Sir Edward Heath, 1916 - 2005

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 18 July 2005 11:42.

Today’s papers will be peppered with writings on the life and times of Edward Heath, British Prime Minister from 1970-74, who sailed Morning Cloud over the horizon yesterday, aged 89. I am no obituarist, nor a historian. So I won’t attempt to compete with those who are but, instead, mark the man’s passing with one or two of my memories from those four tumultuous years.

At the time I wasn’t long out of school. I drove a delivery van, worked as a filing clerk and in a hospital laundry before getting a job as a trainee machine engineer and then moving into the company’s London offices as a lowly gofer. That brought me to Bush House in the Aldwych.

One of my less tender memories of that time is of the student marches, a “megaphone obligatory” danced in moronic, slouching style by Socialist Workers – who, of course, were not workers at all - on their way, yet again, to turf the Chancellor of the LSE out of his office.

They paraded past our ground floor windows pretty regularly. To me, they might have landed from a distant planet. I had no political interest and I never saw a decent pair of legs among the women, and so no reason to think these chaps with the Che banners and bad dress sense were on to something. I just didn’t connect at all, couldn’t understand why anybody cared so much for Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Min or wanted to be “united … together …” and undefeated with “the workers” (who didn’t care about Ho Chi Min either). I just wanted to be free and freedom, for me, meant the rising note of a bored and tuned engine and that quiet, still moment when thought fell away and emotion attended work at the wheel. (It must be said, though, that I made fourteen costly “mistakes” before my future wife and the concept of survival forced me to re-evaluate my talent for this sort of thing.)

The students clearly had no such worries. They had, like me, a unique definition of freedom, and it was no more responsible than mine. It was the freedom to do what they liked, or thought they liked. And they obviously thought they liked to cause as much noise and inconvenience as they could. Why, I wondered, were they so selfish and extreme? Why were they not ashamed of the threat of force implicit in their numbers and their attitude - and sometimes not implicit but manifest? Why did they consider themselves moral?

There was simply no basis, intellectual or emotional, on which I could interdict their meaning. And that, I now think after thirty years of pondering, was the true import of the times. By then already, the British had allowed themselves to become profoundly disassociated from one another - young from old, rich from poor, educates from ordinaries and, most especially, the governing elites from the governed. Whichever way you looked at society it was splintered and each splinter had drifted off into some private moral and sometimes not so moral universe.

Now, it’s true that Conservatives like Ted Heath had their One-Nation mantras and, if in 1970 one made the observation I just have, Heathites would have been quick to wiseacre about their vision for Britain. But One-Nationism was and is nothing if not the craven desire for power long after liberalism’s total conquest. It is a creature of pure expediency and, as such, is fatally obsessed with the economic prosperity of its voters. It is fundamentally unequipped to ask the big questions, to stand back and critique the national condition.

Yes, for a while it created the impression of working, delivering the years of power enjoyed by Harold Macmillan. Internationally, those were also years of steep British decline, for which the establishment seemed to care a great deal. The march of modernity at home, however, went uninterrupted without causing any particular Tory distress - until John Profumo laid Christine Keeler, of course. But even that didn’t cause the old school Tories to wonder what, beyond their own short-term embarrassment, it might all mean.

A full decade later still nothing had changed, as evinced by Keith Joseph’s famous, self-damning realisation, after the first 1974 election, that “I have only recently become a Conservative”. All the “pragmatism” and “practicality” and even “principle” that Heath displayed in his four years of chaos (he was sold to the electorate in 1974 as “Man of Principle”) turned out to be a sort of latter-day, moderate Fabianism with a moral wall-eye. Quite simply, had he been a more honest man like Joseph, Heath would have acknowledged that he was not a Conservative. But self-criticism was never in his character.

From our perspective these three decades later, it is, of course, all too easy to part the mists and see Heath for what he was. That should involve seeing what, in his place, a true Conservative would have been. One-Nation or not, every Conservative ought to feel in his blood and bone the unity and uniqueness of his people and to value that above all things … above prosperity, above progress, above freedom itself. If his people are not sovereign in his heart he is as lost to liberalism as Heath was.

That Conservatives – and not just Heath – failed to understand the fracturing of society under the pursuit of freedom, and failed to assess its meaning for the Britain of, say, the 21st century, shows how intellectually and morally unfit they were then, as they are now, for the task of leading us to national salvation. Indeed, so accepting of the fruits of post-war immigration and social liberalism have they grown, so comfortable with the status quo anti of rootlessness and individualism, it is doubtful whether they even recognise a need for national salvation. Political management, yes. Salvation, no.

