The Hated and the Dead

EP29: Iain Macleod

May 01, 2022 Tom Leeman Season 3
The Hated and the Dead
EP29: Iain Macleod
Show Notes Transcript

Iain Macleod was a British Conservative politician who served as Colonial Secretary from 1959 until 1961, and Chancellor of the Exchequer for just one month in 1970, before his sudden death. Widely regarded as the cleverest Tory of his generation, questions remain as to whether he might have kept the troubled Heath government on course, had he lived. 

My guest for this conversation is former Conservative Party leader Michael Howard, who led the Tories into the 2005 general election against Tony Blair's Labour. 

Unknown:

Hello and welcome back to the hated in the dead with Tom Leeman. First of all, a big thank you to everyone who has listened to the podcast so far as I've just got to 10,000 downloads since the podcast launched in October. It's been a great first 10,000 And this week, it would be a big help if everyone listening could make the second 10,000 come around even faster by sharing the hated in the dead with just one person, you know, hasn't listened yet. I have some very exciting things planned for the show over the next few months, so please keep recommending me to others. This week's episode is about British Conservative politician Ian McLeod. Widely regarded as the cleverest Tory of his generation. McLeod's served as both Colonial Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer over the course of the 1960s and 70s. Two of the most prestigious Cabinet posts of that time. McLeod's former post of Colonial Secretary was marred by controversy. The letter of Chancellor by tragedy as Colonial Secretary McCloud drew immense dislike from the right wing of the Conservative Party for letting the British colonies in Africa leave the Empire as they saw it too quickly, with Lord Salisbury famously branding him too clever by half, and the image of him as overconfident, never quite subsided among some within the Tory party, appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer by Edward Heath after the Tory victory in 1970. He died just one month after taking office. Sadly, this makes the career of Ian McLeod something of a what if story with the heath government bedevilled by considerable economic problems, and accused of you turning in their efforts to curb inflation and public spending after McLeod's death might be intellectually brilliant McLeod had he lived has been able to prevent the troubled Tory administration from blowing off course. It's up for debate. But McLeod's death teaches us something important about political legacy. Had McLeod lived and kept the heath government on course to slim down the size of the British state, tolerate a higher level of unemployment and crushed the National Union of Mineworkers. He might have become genuinely reviled among sections of British society, in the same way that Margaret Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe are now remembered. As it happens, his untimely death, however sad, left him with a less polarising place in history. My guest for this conversation is Lord Michael Howard. Michael Howard served as the Member of Parliament for Folkston in height from 1983 until 2010, and was home secretary and the Prime Minister John Major. He was also the leader of the Conservative Party directly before David Cameron, leading the Tories into the 2005 general election, which they lost a Tony Blair's Labour Party, albeit gaining more votes than labour in England. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to introduce Ian McLeod. Hi, Michael, how are you? I'm not bad. How are you, Tom? I'm fine. Thanks. Yeah. It's good to see you. It's good to have you on here. Thank you very much for agreeing to do this. We're discussing Ian McLeod today, Michael. I think in terms of the pantheon of Tory big hitters, is perhaps not quite as well known or well remembered today as other politicians of equal or perhaps inferior intellect. Why do you think McLeod's career now is worthy of reflection? Well, partly because of what you've just said, because I don't think he quite has that place in the pantheon that he deserves. As as you know, and has been recorded more than once. I was at Cambridge with a group of people who many of whom became members of parliament served as ministers, and indeed a number of whom served as cabinet ministers, known as the Cambridge mafia. And Ian McLeod was our hero. I think I can speak for all of us, Ian McLeod, then and I'm talking about I was at Cambridge 1959 to 1963. Ian MacLeod was the one we looked up to he was our inspiration. And I think we were justified in regarding him as someone we could look up to as someone who did inspire us and to someone who we thought would ultimately become leader of the party. Thank you. McLeod was born in 1913 in Yorkshire In Skipton, both of his parents were Scottish though from the Outer Hebrides and he was educated at fetters College in Edinburgh as was Tony Blair much later. One of the interesting things about McLeod is that he had a thriving career before he entered politics. And that was as a bridge player. Yeah, not particularly. It's not a, it was one of the he was one of the best bridge players in the world as a young man, this might be too much of a link to draw. But do you think that he, do you think there was anything about card playing? Or do