is a fleeting visit to what the Prime Minister thinks of as ‘the North’ and we get a Secretary of State for Employment in quarantine in the House of Lords, and then the other response that the Government makes to national crisis is to preach continually that there will be some great miracle of prosperity in some great non-unionised, low wage, tax-dodging, low-tech privatised day that one time will come upon us.  It is a myth, mirage, fantasy, and the British people now know that.

They want a government that changes those policies; they want a government that will lift the poor and the unemployed; they want jobs to be generated; and they have demonstrated in overwhelming majorities that they want unemployment and insecurity to be fought by the Government, not used by the Government as the main tool of its economic policies.  (Applause) That is what the British people want.  They resent the Tory strategy of fear.  They know that fear brings caution, insecurity breeds stagnation.  It goes not bring the ‘get up and go’ society that Mrs Thatcher talks about; it brings the ‘keep your head down, hang on to what you’ve got, stay scared’ society.  That is what it brings – anxiety.  And the penalties of disadvantage do not make confidence or co-operation or strength or stability; they make deference, they make division, they make weakness, yes, and they make conflict too.  When tension, division, distrust, racism and idleness are ignited by hopelessness, all of those policies of fear and neglect create chaos in our society and on our streets.

I say that we cannot afford to be ruled by a government that does nothing to combat that lethal mixture of stagnation and strife.  We could not afford it at any time, but least of all can we afford it now, when our society must change or decay.  We are in that time now, and there must be a better way to face those challenges, those alternatives, than the way that is shown by the Government of Margaret Thatcher.

I believe I know that in this party we do have that better way.  I believe we have it because we have the values, the perceptions and the policies that come from democratic socialism.  We have the combination of idealism, which stops us throwing in the towel and giving in to he defeatism of toryism, and the realism which makes us buckle down to finding and implementing the answers.  That is the essence of what we believe in.  That is the combination of idealism and realism that this country needs now.  I say to this movement and I say to the country: that combination is more necessary than ever before.

We live in a time of rapidly and radically changing technology.  We live at a time of shifts in the whole structure of the world economy; we live at a time of new needs among the peoples of the world and new aspirations among young people and among women – late but welcome new aspirations among half of humankind.  In the light of those changes, we need governing policies in this country that can gain change by consent.  That will not come from government that bullies and dictates.  It will not come from a government that evades changed and dodges the real issues.  Change by consent can only be fostered by a government that will deliberately help people to cope with, handle and manage that change.  That is the task for us – to promote change in such a way that it advances the people, all of the people.

Change cannot be left to chance.  If it is left to chance, it becomes malicious, it creates terrible victims.  It has done so generation in, generation out.  Change has to be organised.  It has to be shaped to the benefit of a society, deliberately, by those who have democratic power in that society; and the democratic instrument of the people who exist for that purpose is the state – yes, the state.  To us that means a particular kind of state – an opportunity state, which exists to assist in nourishing talent and rewarding merit; a productive state, which exists to encourage investment and to help expand output; an enabling state, which is at the disposal of the people instead of being dominant over the people.  In a word, we want a servant state, which respects those who work for it and reminds them that they work for the people of the country, a state which will give support to the voluntary efforts of those who, in their own time and from their own inspiration, will help the old, the sick, the needy, the young, the ill-housed and the hopeless.

We are democratic socialists.  We want to put the state where it belongs in a democracy – under the feet of the people, not over the heads of the people.  That is where the state belongs in a democracy.  (Applause) It means the collective contribution of the community for the purpose of individual liberty throughout the community; of individual freedom which is not nominal but real; of freedom which can be exercised in practice because school is good, because the hospital is there, because the training is accessible, because the alternative work is available, because the law is fair, because the streets are safe – real freedoms, real choices, real chances, and, going with them, the real opportunity to meet responsibilities.  It is not a state doing things instead of people who could do those things better; it is not a state replacing families or usurping enterprise or displacing initiative or smothering individualism. It is the absolute opposite: it is a servant state doing things that institutions – big institutions, rich institutions, corporate institutions, rich, strong people – will not do, have not done, with anything like the speed or in anything like the scale that is necessary to bring change with consent in our society.  That kind of state is the state that we seek under democratic control.