Ted Heath will always be pilloried on the right of the Party for betraying “Selsdon Man” after two desperately difficult years, and then reinventing his premiership as corporatism and interventionism personified. His enthusiasm for taking us into Europe at any cost and his fearful treatment of Enoch Powell are his lasting gifts to the nation. But I have other reminiscences of his time. Via the Miners Strike of November 1973 to February 1974, he gave us the three-day week which was a great boon to my natural indolence. Then, via inflation of Third World proportions, he gifted me an 80% increase in my meagre salary in less than one calendar year. Unfortunately, the company I then worked for was forced to make economies. I can thank old Ted for my only spell of unemployment.

I would have forgiven him that Comedia if, while sailing on the Solent one fine day, he had received an intellectual bolt from the blue ... if the marchers in the Strand, the miners and the second pickets, the unwanted aliens who moved Enoch to speak out, and all the rising tide of modernity had suddenly shifted into philosophical focus. But there was never any sign that his politics rose above managerialism. The failings of Ted Heath are the failings of post-war Conservatism, and the tragedy of Conservatism is the tragedy of our nation.

Tags: Obituaries

Comments:

Posted by Mark Richardson on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:33 | #

Terrific post GW.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:01 | #

Yes an outstanding essay, GW. Well done! I don’t know enough about the man to add anything, but it looks as if you’ve covered the central questions fully—Heath, like Nixon his contemporary, wasn’t a conservative though both were reputed at the time to be, and, far more importantly, he was just one of the great number of politicians of the time who simply couldn’t see the steadily unfolding mortal threat posed to the nation by the standard reigning gutlessness on immigration. “A stitch in time saves nine,” as the saying goes. Had he understood what lay ahead he would’ve seen Powell’s adroit grasping of that nettle as what it was, a political godsend to be exploited to the full. Due in part to his blindness we find ourselves where we are today.

Posted by Seb on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:01 | #

If the silly Hebrews had not attacked their neighbours in 1973 the “chaos” would not have ocurred. And North Sea oil had not yet started flowing, so to criticise him for caving in to the miners is unfair. Thatcher would have behaved similarly in his position.

He also kept us out of the nonsense in Vietnam, for which he deserves gratitude

Posted by Stuka on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:03 | #

The BNP’s tribute is much more fitting for a politician like Heath. From the BNP website:

On hearing the news that former Prime Minister, leading architect of the Common Market and trailblazer for the creation of a European superstate, Sir Edward Heath has died at the age of 89, the following poem sprung to mind.

For British patriots and euro-realists everywhere it says more about our feelings to that man than a lengthy obituary could ever do:

“Epitaph on the Politician” by Hilaire Belloc

Here richly, with
ridiculous display,
The Politician’s corpse
was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged
I wept: for I had longed
to see him hanged

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:35 | #

> He also kept us out of the nonsense in Vietnam, for which he deserves gratitude

What were the reasons that Britain stayed out of Vietnam? (Of course they made the right decision).

Second question, after the Falklands War Margaret Thatcher’s popularity skyrocketed? Is it possible Blair was hoping for such return on investment? Might such craving for adulation partially explain his gov’ts participation?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:48 | #

Heath didn’t come to power until June 1970, by which time there was NO chance that Britain would participate in Vietnam. Keeping Britain out of Vietnam was down to Harold Wilson, a dishonest total incompetent but still a better man than Heath.

Posted by lucerne on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:57 | #

Seb, did the “silly Hebrews” attack their neighbors in 1973, or were they attacked? Isn’t the war you are referring to the one which started when they suffered a surprise attack on Yom Kippur, their holiest day?

Posted by Seb on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:32 | #

IIRC, the “Oil Crisis” began exactly one day after Israeli troops crossed the Canal and entered Egypt

Posted by Pericles on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:17 | #

Seb,
I suggest you read up on the Yom Kippur War via Wikipedia. With an open mind. Prejudice is pointless when misdirected. BTW, what have you got against spam? It’s quite likeable on toast.

Pericles

Posted by dan dare on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:31 | #

Bravo, GW, an excellent piece.

I hope we can anticipate an equally finely-constructed account of your transition from Heath-era bystander to committed nationalist.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:36 | #

Martin,

So what was Harold Wilson’s logic? He needed money for the welfare state?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:04 | #

What caused Heath to abandon his(?) plan to re-partition Northern Ireland, creating a Catholic-free Ulster, issuing identity cards to the million or so Irish immigrants in England and really putting the squeeze on Dublin?

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:34 | #

Repartition of Ulster - great idea, shame it never happened.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:55 | #

Geoff

Wilson was expanding the welfare state and starving everything else throughout the 1964-70 Labour government, not helped by the fixed exchange rate Britain was on, which caused balance of payments crises about every 3 months. One of his economies waas to withdraw British forces “East of Suez” in bases like Singapore and Aden. It thus made no sense to take on an additional Asian commitment in Vietnam.