you think that there was anything about his card playing, that gave him an edge in politics later on? Because it's not an obvious career transition for somebody to take? Now, I'm not sure about that. He many people regarded him as the father of modern bridge of the modern way of playing bridge. And he was undoubtedly a tremendous expert at bridge as a very inept amateur bridge player, and lost in admiration for, for him for that alone. But I think you'd be probably a bit of a stretch to suggest that that gave him a political edge. I may be, I may be guilty of amnesia, but I can't remember many other leading politicians having a real skillet cards, and I'm not sure it's one of the what one would regard as normally as one of the essential prerequisites for a political career. Indeed, I think probably the interesting thing about his younger life as well, as well as his card playing is that he didn't show a great deal of prowess at school. I think when he was at Cambridge, as, as you yourself were a number of decades later. It didn't show he was known for being quite a lazy student. I think when he was a Cambridge, yes, we shouldn't overlook the fact that he had a distinguished career in the war. He had he had a distinguished war career. Which no doubt combined with playing bridge. Yes, I did read that he got into quite a violent fight with an officer phase after the officer refused to play cards with him. Well, that's it. But I think he was injured. He was injured in the war was yes, he was and he, he was often in a lot of pain. Subsequently, during I think, the whole of his political career. He was in pain he, and I think that was a consequence of the injury that he sustained during the war. If we go into his political career a bit more closely, then Michael, he originally ran for parliament in 1945. During the labour landslide of that year, he ran for the Outer Hebrides. I think he said later that only him and his father actually voted for the Conservative candidate. in that election. It's not a it's I don't think it's ever returned a Conservative MP the Outer Hebrides. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he did become an MP though in 1950. And he had a remarkable rise in the 1950s. Tory Party. The Conservatives obviously returned to power in 1951. How did he get his big break in politics? Well, his his big break occurred when he took on an iron Bevan in a debate on health. And an Aaron Bevan who, in many ways, is regarded as the father of the National Health Service was and was a very considerable debater was one of the titans of the Labour Party at the time. And McLeod was a relatively new MP. And he got up to speak after Bevin had spoken, and took him off and made what was generally regarded as a terrific speech. And Churchill happened to be there. Churchill was still leader of the Conservative Party at the time. Churchill was prime minister, of course, and Churchill happened to be there and and said, Who is that young man? And and that led, I think, to his rapid promotion, indeed, and he served in a number of different positions under the Conservative Prime Minister. So in the 1950s, he served as Minister for labour for four years under Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan. And in 1959, he was moved to the colonies office, the colonies department for I think, what is one of the most significant ministerial spells of any minister in postwar history? Because of the broader expectation that Britain was on the verge of decolonizing? What was McLeod's attitude do you Think towards the Empire when he set foot in the colonies office for the first time in 1959. Do you think he saw the end of empire as being an inevitability everywhere? Or was it more of a mixed picture? Do you think he just saw that the Empire might downsize rather than fix cease to exist entirely? Well, I thought he'd recognise that these were countries that demanded their independence, were entitled to their independence. And he thought it was one of the remarkable things about the end of the British Empire is that it took place with remarkably little bloodshed, not none. But remarkably little compared with the end of other empires. And Dean McLeod deserves an enormous amount of credit for this. He did what he did in the face of very considerable opposition from within the Conservative Party, from many people who were reluctant to let him go. But he overcame that opposition when he had the support of the Prime Minister, of course, which was crucial. But I think he deserves an enormous amount of credit for the way in which so many countries achieved their independence in a relatively peaceful way. And what do you think it was about McLeod's approach towards decolonization that resulted in that relative lack of bloodshed, especially in Africa and thinking of countries like Tanzania, and the Rhodesia is when he he recognised that these countries were entitled to their independence, of course, the Rhodesia was very complicated, and, and there was considerable bloodshed in reducer. But but the reducer crisis really unfolded, after his time, and largely weren't when, when labour were in government in in our country, but many countries in Africa and elsewhere, obtain their independence when he in recode, was Colonial Secretary, and he saw that they, the time had come for them to be to obtain their independence and, and he was