Dr Harshan Kumarasingham, the
Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the University of Potsdam and a past
contributor to the Conservative History Journal, gives his views on Edward
Heath and Philip Ziegler’s biography.
Edward Heath did not emerge, but was elected as leader of the
Conservative Party in 1965. The new
leader was young, experienced, and progressive with strong contacts with the
Parliamentary Party after an effective tenure as Chief Whip. Heath, the grammar school scholarship boy, personified a professional image that was accurately and purposefully
non-patrician. This was the man the
party hoped could beat Harold Wilson at his own game, sharing a greater
commonality and image with the electorate than any previous Conservative
leader. Heath could project a ‘modern’
image of someone who had risen through the ranks through ability not nobility. However, expectations of a new age under a
new style of leader were not unanimously idealistic. Heath carried significant pressures as the
new leader of a new era. The Economist reported at the time of
his ascendance as leader a sense of Conservative realism: ‘Mr Heath certainly
carries radical hopes in his baggage.
But in electing him, the Tories have primarily shown their instinct for
power. They picked, by a narrow
majority, the man they reckoned most likely to bullock their way back into
power. They will remain united behind
him just as long as his pursuit of power looks promising.’ The Shadow Cabinet under Heath’s clear
leadership had created a prepared and much publicised programme at Selsdon for
when it returned to power, which seemed to deliver the progressive hopes
envisioned by ‘Rab’ Butler Britain
This was a divisive era in the history of Britain Wilson
Alas for the country and Heath Britain Northern Ireland Rhodesia Middle East and the
sterling crisis confounded Heath and his ministers and their standing with the
Party. As Anthony Seldon points out, this was a formidable array of crises: ‘no
government since 1945 has been in office at such an awkward time’. Yet this
must be appended with Seldon’s pertinent speculation that ‘had he been a better
more inspiring communicator to the country and to his own party, Heath might
have made more headway in the unpropitious circumstances’.[1] The events were calamitous but the
leadership, the style and the method did little to dilute the dissent within
the Party. Philip Norton points out the
‘unprecedented level of dissent expressed in the form of votes cast (or not
cast) against the Government by its own backbenchers; historically high even
with the Europe debates excluded, there were still dissident votes cast in one
out of six divisions in the 1971-72 session’ for example.[2] The Conservatives required a leader that
could provide decisive leadership to rectify decline and propagate reform with
reassuring charm and creative presentation.
This was not in Heath’s capability.
Heath did not have
a predilection towards performing and this was exasperated during any crises
since he believed, from personal conviction, that the electorate and Party
would follow the right course – his course.
Yet unlike his successor Thatcher, who actively and forcibly sought to
convince those who disagreed that she was right or Macmillan whose
theatricality could elegantly cultivate followers towards his opinion, Heath
showed contempt at having to convince and persuade.
Ziegler adds little thematically to John Campbell’s
unauthorised (1993) biography, but he does, through his access to Heath’s
personal papers, give greater evidence of common arguments and intriguing
further information on Heath. This book
furnishes the arguments with new research, pertinent observations and
irreverent but nonetheless valuable detail. As Ziegler states, Heath was a man of
integrity and was ‘clear headed and resolute’ who presided over one of the most
unified cabinets in the post war era despite the circumstances and who
orchestrated many difficult and courageous decisions for the country that many
admired. However, even this self-proclaimed
‘sympathetic’ biographer cannot help wondering at Heath’s personality flaws:
the pettiness to any perceived slight despite giving many himself; the peddling
to Communist China; the capricious handling of his largesse; the loud silences;
and the arrogance of always thinking he was right.
Heath who lost three out of four elections was unresponsive,
unrepentant and unkind and could not understand why his party and his country
did not want him back in the harness.
Perhaps it was due as Ziegler assesses that ‘[w]hatever they might think
about his policies or his achievements as Prime Minister, the voters had
reservations about him as a human being’.
Thank you for posting this interesting review.