It cannot be done with brutality and it cannot be done with blandness either.  That is why the Social Democrats and the Liberals are utterly useless for the purpose of securing change with consent.  (Applause) They are in Polo politics – smooth and firm on the outside and absolutely nothing on the inside.  (Applause) They do not really do anything or say anything to address the real problems.  They have just had a fortnight of conferences, most of which they spent talking about themselves and having a sort of a seminar about which David was going to play second fiddle, because we all know which David is going to play first trumpet, don’t we? (Laughter and applause) They cannot be the enablers, for while there are doubtlessly people in their ranks who seek the decent ends of opportunity and production, there is no one there who will commit the means to secure those ends of opportunity and production.  That is in the nature of the attitude that they have.

On top of all that in any case all of their aims for the next election are geared to one objective – a permanent, vested interest in instability, a hung Parliament, in which they can be the self-important arbiters of power.  That would be contemptible at any time, but at a time when the Government is going to have to get on immediately, urgently, emergently with the task of generating jobs and investment, a strategy which is intent upon horse trading, juggling, balancing and ego flattering is totally contemptible, and the British people should know that.  (Applause)

The Tories meanwhile do not desire enabling ends and plainly will not commit enabling means.  In every policy of the Tory government they have shown that their objective is to reduce what we have of an enabling state, what we have of a welfare state, to a rubble of shabby services and lost jobs.  Of course they tell us they are not real jobs.  Teachers, doctors, nurses, home helps, ancillaries in the schools and in the hospitals, ambulance drivers – they are not real jobs, that is what the Tories tell us.  We know they are real jobs.  We know they are real jobs because if those jobs are not done, if people are not allowed to do them, the consequent is real pain, real loss of opportunity, real suffering, real misery, yes, and real costs too.  That is why they are real jobs, as real as life and death.

We see the Tories’ attitude towards enabling people in the education cuts; we see it in the closure of skill centres and training boards; we see it in the reduction in apprenticeships; we see it in the attempted withdrawal of board and lodging allowances to unemployed youngsters and to the chronically sick who need residences.  (Applause) Above all, we now see the Government’s attitude towards enabling in the proposals made by Norman Fowler in his social security review, which you debated this morning; ‘social security review’ – it would more appropriately be called social insecurity for you and you and you and you.  Everybody in this country is going to be disadvantaged if they ever get the chance to implement those policies fully.

In the Labour party we are fighting, and we will go on fighting, those poor law proposals, and as part of that fight early next year we will launch Labour’s freedom and fairness campaign to put the issues to the British people, to give them our alternatives and to show that once again we have real policies for hope to put in place of fear, which is the only Tory policy.  Of course hope is cheap; attractive, delightful, but cheap.  Help costs money.  So in the course of that fight and in our policies for construction and care we have to take full account of the breadth and depth of the ruin made by the policies of eight or maybe even, by then, nine years of applied Thatcherism. The extent of that ruin is awful.  Last Wednesday the Association of British Chambers of Commerce reported:

‘Our shrinking manufacturing base and deteriorating trade performance raises a fundamental question about the future of the British economy.  How do we pay our way in the world when the oil trade surplus, at present a huge £11.5 thousand million, begins to disappear in the late 1980s.  Answers to these questions from economic ministers and senior civil servants have been unsatisfactory.’

Comrades, in the last six years, alone among the major industrial nations, manufacturing production in Britain has actually fallen by 8 per cent; investment in manufacturing production has fallen by 20 per cent; manufactured trade has moved from a surplus of £4,000 million in the last year of the Labour government to a deficit of £4,000 million in the sixth year of the Tory government.  In the years since 1979 our economic strength has been eaten away just as surely as if we had been engaged in a war – I put it to this party, I put it to the country, not as a defence, not in any defensive sense whatsoever, but as a salutary fact of life.  The Tories have been the party and the government of destruction.  If we are to rebuild and recover in this country, this Labour Party must be the party of production.  That is where our future lies.  (Applause) It is not a new role for us, but it does require a fresh and vigorous reassertion.