responsible for the process through which that occurred. You mentioned in passing the animosity that grew towards Ian McLeod from within the Conservative Party from the sort of right wing of the Conservative Party during his time as Colonial Secretary. Can you go into a bit more detail as to what was the nature of that criticism? And who was propagating? It was Sam said that these countries weren't ready for independence. Some were no doubt motivated, and some probably genuinely thought that Sam might think we're probably motivated by nostalgia. And Lord Salisbury, who was a great figure in the party at the time the markers of Salisbury described Ian McLeod as being too clever by half. And I think that rather epitomised some of the opposition that he encountered at that time. Yes, that too clever by half has somewhat come to, I think, define him, or at least define how he's remembered. This, it's well then enter, I think that would be unfair. I think that may be how he's remembered in some quarters, but I didn't think I didn't think it would be right to say that that description has defined him. I think where he was, still cherish the memory of this inspirational figure. What I was going to say is that I think what he's remembered by is is at least in part for his considerable intelligence. Well, yes, that's true. He was also we shouldn't overlook the fact he was a great orator. His speeches at party conferences were absolutely terrific and really inspirational. They were, they were really top notch. He was he was a great orator, and I can remember one or two of his phrases even to this day. There was a changing of the guard of the Tory party of the Tory leadership in 1963. And Howard McMillan was the Conservative leader and Prime Minister who had sent McLeod to the colonies office. But McMillan resigned in 1963 Following the Profumo Affair. Can you talk a bit about that affair, Michael and what happened to the Tory leadership? In the months following that issue? William resigned. He was ill. He had, as I recall, he had, he had prostate problems and he was in hospital. And it wasn't known for how long he was going to be incapacitated. He had been Prime Minister for six years. And he resigned and the question was, who was to succeed him? And are a buckler, who would have pretty well every conceivable Cabinet Office and had been expected to take over as Prime Minister instead of McMillan in 1957 was regarded as the front runner made a rather lacklustre speech at the conservative conference, which was taking place in Blackpool. While McMillan was in hospital. And Milan there was no question at that time of people voting for the successor. It was a question of taking soundings among what Ian McLeod later described as the magic circle. And Mullen recommended to the queen that Alec Douglas Hume should succeed him. McLeod and Ian and Enoch Powell resigned in protest against the process. And Butler, who, I think had he resigned or had, he refused to serve under Eric Douglas Hume. I think Buckler could have and would have become prime minister. But that lead, didn't put his foot down Butler agreed to serve, and Alec Douglas Hume. And a year later, there was a general election and Labour won a majority of four. Now, there are many ifs in politics. And we can speculate endlessly about what might have happened. If things had turned out differently. My view is that if Butler had become prime minister, we could have won that election. I didn't think he could have stayed as prime minister for very long he was getting on by then. And I think there's a fair chance that he he, he could and would have been succeeded by Ian McLeod. But of course, that's one of the many ifs of history and we should never know. Well, it's not just you, Michael, that thinks that about the 1964 election that if Butler had become prime minister in 63, the Tories would have won the election the next year. I think Harold Wilson said that to rob Butler, as well, I think this was this is a it's quite possible that that was the case. You mentioned obviously that McLeod might well have succeeded. But I think McLeod had become a bit of a protege of Butler Hadley. Yes, I don't know to what extent that is really the case. But that that may be the case. And certainly, they were on the same wing of the Conservative Party at that time. After the 1964 general election, Hume didn't stay on as Tory leader for very long. He resigned from the Tory leadership in 1619 65. And probably the most significant result, I suppose, of the Hume succession crisis is that Tory leaders would from hence from then on be elected by the parliamentary party 1965 saw the first actual conservative leadership election rather than essentially a sort of correlation that had been going on until then. Did McLeod ever consider seriously running in that race? I don't know which might is the honest answer. I think he would have been difficult for him, because he refused to serve and rallied back and assume. And so a lot of people would have held that against him. And I don't think he had any realistic prospect of winning in 1965. But whether he how seriously he considered it I don't know. Do you think that dislike from the right wing of the party towards him over the colonial over decolonization? and had become too great. Do you think that's why he wouldn't have had any serious chance of winning? Or do