Brian Walden
Hello and good afternoon. This week, in the last of our election interviews with the party leaders Weekend World comes from Downing Street, where in a moment I'll be talking to Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party. But before that, we have the results of the latest of our specially-commissioned set of public opinion polls. Throughout the election campaign, on behalf of Weekend World the Harris Research Centre has interviewed voters in key marginal seats. Those are the seats that are most likely to change hands as public opinion shifts. And in order to gain as precise a view as possible of the prospects for each of the parties, that's meant simultaneously conducting three different opinion polls. One in Labour/Tory marginals, one in those constituencies where the Liberals have their best chance, and one where the SDP has its best chances. Since last week, the Conservatives and the Alliance have improved their position. Labour has lost ground. In the Labour/Tory marginals last Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, more than one thousand people were asked: ‘Which party would you vote for if the general election were held tomorrow?’ Those answering Conservative amounted to 45%; of the total, once ‘don't knows’ had been taken account of. Those answering Labour came to 32%;. And Alliance support came to 20%;. Other parties picked up 3%;. That result shows the Labour vote down 6%; against the Conservatives compared with last week's showing, and the Alliance vote up 4%;. On our second poll, in those seats where the Liberals have their best chances, Harris Research asked over eight hundred voters the same question: ‘Which party would you vote for if the [end p1] general election were held tomorrow?’ In those seats, Conservative support came to 42%; when ‘don't knows’ had been excluded. Labour support totalled 18%;. But Alliance support came to 37%;. Other parties obtained 3%;. Both the Alliance and the Conservatives have gained at the expense of Labour since last week. Our final poll was conducted where the SDP has its highest hopes. Late last week, more than nine hundred people were once again asked for their voting intention. Those answering Conservative came to 41%;. Those replying Labour came to 31%;. Those answering Alliance amounted to 27%;. Other parties received only 1%;. This result shows a remarkable change in Alliance fortunes—since we last conducted the poll two weeks ago, their share of the vote has climbed by 12%; entirely at the expense of Labour. So on the basis of our results it's clear that the Conservatives retain a commanding lead. The Alliance seems to be on the move. Indeed, one poll published this morning puts them in second place. Labour seems to be fading. It's not possible to be absolutely precise about what these findings would mean in numbers of seats in Parliament. Personal votes for popular candidates can make a difference at the margin. But Professor Ivor Crewe of Essex University has made this estimate for us. If our result were repeated at the general election, the Conservatives would take 444 seats in the House of Commons, an increase of 84. Labour would have only 157 seats, a loss of 103. The Alliance would have 27 seats, 14 fewer than they have now but more than double the Liberal showing at the last election. Other parties would have 22 seats. The Conservatives would have a gigantic 238-seat majority over all other parties. That would be an even bigger landslide than the famous Labour victory of 1945. With four days to go, things could still change. All the same, it now must be highly likely that Thursday's election will return Mrs. Thatcher here to Downing Street for another term. And today, in our final [end p2] interview of the campaign, we'll have a chance to find out what she'd do as Prime Minister if that were to happen. Margaret Thatcher is with me here now, and in a moment I'll be talking to her. First though, let's hear the latest news headlines from ITN and Carol Barnes.
ITN News
Brian Walden
Prime Minister, on previous occasions when I've interviewed you you've given me the impression, indeed the vision, of an extremely radical society that you wish to have developing in this country, of very great changes that you want to bring about because you think that that's the only way that the economy can be put back on its feet, the only way this terrible problem of unemployment can be overcome, and yet when I read your manifesto it's a very cautious, tepid document. It seems to wish to reassure rather than to in any sense be radical, so I wonder if I can put it to you: Do you still remain radical about your intentions for our society?
Margaret Thatcher
Yes, I wouldn't wholly agree with you about our manifesto. It's not flamboyant, it's not extreme, but then we're not a flamboyant nor an extreme party. But as a matter of fact I think it's a better manifesto than the one we had in 1979, and of course people can judge it by our performance since 1979 on many, many things, like inflation, on our handling of pensions, on our handling of the National Health Service, on our handling of taxation, so I think it's better than 1979. [end p3]
Brian Walden
Can I just confirm with you that nonetheless—whether you're right that it's a better manifesto or whether I'm right that it's a very cautious document indeed—your intentions have not changed at all with regard to the crucial issue. That you do wish to see the economy get back on track and you do wish to see the problem of unemployment eventually solved?
Margaret Thatcher
You have put it absolutely rightly. My intentions haven't changed. I believe government has to run finances soundly, I believe it has to give incentives to enterprise, I believe it has to uphold a firm rule of law, I believe it has to defend our country, and I believe that it has to uphold the welfare state.