Over the years our enemies and critics – yes, and a few of our friends as well – have given us the reputation of being a party that is solely concerned with redistribution, of being a party much more concerned about the allocation of wealth than the creation of wealth.  It was not true; it is not true; it never has been and all our history shows that – from the great industrial development and nationalisation Acts of the Attlee Government, which gave this country a post-war industrial basis, through to the Wilson Government’s investment schemes and initiatives that brought new life to where I come from, to South Wales, to Scotland, to the North-East, to Merseyside to the new towns of the South-East, right through to the actions of t hest Labour Government, which ensured that at least we retained a British computer industry, a British motor industry, a machine tool industry, a shipbuilding industry.  We have a long record and need give no apology for being the party of production.

Now in the 1980s we face new challenges in our determination that our country shall produce its way out of slump.  There is the challenge of the hi-tech industries, which six years ago had a surplus with the rest of the world and now run a £2.3 billion deficit with the rest of the world, as a result of deliberately depressed demand, withdrawal of research and development and expensive money – the policies of the Tory Government.  We have challenges too from the traditional industries, those industries dismissed, written off, by a Tory government that calls them ‘smoke-stack’ industries and really think s that Britain’s future is as a warehouse, a tourist trap, with nothing to export but our capital.  That is the vision they have of the future – totally impractical, ruinous, not only for our generation but for all those to come.

Through our Jobs in Industry campaign, in all our policies, we in this party say to the British people: Britain has made it, Britain can make it and, provided that we give to e workers, the managers, the technicians, the people of Britain the means to make it, Britain will make it in the future if we have a Labour government.  (Applause) Those means that they must have at their disposal are training, research and development, and finance for investment over periods and at prices that producers can and will afford.  That is absolutely crucial. Other countries do it, and nobody has yet explained satisfactorily to me how it can be, why it should be, that we have a government and a financial system that believe that Britain can’t do it, Britain can’ make it and in any case Britain shouldn’t make it in the future.  We cannot afford that surrender mentality from government.  We have got to have a government like those of Japan, Germany, Sweden, France and Italy, which put the real interests of their country first.  They don’t talk about competing in the world economy as if it is a game of cricket.  They talk about competing and they mean it, so they put their money where their speeches are.

I am not saying that an economy can revive and thrive only with government; I am saying that it is a fact of life in a modern economy that there can’t be any real progress while the policies of a government lie like a great stone across the path of productive manufacturing advance.  I am not saying that it can only be done with government; I am saying that the fact of life is that we will not revive and thrive without the active support, involvement, participation of government.

To all those defeatists, the real moaning Minnies of Britain, who say: ‘That’s all very well, but British workers won’t respond, British managers won’t respond’, I say: go to the industries in Britain where modernisation has taken place, some of them foreign-owned, and see how, when people have the means, they can stand their corner with any competing industry in the world.  I say too to them: go to where, in Labour local authorities, enterprise boards have been established, bringing together public capital and private capital, bringing together people with common objectives, and see how they succeed in measurement by anybody’s terms.  Go and see, where people get the chance, how they take that chance, how they use it, how they use money to make production, how they spend some to make some, how they are determined to make modern things for modern markets, and do it successfully – from handicrafts right across to the frontier technologies.

We won’t accept the defeatism, the surrender mentality.  That is why the first priority as the next government of Britain will be to invest in Britain.  It has been obvious for decades and disastrously clear since the Thatcher Government took away controls on the export of capital six years ago at Britain is a grossly under-invested country.  There is less excuse for that now than ever.  The Tories have had more oil money in every month that they have been in government than Jim Callaghan’s government had in a whole year of government.  (Applause) They have spent that money on sustaining unemployment, and even as the oil money poured out on that unemployment, even as it poured in to the Exchequer, the investment money poured out of the British economy altogether.