you just think he wasn't a prominent enough figure by that stage? When he was if he remained prominent, but I think there were two things, I think there was the hangover from what he'd done as Colonial Secretary. And, and also the fact that he'd refused to serve under Alec gagnez him. There was a lot of affection for Eric, I presume, and many people thought he did a pretty good job, although he didn't win in 1964. And so the fact that McLeod had refused to serve under him was another black mark, if you like in the eyes of the eyes of many conservative members of parliament. Obviously, Ian McLeod didn't run for the Tory leadership in 1965. Ted Heath won that inaugural contest against Reginald modelling, and Enoch Powell, he think is remembered. Although being undoubtedly quite a talented politician, he's remembered as being quite as stiff and Bruce SC. Character. I'm trying my best not to describe him as rude. But I've seen quite a lot of instances of him being quite rude to people. Given the presence of Harold Wilson, who was quite an impressive, quick witted Labour leader. Do you think McLeod might have been a better Tory leader than Heath for the 1960s? I do. I do. And not only do I think that he would have been a better leader than he's, I think that the the greatest tragedy, a tragedy, obviously, for many reasons, not least to for his family. But the greater tragedy was that he died when he did in 1970. He just been appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think he served for what was it a month or so when he died? And I firmly believe that had he lived, the whole history of the 1970s would have been different because I think he would have stopped him from making many of the mistakes that he made when he was Prime Minister, when he was Prime Minister. If we just take a couple of steps back there, McLeod became as you said, he'd shadow chancellor in 1965. He was obviously given the the task of shadowing James Callaghan and then Roy Jenkins in that role. What do you think McLeod's economic philosophy was by that stage? And do you think that it? Where would you place it within the kind of ideological spectrum of talk of the Tory party of that time? Well, he was a he was a one nation Tory. But he he believed in fairly traditional Tory economics. He, he believed in low taxes insofar as that was consistent with the achievement of other objectives. relatively less intervention in in the market economy again, insofar as that was consistent with other objectives. So I think he was a one nation Tory, but a fairly traditional Tory, in terms of economic policy. And I think he performed pretty well as Shadow Chancellor. But the real question is, what would have happened had he lived and, and been able to be Chancellor of the Exchequer for years rather than a month? Yes, indeed. And I think that this is probably this is the, as you said, the what if it's also the, you know, a very sad part of the story, he was only 57 When he died, he'd be served as Chancellor of the Exchequer for a month. The Tories were elected in June 70. And he died on the 20th of July 1970. Do you know, you mentioned earlier that he'd had various health problems during the 1950s and 60s, partly because of the the war injury that he'd sustained? Was he Do you know, or was it known that he was particularly ill during the election campaign of that year? No, sir. Well, certainly not known to me, but I was. I was not I was I was a candidate at that election. But um, but not a successful one. I was chairman of the boom group. So I was I was in touch with with a lot of people in in high office at that time. I certainly never had any inkling of it. I remember very clearly The moment when I heard that he died, and it came as a great shock to me. If we go into the context of that particular point in in British economic history, what do you think was the major challenge that was facing McLeod in the treasury when he came in? Well, of course, I'm not sure that the challenges the major challenges, which eventually did for the heath government, were very apparent at that time. I mean, what we had the Yom Kippur War, which was, which was significantly later, which led to a sharp increase in oil prices. Echoes of today, perhaps. And we, we ended up with a three day week, we had the challenges from Arthur's Trump from the National Union of Mineworkers. And the way in which he dealt with that, those all those things, which were the major challenges facing the government came about later. So I'm not sure that McLeod would have had them very clearly in his mind, in his month in office in 1970. I think that the thing that has defined heats government, in the memory of many people is this idea of U turns, yes, U turns within economic policy set out as somebody who has used Ted was attempting to reduce the role of the state, reduce restrictive practices within industry. And admittedly, there were some very difficult economic challenges as you and you've mentioned, some of them, but he didn't really help himself in the sense that he you turned a lot on economic policy, there was a sense that he set out on one path and then go down another or sort of revert or there was a retrenchment towards policies that had been implemented by the Labour government of the 1960s. Do you think that obviously, McLeod if he'd have lived wouldn't have been able to sort of preempt