Brian Walden
All right. Now let's come to the question of unemployment, which is the dreadful problem of the present day. I think everybody … .
Margaret Thatcher
I agree.
Brian Walden
… . would concede … . I know you would agree with that. Let me ask you about it, because you have an unusual view about it. The parties opposing you in this election take a very simple view. They say you should take unemployment away from other problems and solve it by acting on it directly. By spending a lot more money. You've always rejected this, you say that isn't the way to do it, the way to do it is to put the economy back on its feet and then in fact you will get unemployment under control. And [end p4] the way to put the economy back on its feet is to conquer inflation. So can I ask you: Is it your intention to force inflation down still further? That's still your view of how unemployment is in fact to be solved as a problem?
Margaret Thatcher
You've put rather a lot in one question. I don't believe you can go on spending money you haven't got. You'll remember that's what happened after 1974, you'll remember that took us to the IMF, you'll remember then that we borrowed money overseas which this government through a recession has had to start repaying, and those debts are still hung around the necks of our children, so that way won't work. But equally, although we have to go on getting inflation down. because it can do so much damage to society, so much damage to investment, can make us so uncompetitive with others, that is not enough and I've never said it's enough. Yes, you have to get inflation down. Yes, you have to run your finances soundly. But there must be incentives to enterprise, you must want to see a successful society, you must keep good managers, people here who can build up new industries and create new jobs, you must get into the science and technology of tomorrow. So inflation getting down, that is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. And that's why you'll find we've always put so much stress on trying to get taxation down and trying to encourage a successful attitude to society.
Brian Walden
All right, we'll come to that because I think that's interesting. But let's concentrate for a moment on what you say is a necessary condition, namely the reduction of inflation, and let me put this to you. You've always said that you knew why inflation happened. It was because there was [end p5] too much money sloshing around in the economy, and the reason that there was too much sloshing, money sloshing around in the economy, was because of government spending. So do I take it that your desire to force inflation down yet further, and at least certainly to keep it at this level, involve further cuts in government spending?
Margaret Thatcher
We have laid out our plans for the next three years on government spending. They're there for everyone to see, for everyone to discuss. In a way I wish more discussion concentrated on those instead of the scares and leaked documents we had, it would be much, much more constructive. They are all laid out to see. The assumptions on which they are based are laid out for everyone to see. Any sensible government, like any sensible business, must keep its expenditure within its income, plus within reasonable borrowing at reasonable interest rates. That maxim should affect every government. It is certainly the one which this government will continue to run its affairs on.
Brian Walden
Well, I think I might be able to gratify your desire, Mrs Thatcher, to talk about these projections of what the government is going to do, and possibly about spending cuts. I suppose, I ought to stress, or some viewers will be very annoyed, that of course a lot of people don't agree with you at all that the way to tackle our problems is to cut government spending. But on your logic, you have always said that it was a vital component of inflation, to control it. Let me point out … . [end p6]
Margaret Thatcher
There's a difference between controlling it and cutting it. As a matter of fact we've not been over-successful in cutting government expenditure because of the circumstances we've faced. It is necessary always to keep a firm grip on public expenditure, but more than that it's necessary not only to look at the total you're spending but to look within it and say look, are we getting value for money for what we're spending?
Brian Walden
Yes.
Margaret Thatcher
If not, can we in fact achieve more by spending it better, and in fact we have achieved more because some of the tenders for capital investment are down, below what we had forecast.
Brian Walden
Let's concentrate on this. When I spoke to you in January, you said your eventual aim was to get inflation down to nil. No inflation at all. Now, on your own projections, which you were mentioning earlier, inflation is going to rise slightly to between 5 or 6%; by the autumn, and that's going to carry on till the middle of next year. So plainly the inflation battle is not yet won, and I put it to you, doesn't this mean that you will have to cut government spending eventually, if you are going to bring inflation down? [end p7]
Margaret Thatcher
Those inflation forecasts, as you know, are on the basis of what happened in relation, on the exchange rate, between the pound and the dollar. Which meant that although oil prices were falling the pound against the dollar, in which oil prices are invoiced, was falling faster. That affects the price here of anything invoiced in dollars. As a matter of fact, fortunately since then the pound has risen against the dollar. There's always that factor, which is not a factor in long-term inflation but which is a factor in short-term prices. I hope if the pound rises against the dollar that we shall not get that increase in inflation to the extent which we had forecast in November. But you always have to watch the control of your money supply, your public expenditure within your own country, and then of course the exchange rate can have an effect on prices. One does not have full control on that because the amounts of money moving around the world are far greater than our reserves, so we can't control it. [end p8]
Brian Walden
Yes, but there is in that—and you won't mind my saying so Mrs. Thatcher—far more hope than there is certainty. And I put it to you, you can see, can't you, why some people think that you've got a secret manifesto … . I don't think anybody with any sense thinks it's written down on a piece of paper. What they mean by it is that they don't think some of these figures add up, and that if you really want to get inflation down, sooner or later you'll have to bite into the sour apple and cut government spending again. Now isn't that true?