In the last six years, over £60,000 million of investment capital has left Britain.  We need that money – not the Labour Party or the Labour Government: Britain needs that money, if we are to rebuild.  (Applause) That is why we are going to establish our scheme to bring the funds back home where they are needed, so that they can be used for generating employment, development and growth in our economy.  We are going to use those funds for long-term loans for the purchase of modern machinery, for research and development, for training.  We will ensure that the return paid is comparable to what can be got elsewhere, but the difference will be this: those resources will be here, for the process of investment, for the purpose of creating wealth, for the purpose most of all of generating jobs here in Britain.

We don’t make those arguments for getting and using that money out of any jingoistic or nationalistic motive.  What we say is this: we need those policies for we simply cannot afford the level of charity shown by the moneyhandlers of Britain towards our advanced industrial competitors.  That charity is too expensive for this country to tolerate any longer.  We need that money.  We need the money to be able to produce; we need the money to be able to generate those jobs, further development, new investment; we need that wealth to reward people for their effort, for their enterprise; and we need that money and the wealth that it generates to provide the means of properly funding the system of justice and opportunity and care which I call the enabling state.

We need that money to make our way in the world, but there are other ways too in which we must make our way in the world.  We must make our way morally as well as economically.  For us as democratic socialists there can be no retreat from our duties as citizens of the world.  We don’t want to be the worlds policemen, we don’t want to pretend that we are the world’s pastor either, but we must be the friends of freedom; and as people who believe that the great privilege of strength, the great privilege of being strong, is the power which it gives to be able to help people who are not strong, we understand where our obligations are in this world.

If the morality won’t convince people, if the ethics won’t convince people, let the practicalities – the material practicalities – convince them.  In this world now we either live together or we decay separately.  It is in our material interest to ensure that the supplicants of the Third World are turned into customers and consumers by relieving them of the terrible burdens of interest, by the effectiveness of our aid policies and by assisting in their development.  (Applause) That is a clinical fact stripped of all emotion, and I use it to persuade the falterers.  But even to them I say that if you had come with me this year to see the different levels of need in the barrios of Managua and the shambas of Tanzania, in the desert settlements of Kenya and, most of all, in the back streets of Addis Ababa – for I have never seen such destitution – I would not have to tickle you with profit.  If you had seen and touched and felt and smelt, you would know where your duty as free people, as people with money, as people with power and strength, really lies in this world.  (Applause) I say to those people that they would want to do all they could to give life and to help people make a life for themselves.  They would.  That is what the British people showed just on the basis of television pictures, even without the touch on the skin of a starving child.  The British people showed it and will go on showing that they feel that putting food in people’s stomachs and putting clothes on people’s backs and putting roofs over people’s heads is our place in the world; and, even more than that, they show they understand that helping people to provide the means to grow their food, to make their clothes, to find their freedom, is our place in the world in this democracy.  (Applause)

Just as it is the duty, the privilege, of the strong to help the weak, so it is the duty of the free to help those across this planet who are oppressed because of their beliefs, the colour of their skin, their sex, their poverty, their powerlessness, their principles.  We reach out to them, for we must be the friends of those who are oppressed, those who are made captives in their own lands, in our efforts, right throughout this movement, some announced, some more subtle, to secure the release of refuseniks and so-called dissidents in the Soviet Union, in our support for Solidarnosc, in our aid for the democrats of Chile, in our backing, our solidarity, with the democratically elected government of the Republic of Nicaragua.  (Applause) We stand with them.  In all those and in many other ways, in our support for the United Nations, we know that for us as free people freedom can have no boundaries.

Comrades, the Government doesn’t know that.  Britain should not have to be dragged, fumbling, stumbling and mumbling, into imposing even the most nominal economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa.  (Applause) We should be leading opinion, out of pride in our own liberty and out of the practical knowledge, as we in this movement have counselled for years, that there is only one plausible way that stands the remotest chance of securing peaceful change in South Africa, and that is by the strong imposing of effective economic sanctions against apartheid.  Now, when South African businessmen sensibly confer with leaders of the African National Congress, when the United Democratic Front grows bold in its demands for freedom in South Africa and when even the President of the United States of America is obliged to impose embargoes on the apartheid regime, the British government’s excuses and alibis become more lame, more pathetic, more contemptible by the day.