major international crises like the Yom Kippur War and the oil price rise? But do you think he might have been able to command more authority, at least over policy, and maybe prevent some of these U turns, that that is certainly my view. You know, Anthony Bob, who replaced him was Chancellor of the Exchequer was a lesser figure. He did not have the intellectual authority of Ian McLeod, and he didn't have the political authority of Ian McLeod. And I think, you know, these, these political decisions are in the end taken by human beings, and the calibre of the human being involved, is crucial to the decisions that are made. And I just think that that Ian McLeod, who was a, a much bigger figure in, in every sense than than Antony barber would have taken much better decisions, and would have been more clear sighted. And we will never know, because these obviously, are some of the great gifts of history. But I believe that he would have avoided many of the mistakes which were made in economic policy under that Heath government. I think something that I've read about Heath own personal political philosophy is that ultimately when, in 1972, after the miners strike, after he was seen to have essentially lost face with the N un, he was obviously very, very angry about that. But he also, I think, recognised that to really take the miners on after 1972 would be would have a hugely polarising effect on the country. And ultimately, he didn't really have the kind of grit to do that. He was he was believed, essentially, in the politics and economics of the post war settlement. He didn't want to divide the country. Do you think that McCloud shared that economic and political philosophy that kind of essentially a fairly mushy centrism, that's to say do you think actually although he was a very political he was a very politically skilled man and a very clever man Actually, he might well have ended up following Ted Heath's U turns just for the sake of actually he, he didn't really. He didn't want to create this extremely febrile political atmosphere within the country by essentially going to war against the anyone? Well, first of all, I, I think he was quite tough minded. So I think Had that been necessary, I don't think he would have shirked from it. However, I think more importantly, I think he had the skills that might have enabled, we will never know. But that might have enabled that government to avoid that stark choice between, in effect, in effect, it was a choice between confrontation and political surrender, perhaps that's putting it a bit too dramatically. But, you know, that was the kind of choice it was. Now, one of the arts of politics is to try to think ahead, so that you take steps which avoid getting into a situation in which you have to choose between those two extreme courses of action. And, and I think he had the skill and the intellectual calibre to have enabled that government to have plotted a different course. Now, you know, the challenges were very significant. No, of course they were. And it's easy to see why the mistakes that were made were made. And we will never know because I keep saying, but I think there's a reasonable chance that he had the he had the political skills and the intellectual calibre to have thought ahead and negotiated a course which might have avoided a choice between those two extreme courses of action. It certainly seems as if the heath government lost a real kind of intellectual fulcrum when McLeod died. And I think it was it was leadership that barber Anthony Barber, his successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer, as you said, perhaps couldn't give Do you know, I found a quite a funny quote from Harold Wilson after when I was researching this. Do you know what Harold Wilson said when he heard that Ted Heath had appointed Anthony Barba to the Treasury? Yeah, I did. He said it finally demonstrated that Edward Heath had a sense of humour. Which I think, which I think probably suggests what the public mood was about Antonin barber compared to McLeod, something that's fairly clear, Michael, when you study this period of Tory history is that it was very broad church. It was ideologically, quite diverse. You had people ranging from kind of right wing libertarians like Enoch Powell, to one nation conservatives like in the cloud, to people who in modern day terms, you might actually place on the centre left of politics like Edward Heath, but the party kind of held together and it was quite accepting of different viewpoints. If you compare that Tory party to the Tory party of today, the party now I think, is probably less accepting of differing opinions, especially on the European issue. In 2019, Boris Johnson suspended some very capable middle of the road Tories you know, Rory Stewart, David Gork, Dominic grieve, Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames, all over the Brexit issue, and they've got some, I think, frankly, pretty mediocre replacements for them. Do you worry that the Tory party is becoming less accepting of alternative viewpoints, especially post Brexit? No, it's a short answer. I don't I think the Conservative Party remains a broad church. I think there was a particular a very specific issue over Brexit at that election. Boris Johnson would saying to the country, vote for me and I will get Brexit done. Now, in the previous parliament, the parliament