Sympathy for the US was pretty limited in Britain at this stage, because of the US betrayal of Britain and France at Suez 10 years earlier. The “special relationship” only recovered in the Maggie/Ronnie years.

Resentment of Suez is undoubtedly a factor in the anti-Americanism of the French, who bear grudges longer than the British. D-Day is all very well, but Suez is 12 years more recent.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:08 | #

> Suez

I agree with your assesment. I know that Ike threatened a ‘run’ on the Pound Sterling if Britain didn’t withdraw.

1) I suppose he saw the Suez affair as old fashioned imperialism

2) and as interfering with his plans for the cold war.

> betrayal of Britain and France at Suez 10 years earlier

Uh… you forget Israel, Israel was the third player in the triumvirate.

Suez is also interesting, it reveals the strategic interests of Israel were different from the US. I don’t know what we, the US, get out of partnering with Israel, but they sure get a lot.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:06 | #

Suez was incompetently handled at the Anglo-French end (Eden was a center-left FOOL). Involving Israel (then a French ally and not particularly a US ally) was unnecessary and muddied the issue away from Britain and France’s right to own and run the canal they’d built. Ike was furious because the Anglo-French invasion, having been delayed 4 months, then coincided both with the Hungarian uprising and the Presidential election.

Having said that, the US betrayal gave a precedent for Arab seizure of assets, which they did with the oil in 1973 (to utterly wimpy response from the US) and led to the problems in the Middle East we have today.

An insistence on property rights and security of contract would have benefited the Middle East as much as the West, by allowing for balanced economic development based on foreign investment instead of the looting and terrorism we see today.

Posted by Delmore Macnamara on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:52 | #

Vaguely on the subject of British political deaths, the Daily Mail reports that John Tyndall just died.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:09 | #

Martin,

> An insistence on property rights and security of contract would have benefited the Middle East

We’ve been teaching the Arabs lessons for about 100 years now, it seems on 9/11 and 7/7 they taught us a few lessons.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:03 | #

Geoff, that’s WHY the region is a nest of terrorists; we’ve allowed the world’s largest natural resource, which we developed, to fall into the hands of their governments.

All wealth in the region is controlled by the apparatchiks, so there’s no significant private business (other than the regime’s relatives) and young men without money but not enough to do turn to terrorism.

If we’d enforced our rights at Suez and in 1973, the Middle East would have been an emerging market like India or Malaysia—the latter a perfectly good Moslem country without a major terrorism problem.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:40 | #

Martin,

It is just such an attitude that will turn our cities into ashtrays.

When will you interventionists learn not everybody wishes to live like us, with the same customs and beliefs?

The way things are going in the West, they soon will turn the tables on us: forcing us to adhere to their traditions, and speaking condescendingly of our tradition and history.

Count on that Martin, that is where your interventionism will lead.

The 19th century is finished, these dirty-shirts want blood -our blood. We’d better stay out of their mouse traps, like Iraq.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:23 | #

I don’t give a damn how the Middle East wants to live, but we need the oil, which Western oil companies found and were developing. The time to intervene in the Middle east was 1973, not 1990 or 2003, in order to safeguard Western property (but if the US had backed us at Suez, there would have been no need; OPEC would never have dared seize oor oilfields.)

Civilised economic development in the Middle East would have been a side benefit of intervention, the only rationale for which would have been to protect our property interests.

As a former merchant banker, I think we should have shelled Buenos Aires in December 2001, too. THAT’ll teach the little beggars to respect property rights! —their own middle classes’ and international investors’.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:31 | #

> I don’t give a damn how the Middle East wants to live

> I think we should have shelled Buenos Aires in December 2001, too. THAT’ll teach the little beggars

Martin, you’ll make a great citizen of the United States - fit right in.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:46 | #

If Lynn & Vanhanen are correct, with mean IQ’s of 83 (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) and 78 (Qatar) the chances of the ME attaining civilized economic development, when a minimum mean IQ of 90 is required, is slim to none.

As was alluded to here, regarding the Pape study, the challenge is how to secure regional resources without territorial occupation and blowback from the fifth columns residing in the US/UK etc.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:41 | #

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Many tributes have been paid to the achievements of the late Sir Edward Heath: his feats of seamanship; his one-sided feud with Margaret Thatcher; his supposed “statesmanship” in “taking us into Europe”; his consistent support of Communist-Capitalist China.

But I shall remember him as the Prime Minister who sacked from his Cabinet the one man, Enoch Powell, who dared to speak the truth about mass immigration and its consequences for his country, transforming it utterly from what it had been for centuries and will never be again.

—Peter Simple

Kevin Michael Grace, 6.37 pm, 21 July 2005