Next month is the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference.  Britain will be stranded, isolated amongst that Commonwealth of nations – rich nations, poor nations, black nations, white nations, north and south – as the only nation that shows any degree of friendship towards apartheid South Africa.  We should be taking our place in the world properly, with the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Canadians, and the Zambians, the Tanzanians and those who at the front line have made the most monstrous sacrifices in order to sustain what pressure they can on South Africa.  (Applause)

In taking our proper place in the modern world, rid of all the vanities, the nostalgia for a past whose glory missed most of our people, it is essential that we strip ourselves of illusions; most important, that we strip ourselves of the illusions of nuclear grandeur.  (Applause) Not my phrase – nuclear grandeur, the illusions.  That phrase belongs to Field Marshall Lord Carver, former Chief of the Defence Staff.  In June he said to the House of Lords:

‘Why do the Government obstinately persist in wasting money on a so-called British independent deterrent?  …Our ballistic missiles submarines are not an essential element of NATO’s strategy.  Whether they are regarded as an addition to the force assigned to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe or as an independent force, they are superfluous and a waste of money.  The essential element is the stationing of United States conventional land and air forces on the Continent; and, in order to persuade the American people that it is right, proper and in their own interests that they should continue to [contribute to the defence of Western Europe], it is essential that we and our fellow-European members of NATO should convince them that we are using our money and manpower effectively to maintain … the capability of our conventional forces … That, my Lords, is the first priority of our defence policy, not illusions of nuclear grandeur.’

I don’t suppose I agree with Field Marshall Lord Carver about everything, but that was a very effective way, from a very effective spokesman, of demonstrating the insanity, the waste, the illusion of Tory Party policy, and demonstrating too the reality and necessity of our complete non-nuclear defence policy to maintain the proper security of our country and alliance.  (Applause) That is our policy, our commitment to the British people, and we will honour it in full.

We want to honour our undertakings in full in every area of policy.  We want to say what we mean and mean what we say.  We want to keep our promises, and because we want to do that it is essential that we don’t make false promises.  (Applause) That is why we must not casually make promises that are so fanciful, so self-indulgent, so exaggerated that they can be completely falsified by the realities in which we live and the realities that we know we shall encounter.  If we do not take that view, if we do make false promises, we shall lose integrity, we shall demonstrate immaturity, we will not convince the people.

Comrades, 463 resolutions have been submitted to this Conference on policy issues, committed honestly, earnestly, and a lot of thought has gone into them.  Of those 463, 300 refer to something called the next Labour Government and they refer to what they want that next Labour Government to do.  I want to take on many of those commitments.  I want to meet many of those demands.  I want to respond to many of those calls, in practice – not in words, but in actions. But there is of course a pre-condition to honouring those or any other undertaking that we give.  That pre-condition is unavoidable, total and insurmountable, and it is a pre-condition that in this movement we do not want to surmount.  It is the pre-condition that we win a general election.  (Applause) There is absolutely no other way to put any of those policies into effect.  The only way to restore, the only way to rebuild, the only way to reinstate, the only way to help the poor, to help the unemployed, to help the victimised, is to get the support of those who are not poor, not unemployed, not victimised who support our view.  (Applause) That means, comrades, reaching out to them and showing them that we are at one with their decent values and aims, that we are with their hopes for their children, with their needs, with their ideals of justice, improvement and prosperity in the future.

There are some in our movement who, when I say that we must reach out in that fashion, accuse me of an obsession with electoral politics; there are some who, when I say we must reach out and make a broader appeal to those who only have their labour to sell, who are part of the working classes – no doubt about their credentials – say that I am too preoccupied with winning; there are some who say, when I reach out like that and in the course of seeking that objective, that I am prepared to compromise values.  I say to them and I say to everybody else, and I mean it from the depths of my soul: there is no need to compromise values, there is no need in this task to surrender our socialism, there is no need to abandon or even try to hide any of our principles, but there is an implacable need to win and there is an equal need for us to understand that we address an electorate which is sceptical, an electorate which needs convincing, a British public who want to know that our idealism is not lunacy, our realism is not timidity, our eagerness is not extremism, a British public who want to know that our carefulness too is not nervousness.