Margaret Thatcher
I don't quite see your line of questioning. I don't agree with you. You start off by saying there is more hope than certainty. There is no certainty in this world. There is not. I was born and bred in business. Are you telling me there is any certainty in next year's income? If you are doing well, you're worried about the future when you might not be doing so well. If you're not doing well, it's a fight to get more business. There is no certainty. I don't know what the people of Britain will choose to buy next year. I don't suppose a housewife knows what she'll choose to buy next year. I don't suppose a worker who's wanting to buy a car will know which car he's going to buy next year—he won't know the designs that are available. I don't know what will happen in the Middle East. After all, the wars and the politics there caused the first world recession. I don't know what'll happen to interest rates in the rest of the world. To try to convey the impression that we live in a world which is fixed and certain is totally and utterly wrong. What I know, which is much, much more important, is that we can by our policies get this country in a healthy state; healthy finances, healthy industry, looking after the people who need looking after, upholding a rule of law, defending, in a healthy state so that you can better ride whatever problems come, and that's been my policy. It's just like a fit and healthy person. [end p9] They can better tackle what any germs come along. But there is no certainty in this world.
Brian Walden
I couldn't agree with you more, and for that very reason let me put the argument back to you and perhaps explain what you called my logic in rather more detail. Of course there isn't any very great certainty, and therefore of course all sorts of things could go wrong and inflation could start rising. And of course you must cut it back because if you don't, on your analysis, then you'll get more unemployment. So I put to you again. Isn't there a real prospect that the only way you'll be able to reduce inflation, that could arise in an uncertain world, is by taking the axe to public spending?
Margaret Thatcher
I don't think you're being right, logically, because I think you have not taken into account that in the end the degree of inflation you have in the longer run, the relationship it has to your money supply. You've got to keep your money supply in line with the goods and services you are producing. Your money supply in line with your earnings. Each year you provide a little bit more than that, of course you do, because you provide a little bit more for growth. Now if you don't get that growth, if it is not taken up by growth, it goes straight into prices, and [word missing] you know it takes a period of two or three years to get your money supply right. That I believe is the most important thing. How much goes into growth, I can't say, we can only give the opportunity for that growth. Now within that total strategy, obviously you have to look at the place of public expenditure, because if government is taking the money to spend then it means that there is not enough to invest in private industry, and the fact is that private industry may well invest it better than we do. So yes, we do like to watch very carefully the proportion which government spends. [end p10] But I may say Mr. Walden, every government has to do that every year, every family has to do that every year, every business has to do it every year. And to try to convey the impression that there is something alarming about it, my goodness me, the alarming thing would be if we didn't. Because you wouldn't be running a sound financial policy and you'd be saying no matter what the needs of your business, no matter how good your small business, your product, I'm not going to let you have the investment for it to grow because I'm taking it to spend for government. That wouldn't produce jobs. That would produce stagnation.
Brian Walden
With respect, all right, of course one must have a look at public expenditure, that's exactly what I'm putting to you. You say it would be alarming if you didn't, but it would also be alarming if for those people who benefit from public expenditure, if they thought that by your own logic and your own necessity you had to be put into a position where you had to cut it again. And are you prepared to pledge me—since you seem very confident about it—quite categorically that you won't cut public expenditure during the lifetime of your next government, if you win on Thursday?
Margaret Thatcher
Mr. Walden, I have never known in my 30 years in politics any government—which covers yours—any government which has actually cut expenditure below the expenditure of the current year. Can you mention one? I can't.
Brian Walden
But I'm talking in real terms. [end p11]
Margaret Thatcher
Ah, but we no longer budget in real terms. We budget in the way any business budgets, we budget in the way any household budgets. What is the actual amount of cash I've got? I've got to keep my expenditure within that. Real terms, if I might respectfully say so, are a totally artificial concept. They apply a retail price index to things to which a retail price index may not apply in that proportion at all. Every single well-run business, which is responsible for the majority of our jobs, doesn't say I've got so much cash to spend next year, now I've got to deflate it in real terms, no. They say what's this going to cost me next year, and what's my income? It's taken us years to get away from that article. When I was at Education I used to say this is a crazy way to budget, you're telling me I can have so many schools, so many teachers, regardless of what they cost? And yet the people from whom I've got to get taxation don't look at things in that way. No, we've got to a much sounder way of budgeting thank goodness, it's one of our achievements, and even with that achievement we've done very well by the pensioner, and very well by the National Health Service.