leading up to that election in 2019. There was a significant bloc of conservative members of parliament who had taken a stance, which had they continued to be there after the election of 2019 might have prevented him from getting Brexit done. You know, as it happened, he got a majority of 80 and he could probably have overcome their opposition, but nobody knew in advance that he was going To get him majority of 80. So he had to take action in respect of those particular individuals he had to because otherwise, he would not have been able to convince people that he would have been able to get Brexit done. I mean, in many ways, it was, it was it was very sad, some of the people who suffered under that, that decision, were friends of mine and remain friends of mine. But I think it was something Boris Johnson had to do if he was to credibly make the pledge that if he was elected as prime minister, he would get Brexit done. So that was, I think, a very, very specific set of circumstances, very unlikely to happen again. And if you look at the current parliamentary Conservative Party, I think it is a broad church, and I think it does contain people with many different viewpoints. Our two party system essentially two party system depends on the fact that both major parties are broad churches, you find a very wide range of views in the parliamentary Labour Party, and you find a very wide range of views in the parliamentary Conservative Party. So I think that remains the case. You don't see any similarities in the dislike the right wing had for Ian McLeod, over something like the decolonization issue with the animosity that developed in the party over Brexit. When Brexit, as I said, Brexit led to specific issues. And Brexit is for, you know, for the most part, done and dusted. We still have obviously the Northern Ireland protocol to deal with that. We have left the European Union that is now an established and inescapable fact. So I think that that particular animosity that reason for this unity is is now in the past. I think McLeod was just to finish to bring this to a close. McLeod was clearly not a kind of right wing stalwart. When you consider some of the people that were in the conservative party with him at the time, the polls, the Lord Saul's breeze. Could he ever have been in a in another party? Do you think? No, I don't think so at all. I think he sits fairly and squarely within the Tory tradition. And I think, you know, his, his views on economic policy were, were quite, if you want to use that term, we're quite right wing. And I think he was emotionally a Tory as well. I absolutely don't think he could have been in in any other party. Do you ever think you could be in another party? No. Not at all. Now, I'm, I'm a conservative and I should die a conservative I've absolutely no doubt. How do you view the kind of ideological development of the Tory party in in modern times, posts COVID. It's obviously been in a fairly tax and spend attitude in many ways, which is anathema to what it often is thought to believe that as its kind of ideological core, do you think you're going to see a kind of retrenchment to a more small states maybe Cameron Osborne era of austerity, what do you think the the future of the Tory party looks like? The great thing about the Conservative Party and the reason why it is the oldest and most successful political party in the Western world, is, is it pragmatism, and its adaptability. The challenges facing our country today are very different from the challenges facing Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. And they require a different prescription, a different a different response. And I think that what the government is doing at the moment in terms of tax and spending, you're quite right to describe it as such. It is at the moment a relatively big government. It needs to be because of the challenges the country faces in terms of COVID the dangers of recession. and so on. Now, it's difficult to see what the future will hold. I would like to think that we will overcome these challenges. And once again, be able to adopt a policy prescription as in fact, we're doing at the moment, which is to have taxes as low as is reasonably consistent with the achievement of other objectives and a size of the state, which is as small as is consistent with the achievement of other objectives. But the achievement of those other objectives is extremely important. And and that's what the government has got to put its mind to at this at this stage. Michael, thank you very much. That's been a great talk. Thank you. Whilst you're here, is there anything that you'd like to promote any books any, any newspaper columns, anything you'd like? I don't do any of that. My wife has got a book coming out. But that may appeal to a rather different audience. You're very welcome to to promote it, if you like, won't, she's got a book called love. It was coming out at the end of July. And it's it's a war time remote Romance Based on a True Story, which I warmly recommend to everyone. Michael, thank you very much. Now that you are thank you for listening to the hated in the dead. If you've enjoyed this podcast, follow it on Spotify and Apple podcasts. And for good measure. Leave us a review. You can also follow the hated in the dead on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, so you never miss new content.