I speak to you, to this Conference.  People say that leaders speak to the television cameras.  All right, we have got some eavesdroppers.  But my belief has always been this, and I act upon it and will always act upon it.  I come here to this Conference primarily, above all, to speak to this movement at its Conference. I say to you at this Conference, the best place for me to say anything, that I will tell you what you already know, although some may need reminding.  I remind you, every one of you, of something that every single one of you said in the desperate days before June 9, 1983.  You said to each other on the streets, you said to each other in the cars rushing round, you said to each other in the committee rooms: elections are not won in weeks, they are won in years.  (Applause) That is what you said to each other.  That is what you have got to remember: not in future weeks or future years; this year, this week, this Conference, now – this is where we start winning elections, not waiting until the returning officer is ready.

Secondly, something else you know.  If Socialism is to be successful in this country, it must relate to the practical needs and the mental and moral traditions of the men and women of this country.  We must emphasise what we have in common with those people who are our neighbours, workmates and fellow countrymen and women – and we have everything in common with them – in a way we could not do if we were remote, if, like the Tories, we were in orbit around the realities of our society, if, like the Social Democrats and the Liberals, we stood off from those realities, retreated from them, deserted them.  But we are of, from, for the people.  That is our identity, that is our commitment, that is how much we have in common with the people.  Let us emphasise that, let us demonstrate it, let us not hide it away as if it was something extraordinary or evidence of reaction.  Let us emphasise what we have in common with the people of this country.

We must not dogmatise or browbeat.  We have got to reason with people; we have got to persuade people.  That is their due.  We have voluntarily, every one of us, joined a political party.  We wish a lot more people would come and join us, help us, give us their counsel, their energies, their advice, broaden our participation.  But in making the choice to join a political party we took a decision, and it was that, by persuasion, we hoped that we could bring more people with us.  So that is the basis on which we have got to act, want to act.

Thirdly, something else you know.  There is anger in this country at the devastation brought about by these last six years of Tory government, but strangely that anger is mixed with despair, a feeling that the problems are just too great, too complex, to be dealt with by any government or any policy.  That feeling is abroad.  We disagree with it, we contend it, we try to give people the rational alternatives, but it exists.  If our response to that despair, anger and confusion amounts to little more than slogans, if we give the impression to the British people that we believe that we can just make a loud noise and the Tory walls of Jericho will fall down, they are not going to treat us very seriously at all – and we won’t deserve to be treated very seriously.

Fourthly, I shall tell you again what you know.  Because you are from the people, because you are of the people, because you live with the same realities as everybody else lives with, implausible promises don’t win victories.  I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises.  You start with far-fetched resolutions.  They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers.  (Applause) I am telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling to short-term egos – (Continuing applause) – you can’t play politics with people’s jobs and with people’s services or with their homes.  (Applause and some boos) Comrades, the voice of the people – not the people here; the voice of the real people with real needs – is louder than all the boos that can be assembled.  Understand that, please, comrades.  In your socialism, in your commitment to those people, understand it.  The people will not, cannot, abide posturing.  They cannot respect the gesture-generals or the tendency-tacticians.

Comrades, it seems to me lately that some of our number become like latter-day public school-boys.  It seems it matters not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game.  (Applause) We cannot take that inspiration from Rudyard Kipling.  (Continuing applause) Those game players get isolated, hammered, blocked off.  They might try to blame others – workers, trade unions, some other leadership, the people of the city – for not showing sufficient revolutionary consciousness, always somebody else, and then they claim a rampant victory.  Whose victory?  Not victory for the people, not victory for them.  I see the casualties; we all see the casualties.  They are not to be found amongst the leaders and some of the enthusiasts; they are to be found amongst the people whose jobs are destroyed, whose services are crushed, whose living standards are pushed down to deeper depths of insecurity and misery.  (Applause) Comrades, these are vile times under this Tory Government for local democracy, and we have got to secure power to restore real local democracy.