Brian Walden
Perhaps so, and I do want to come onto the Health Service in a moment. But I just want to ask you this on all of that. You see, you don't like budgeting in real terms, and I quite understand …
Margaret Thatcher
We don't budget in real terms.
Brian Walden
I know, I quite understand the argument you're putting, that you budget in cash terms. Nonetheless of course, if inflation does rise and you budget in cash terms and you spend less than the rise of inflation, somebody is going to be worse off as a result of actually in real terms receiving less money, aren't they? [end p12]
Margaret Thatcher
Mr. Walden, I don't expect that over the lifetime of the next Parliament that we are going to run policies which will lead to inflation rising, we are going to fight it, and even within the actual inflation, let me just give you an example. We managed to get more capital projects out of the same amount of capital expenditure because of the firm kind of financial policy we've been running. We actually, the tenders went down, and we actually got more roads and more schools tendered for within the same amount of money. This is sound financial policy and I'm going to stick to it.
Brian Walden
All right.
Margaret Thatcher
We do in fact say each year, you know the cash limits, that we've got so much to spend, as any company does, we have got so much to spend on the wage bill. And there've been many, many times when we've had to bargain with people in the public sector, and say look, this is all the tax-payer can afford for this service, now if you're going to say that for so many hundreds of thousands of people in a particular service you're going to take more for yourself, right, may you know that means there is less for the equipment which that service needs. And I as a government am going to try to persuade you not to take more. Because if you are deliberately doing that through your trade union, or whoever is representing you, you are deliberately saying, I'm going to take more for me at the expense of that equipment and I know that'll put someone out of a job.
Brian Walden
All right. [end p13]
Margaret Thatcher
I can only persuade. What I'm saying is we've got a certain amount to spend and we'll spend it as best we can. Yes, I am equally going to say I have to look at public spending every year, and afresh. So does every single government, so does every single business, but I am equally asking you to look at the way in which we've laid out our plans for the future, by our record in the past four years. It is a very good one. It is one of good prudent management, and that's the way I'm going to continue.
Brian Walden
All right, now on that basis let us look at the priorities. You mention the Health Service yourself, and let me raise that one. You say what you've got to do is look carefully and see where the money can be spent and where it can't be spent. You've also said in this campaign that you would no more dismantle the Health Service than you would dismantle the nation's defences. Does that mean that no matter what happens economically, you give the Health Service exactly the same priority that you give defence for the lifetime of your next government?
Margaret Thatcher
No, because defence, if you look at our expenditure plans, the actual amount is in that expenditure plan because we're committed to spend three per cent more in accordance with our NATO commitment. If you look in the National Health Service, our plans for the future are laid out there, you'll recall that when we came into power there were 7 and three quarter billion pounds being spent on the National Health Service, now there is 15½ billion pounds. That's an enormous increase, an increase which is higher than the increase in prices. If you look at this year and next year and the year after; this year on [end p14] 800 million more, the following year 700 million more. Now how that is going to be used will depend considerably to how we manage to negotiate and bargain within the National Health Service on the wage structure. Because if those who work in it are going to say, right, we are going to take the lot for ourselves, which I hope they won't, there won't be as much as I wish there to be for new equipment, for the latest research, for new treatment. But you see in the end we've allocated the money but we have constantly to persuade people of the best way in which to use it. As you know there are now 56 thousand more nurses in Great Britain than there were when we came in. Mr. Walden, this has happened through one of the worst recessions in our history. And that is why I say to you, you look at our manifesto against our actual record, and if we have one fault it is not shouting our achievements on the National Health Service, and on pensions, from the house-tops. So if you're going to give me the chance to do it, I'm very glad.
Brian Walden
Well, I don't think anybody would accuse you, Mrs. Thatcher, of not in fact shouting your achievements from the house-tops. Let me press you again on this point concerning the Health Service. What are you telling me now? Are you telling me that in fact if wage bargaining goes wrong in the Health Service you can't guarantee that the services will be maintained at their present level?
Margaret Thatcher
I am telling you that 15 and a half billion is what we are spending now, that we have allocated more for next year, more for the following year, more the year after, and I am equally saying that no system, no government, no democracy will work in this country unless each and every person exercises a high degree of responsibility and discipline over what they do. [end p15] And I'm saying within our budget we have got 56 thousand more nurses, you need to have a look at the total number of people you employ, and as you know there are lot of administrators and people who aren't medical people in the National Health Service, and the amount they take out, we allocate a total amount for the wage bill, the salary bill in the National Health Service, and we say to people—Yes, it's a partnership between government and the regional health authorities and those who work in it. We have a responsibility, those who work in it have a responsibility, and our responsibility is to the sick, but we have allocated the money and the tax-payer and the sick are entitled to expect good value for money. My weapon is persuasion. Reasonableness, things which are sound and honourable.
Brian Walden
Well, as you would see them, I have no doubt that you would say that that is so. But I must say that administrative costs are not very high in the Health Service. Nonetheless, what's really at stake here is, in other words you can't guarantee if people act within the Health Service, as you would put it selfishly, and try and push up their return from wages, you can't guarantee to maintain the services exactly as they are.
Margaret Thatcher
I can then go and say, as we have done in the past, and you've got to judge us by what we've done in the past, you go to the Chairman, and say look, there's a lot of slack in your system, now come on, we expect you to get the same service, possibly a better one, out of the increased amount of money we are allocating. I rely on him to do so, frequently you'll find it can be done, as sometimes as you know they put services out to the private sector, they've found it costs them less so they get the same service for a lesser amount of money. As you know we are removing a layer of administration, all of this is to get the same service out of a lesser amount of money, although as I've indicated we are actually allocating more money this year, next year, [end p16] and the year after. But efficiency and good management matters. You have to involve everyone in it, it is happening, and it will go on and happen, but in a free society, Mr. Walden … [end p17]
Brian Walden
All right, but …
Margaret Thatcher
In a free society …
Brian Walden
Let me switch …
Margaret Thatcher
People have a duty as well as a right, and I'm asking them to live up to their duties, because we tax very heavily for the National Health Service, and people I believe are very proud of that service, very grateful for it, and we shall go on trying to get better and better management and better and better services to the patients, and you know, we have done that over the past four years. They're now actually treating, under us, two million more patients a year than the previous government and I'm rather proud of it.
Brian Walden
Let me take up two ideas that you've raised in the course of this interview so far and tie them together, because they usefully come together. You said at the outset, quite correctly, that you had never said that inflation was the only thing that affected the economy and unemployment, there were other factors, and you've mentioned, and you mentioned it then.
You've mentioned one at considerable length in your Health Service answer which may or may not have been re-assuring as to the future of the Health Service. Pay. Pay has come up again and again. Now of course your political opponents do not think that your record on pay is all that good, and they wouldn't accept your logic of looking at the situation at all, but by your own logic I wonder why you don't do more to make sure that you don't get [end p18] unreasonable pay settlements. For instance, in your manifesto there is not a pledge to remove immunities from trade unions despite the fact that you say that trade unions very frequently over-price the wages of their members. Why haven't you been tougher—on your own logic, not that of your opponents who don't agree with you—why haven't you been tougher in doing Thatcherite things that would help you on pay?
Margaret Thatcher
Because we've had four incomes and prices policies during the lifetime I have been in Parliament. They have all collapsed, they have all led trade unions to think that they had a far bigger role in government than they have or ought to have. They have all suffered from one fundamental defect, which I cannot stress too strongly, that people have become so obsessed with pay that they've ceased to be obsessed with what they ought to be obsessed with—output and efficiency. Pay doesn't come in a vaccum, it's pay in relation to output, and by focussing on pay for four incomes policies people have forgotten about output, efficiency, productivity, design, good management. That has been a fundamental error in this country, so we have not had that kind of pay-regardless-of-output policy during the lifetime of my government. And we have got inflation down further than any government for the last fifteen years without any in-built controls, susbsidies or anything else, and that's a fantastic record, and I have to say to people—it's pay in relation to output.
Brian Walden
But Mrs. Thatcher …
Margaret Thatcher
Because that's the rule your competitors live by and we have to beat them. [end p19]
Brian Walden
I'm not suggesting you should have an incomes policy. I know you won't touch that with a ten-foot pole, that's Alliance policy. I'm suggesting something much more …
Margaret Thatcher
Quite wrong, whosever it is. It's ridiculous, they should learn, they really should learn …
Brian Walden
All right, all right …
Margaret Thatcher
If you make the same mistakes twice, you're a fool.
Brian Walden
Well I'm not suggesting that you make that mistake, as you regard it, the Alliance of course think the policy's splendid. I'm suggesting something much more straight-forward. Much more Thatcherite. That you weaken the unions. Much further. On your logic, if you weaken the unions further then they will not in fact be able to bid their members' pay up to unreasonable levels. Why isn't any of that in the manifesto?
Margaret Thatcher
There are preparations for further trade union bills in the manifesto. My policy is to have a better balance between the employer and employee in trade union law. Trade union law had got far too much over-balance on the side of the trade unionist, and they could put whole companies out of business. We have had two bills and will have more, but it's also a policy not only to correct the balance between employers and employees, it's a policy to correct the balance between some of the trade union leaders and shop stewards and between some of the members. Because what is [end p20] steadily coming out under—I take your word—Thatcherite policies, is that there are many, many occasions when you can trust the ordinary workers on the shop floor. They've got far more common-sense and they want to carry on working. And so we're going to strengthen them against the shop stewards who intimidate, and so yes, we are touching immunities. Indeed we are saying that if there is a strike, an official strike which has been called without a ballot of trade union members, then the immunities which would normally apply will no longer apply, so we are going straight for immunities.
Brian Walden
But it is …
Margaret Thatcher
And we shall go on, may I take it, but it is not to hit out at trade unions, it's to hit out at irresponsible behaviour which I don't believe is in the interests of companies or jobs or any enterprises in this country, and I have great faith in those who work in business if you will let them speak and let their voice be heard, and that's what I'm trying to do.
Brian Walden
But a lot of your advisers, you see would say, indeed we know them, that yes, there is, there are some pledges on trade unions in the manifesto but they're far too tame, that they don't get to the heart of the problem at all and you imply that you might in time go further. How, and why haven't you suggested it this time?
Margaret Thatcher
We shall go steadily further. We've done quite a lot in our first two trade union changes in law. We shall have another one next time, and then we shall look and see what needs to be done, the better to restore the two balances which I've indicated. [end p21]
Brian Walden
What do you think needs to be done?
Margaret Thatcher
But the fact is, the fact is Mr. Walden, that in the private sector there are very few strikes, very few. There have been one or two tragic ones at Halewood. My goodness, just in a place where they need jobs they put them at stake. There are very, very few strikes in the private sector because for the first time since we've taken away prices and incomes policies, management can now manage. It's got more power. Before, you know what happened, there's always something, tri-partite, and the poor management whose job was to management had no say at all. Management are managing. There's a greater partnership, there's a greater understanding of what it's all about. Productivity's going up. We're doing very well in some of the new electronic industries. There are more births of companies than there are deaths. It is working. This, if only you can get and give the people themselves more powers, they will use them responsibly. That's a direction in which I shall go.
Brian Walden
You see, you originally said that pay was a serious problem, if people behaved foolishly, and you've particularly mentioned the Health Service but I know you would take this generally. If they behave foolishly they're using resources that could go to other people and other people won't get them because of unreasonable pay demands, and you then said that there wasn't a great deal that you could do about that. It was up to people to act sensibly. I have now given you the chance to do something about it. Not, it doesn't matter about strikes. What matters about trade unions is the extent to which they artificially inflate wages, so you say. Now why don't you do more to stop them from doing that? [end p22]
Margaret Thatcher
I have in fact ridden out several strikes because I said we cannot carry on this way, and I cannot be intimidated into letting those employers where people are employees of the State give more in wages than we think is reasonable. So when it came to steel they wanted more money from the tax-payer, we rode out that first steel strike for thirteen weeks. Yes, we rode out a strike in the National Health Service, one which horrified me, but we rode it out. I rode out a strike in the Civil Service. We, we, er, even in the water industry I was not going to say to the employers “yes, give in” , because once you give in the price goes up and up, and that I believe has been the way to tackle it—because people understand that you should not use powers of blackmail to get more for yourself. That is the selfish society. Mr. Walden, those trade unions started as friendly societies, they didn't start to hold a nation to ransom, they didn't pursue their idealism to say we're going to take it out on the sick, and industry, and the weak, and I don't believe that the majority of people want to take it out that way, and do you know, I believe we're going to get more trade unionists with us this time than ever before, because they are true and honourable. Of course they want a higher standard of living. Who doesn't? They want it for honourable reasons, they want it for their children. But we have to work to get it, and they'll say “yes please, we want work” . The only way to get it is to produce those services and those goods which our people and overseas people will buy. They know that what I am talking is the truth and it's sound, and that's why they're coming our way.
Brian Walden
All right. They're certainly coming your way. All the polls show that, and what you say may or may not be the truth. Let me however press you on this, which is really where the whole of this section started. Really unemployment, because I repeat again, as you know but some viewers I know find it difficult to understand the quarrel about the [end p23] nature of unemployment. Your opponents say “take it away from all other problems and spend money on it, that is the way to cure it.” You've always said you had another strategy for dealing with it, which involved all the things that we've been talking about. Let me put it to you that some people watching this broadcast may feel that there is nothing that you have said that gives them any kind of guarantee, and perhaps not even any reassurance, that you are going to be able to conquer the problem of unemployment, and that really you have just a hope, you have no real policy to bring unemployment down at all.
Margaret Thatcher
Then let me try to say it in a few words, first. Spending money you haven't got won't help. If you spend it you've got to get it from somewhere. You've got to get it in the end from productive industry and services, which means that those doing well are deprived of the very sources of money they need, or you've got to borrow it, which means that those who want to invest and expand either to build new businesses or to expand because they're successful have to pay higher interest rates, and that means the expansion will often be aborted, so never believe you can spend money you haven't got. That's what took us to the I.M.F. in 1976 and it would take us to the I.M.F. again. Now my strategy. Yes, I have to get inflation down and keep it down and lower, because I'm competing with Germany and Japan. They've got a better record on unemployment than we have. They've got lower inflation. Secondly I've got to have tax incentives to people, whether they work in industry, or whether they work in the services, or whether it's taxation on industry itself. I've got it down on business. Labour left me with a big tax on jobs, a National Insurance surcharge, I've got it down. I've got the standard rate down from thirty-three pence to thirty. I've put up income tax reliefs, I've got the rate down on [end p24] management, so I've got inflation down. I've got incentives to people and I've taken the tax off industry which Labour put on. That isn't all. Then I've got to encourage new business, so we've given tax incentives to new business to start, then I've got to say the products of tomorrow are those in which Britain excels. We're the best people in research, we're the most inventive people. No, no, no, don't stop me, I'm in full flight and I've got to finish …
Brian Walden
I know you are and that's why I'm stopping you. Is this in fact …
Margaret Thatcher
No, we're the most inventive people …
Brian Walden
Is this going to produce a reduction in unemployment?
Margaret Thatcher
Yes, and we're going to …
Brian Walden
When?
Margaret Thatcher
And we're going to translate our inventiveness into the new technologies and it's happening, and then we're going to have the best system of training so that people have the skills, and then we're, then we're altering trade union law. That is the right strategy for jobs, that's why we're getting the new jobs in the new electronics, that's why the rate of birth of businesses has exceeded the rate of deaths. Yes, I believe this will work. I wouldn't follow it if I didn't. Yes, like Williamsburg I am reasonably optimistic that it will work, but I'm not going to have flamboyant promises. It will work steadily. It will work. We've been through the worst. It will work steadily in the future. How fast it works depends [end p25] upon the co-operation I can get. Depends on the design of those products, depends upon our salesmanship. If we can win one per cent more of our home market than we've got now, that's eighty thousand jobs, if we can win one per cent more, only one per cent more of the export market, it's two hundred and fifty thousand. I can't do it alone. I can create the conditions. I ask for full co-operation, effort, inventiveness, enterprise, genius.
Brian Walden
All right. On Thursday, to some extent, we shall see whether you're going to get it or not. Unfortunately, time is pressing and we must take a break now, Mrs. Thatcher. We'll be back in a moment. [end p26]
Brian Walden
Mrs. Thatcher, before the break we were talking about the issues of unemployment, public expenditure, the Health Service etc. These are the vital details of politics and nobody denies it. But there's another side to politics—the broader vision. Now, I want to talk to you about that now. When I spoke to you in January, I suggested to you that you believed in Victorian values, and you agreed that you did and subsequently went on and defined certain values that you thought were terribly important. Let me put to you what a lot of people have said in response to that and I think it's a vital issue in terms of how you see the future of Britain, assuming you're going to win on Thursday. People say, ‘yes, Mrs. Thatcher will win. Yes, the majority do agree with her about these things, but isn't there a much darker side to Victorian Britain, and isn't there a much darker side to Thatcher Britain? What about the minority? The people who don't agree with her. The people who perhaps are not always a great success in life. She has no compassion and no understanding towards them at all.’ Now, would you accept that that's so?
Margaret Thatcher
Not at all. Are we answering it by reference to the Victorian Age, because one of the characteristics of the Victorian Age was they actually tackled these things. And as prosperity grew and automation came in, or mechanisation came in, and industry became more prosperous, they actually tackled the dark side of the age. You'll remember it was during that period … [end p27]
Brian Walden
Not that wildly successful at it, were they?
Margaret Thatcher
Well, let me say, during that period that was when education became compulsory. Look at the number of schools that were built in Victorian times. I know, having been Secretary of State for Education, we were constantly replacing them. Look at the number of hospitals that were built in Victorian times. Look at the way all the great voluntary societies grew. The essence of Victorian times, they said yes, they said there is a dark side, now let's tackle it. I don't know of any time when the tackling got faster. The Disraeli period, you'll remember, yes he did tackle the problems. I say education became compulsory, the hospitals were built, they even tackled some of the dark side of prison life. So as they prospered, so they used their money in voluntary societies and so they used their money to build the schools and hospitals, and that was when the great increase in standard of living began to occur. The point is this; they rose to the challenge of their times as I believe we, in the Conservative Party, are trying to rise to the challenge of ours.
Brian Walden
But whatever its merits, of that age, and indeed some people would say of your age, whatever the merits and I wouldn't deny some of them, nonetheless it was an unequal and a divided society, a society in which failures knew they were failures, in which in fact the government was not prepared to do a great deal to assist them. Now aren't you worried about creating—supposing you win big on Thursday and everybody says you will, tremendous celebrations round the Tory Central Office. But aren't you worried about a society that will have within it the seeds of great inequality, great division, maybe great bitterness. Doesn't that worry you at all? [end p28]
Margaret Thatcher
The Communist creed set out to be equal for all people. It has turned out to have the greatest inequalities in it of any society today. You cannot have liberty and equality in the sense that you all have the same standard of living. If you go out for liberty you are giving people to use their talents and abilities according to how they have them. In doing so they will prosper not only themselves, but they'll produce jobs and an increased standard of living for others. So you can't have liberty and equality in the sense of material equality. You can have liberty and equality in the sense that all have equal rights, all are equally important, all different, all with different talents. What you can have is liberty and fraternity. Now, it is the fraternity, the voluntarily helping people, as well as having your National Health Service and your pensioners. And do you know, if you look back to the Beveridge Report he did not attempt to substitute State help for voluntary help in any way. He gave State help yes, but added to it there must be plenty of scope for voluntary help and personal self-reliance. So you can have liberty and fraternity.
Brian Walden
Well, that's a most interesting statement and an admission, I suppose admission is the wrong word, a straight statement that material inequalities are bound to arise and that in fact material inequalities are not in themselves damaging because there is a spin-off effect to those at the bottom.
Margaret Thatcher
If you don't have any incentives you really won't have people going flat out to work. If they don't, you won't get the new products, the new businesses or anything. [end p29]
Brian Walden
I follow that line of reasoning. I don't say I agree with it, Weekend World has no opinion, but I follow the line of reasoning. Let me put this to you. A lot of people say, ‘yes of course she believed that sort of thing. Margaret Thatcher's been a great success in life, all credit to her in many ways. She can't understand that anybody else would fail. She really can't believe that people wouldn't take opportunities, but in this vale of tears the world is full of people who don't take their opportunities, who are failures, who know they're failures.’
Have you no sympathy for them?
Margaret Thatcher
Now, look, people who don't take their opportunities aren't necessarily failures. I mean, some people may have said. all right, I do not want to take the tremendous dedication and effort that's necessary to climb to the top in my job, maybe I will be satisfied with a lesser standard of living. In our society they are free to do that. They are not necessarily failures. To say that either you succeed brilliantly or you fail I think is totally to misunderstand the nature of our society. And you can't all be great football men, you can't all be great sportsmen, great singers, great captains of industry, but many many people succeed according to their talents, or they say all right, I do not want to work as hard as some of those who climb to the top. I want to have more time for my hobbies. Why not?
Brian Walden
But what I'm getting at is this—and indeed why not? Someone said the other day that maybe it'll be a wonderful age when we're all unemployed, present company expected of course. [end p30]
Margaret Thatcher
I think you're being a little bit extreme.
Brian Walden
Well, one takes the line that they're getting at. But what I want to put to you really is this. That, do you really in your guts feel the sort of sympathy that people, I suppose on the left traditionally, but a lot of people in general in society feel, a certain conscience about a society in which goodness of heart and splendid hobbies don't produce material rewards, they can't, you lose out on material rewards and therefore you fall to the bottom of the pile. A lot of people feel a conscience about this, they feel that the society that is that unequal is not a pleasant society to live in. Now, why do you say it is?
Margaret Thatcher
How in the world can you produce the resources to help those who you say are at the bottom of the pile unless you encourage your wealth creators?
Brian Walden
The government can give it to them.
Margaret Thatcher
No, no, where does the government get it from?
Brian Walden
From the taxpayer.
Margaret Thatcher
And where does the taxpayer get it from? From work. And where do you get the work from? From those who create the new business, the new services, the new shops, distributive … . You cannot do without the wealth creators [end p31] in your society, and if you discourage them you won't be able to help those who are, as you say, at the bottom of the pile. Look, let me say this. I believe everyone wants and needs some work to do, wants and needs a job. Why do you need it? Because you need to know that you are important in life. You need to know that you are important to your community, that you belong to something. And this is why I struggle so hard with the right strategies to provide those people with jobs, and I shall go on struggling.
Brian Walden
Listening to that, Mrs. Thatcher, I am bound to say that my earlier view that, based on your manifesto, there wasn't going to be a radical shake-up, now rather changes. That still remains a very radical social doctrine. Mrs. Thatcher …
Margaret Thatcher
And it's all in the manifesto.
Brian Walden
… thank you very much indeed.
Margaret Thatcher
A great pleasure.