But I look around this country and I see Labour councils, I see socialists, as good as any other socialists, who fought the good fight and who, at he point when they thought they might jeopardise people’s jobs and people’s services, had the intelligence, yes, and the courage to adopt a different course.  They truly put jobs and services first before other considerations.  (Applause) They had to make hellish choices.  I understand it.  You must agonise with them in the choices they had to make – very unpalatable, totally undesirable, but they did it.  They found ways.  They used all their creativity to find ways that would best protect those whom they employed and those whom they were elected to defend.  Those people are leaders prepared to take decisions, to meet obligations, to giver service.  They know life is real, life is earnest – too real, too earnest to mistake a Conference Resolution for an accomplished fact; too real, too earnest to mistake a slogan for a strategy; too real, too earnest to allow them to mistake their own individual enthusiasm for mass movement; too real, too earnest to mistake barking for biting.  I hope that becomes universal too.  (Applause)

Comrades, I offer you this counsel.  The victory of socialism, said a great socialist, does not have to be complete to be convincing.  I have no time, he went on, for those who appear to threaten the whole of private property but who in practice would threaten nothing; they are purists and therefore barren.  Not the words of some hypnotised moderate, not some petrified pragmatist, but Aneurin Bevan in 1950 at the height of his socialist vision and his radical power and conviction.  (Applause) There are some who will say that power and principle are somehow in conflict.  Those people who think that power and principle are in conflict only demonstrate the superficiality, the shallowness, of their own socialist convictions; for whilst they are bold enough to preach those convictions in little coteries, they do not have the depth of conviction to subject those convictions, those beliefs, that analysis, to the real test of putting them into operation in power.

There is no collision between principle and power.  For us as democratic socialists the two must go together, like a rich vein that passes through everything that we believe in, everything that we try to do, everything that we will implement.  Principle and power, conviction and accomplishment, going together.  We know that power without principle is ruthless and vicious, and hollow and sour.  We know that principle without power is naïve, idle sterility.  That is useless – useless to us, useless to the British people to overcome their travails, useless for our purpose of changing society as democratic socialists.  I tell you that now.  It is what I have always said, it is what I shall go on saying, because it is what I said to you at the very moment that I was elected leader.

I say to you in complete honesty, because this is the movement that I belong to, that I owe this party everything I have got – not the job, not being leader of the Labour Party, but every life chance that I have had since the time I was a child: (Applause) the life chance of a comfortable home, with working parents, people who had jobs; the life chance of moving out of a pest and damp-infested set of rooms into a decent home, built by a Labour council under a Labour Government; the life chance of an education that went on for as long as I wanted to take it.  Me and millions of others of my generation got all their chances from this movement.  (Applause) That is why I say that this movement, its values, its policies, applied in power, gave me everything that I have got – me and millions like me of my generation and succeeding generations.  That is why it is my duty to be honest and that is why it is our function, our mission, our duty – all of us – to see that those life chances exist and are enriched and extended to millions more, who without us will never get the chance of fulfilling themselves.  (Applause) That is why we have got to win, that is what I have always believed and that is what I put to you at the very moment that I was elected.

In 1983 I said to this Conference ‘We have to win.  We must not permit any purpose to be superior for the Labour movement to that purpose.’  I still believe it.  I will go on saying it until we achieve that victory and I shall live with the consequences, which I know, if this movement is with me, will be victory – victory with our policies intact, no sell-outs, provided that we put nothing before the objective of explaining ourselves and reasoning with the people of this country.  We will get that victory with our policies, our principles, intact.  I know it can be done.  Reason tells me it can be done.  The people throughout this movement, who I know in huge majority share all these perceptions and visions and want to give all their energies, they know it can be done.  (Applause) Realism tells me it can be done, and the plain realities and needs of our country tell me it must be done.  We have got to win, not for our sakes, but really, truly to deliver the British people from evil.  Let’s do it.  (Standing ovation)

Thank you, comrades.  Everybody has got the message: we’re not the Liberals or the Tories. Thank you very much.  (Applause)

Back to top

Comments:

You can submit a comment to us about the above speech using the form below.

Please note that at present, comments are not automatically displayed publicly on the site.

There are currently no comments available for viewing for this speech

We're sorry, but comments are currently disabled

Home | About | Resources | Contact Copyright © British Political Speech 2014 | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy