A Few Seats More: Wilson Wins a Larger Majority in 1964?

[Beata Beatrix]

I often think AH as a rule is more interested in dramatic rather than subtle points of divergence. The Carter administration looks, to my mind, hugely different if he wins more states and comes into office with an LBJ-sized landslide – as he would've had he won every state he lost only 5% of the vote. And so on.

Anyways, to the point. Wilson's majority in 1964 was, of course, quite small, necessitating the 1966 election and ultimately giving a few important protagonists of the government – Roy Jenkins – more starring roles, while giving people like Patrick Gordon-Walker much less important ones than they might have otherwise had. But I wonder what a Wilson government with a slightly different cast, given a more comfortable, more 'safe' political position, given a larger majority, looks like? With, at a guess, James Callaghan as Home Secretary, Anthony Crosland as Chancellor, and Patrick Gordon-Walker as Foreign Secretary, how radical are the '60s?

A Wilson in this position has to call the next general election in 1968 or 1969 – hardly the strongest moment for an incumbent in the West! If Heath's seat is seemingly rather precarious, does it fall to Maudling to lead the Conservatives in 1968? And if Labour loses, and Wilson is deposed, who comes next? Or if they win – who comes next?

Just some food for thought!

 

[Thande]

A Wilson in this position has to call the next general election in 1968 or 1969 – hardly the strongest moment for an incumbent in the West!

And more specifically in this case (assuming things ran on the same schedule) that'd be after the devaluation of the pound, when the local elections were an essentially unmatched bloodbath for Labour and a ridiculous landslide for the Conservatives. There isn't a wiki page yet for the whole set of elections but there is one for London, which gives you an idea.

Wilson would definitely put the election off as long as he could.

 

[Time Enough]

But I wonder what a Wilson government with a slightly different cast, given a more comfortable, more 'safe' political position, given a larger majority, looks like? With, at a guess, James Callaghan as Home Secretary, Anthony Crosland as Chancellor, and Patrick Gordon-Walker as Foreign Secretary, how radical are the '60s?

So I pondered this question some time back here, but to summarise;

- A Wilson Majority of, let’s say 20 to 30 (which is fairly politically safe and considered to be a possibility on election night) does mean that stuff only really got off the ground in his second term, like Open University or Steel Nationalisation would occur earlier in 65’.

-The Tribune Group would probably try and rebel more on stuff like Seaman’s Strike, Rhodesia and Nuclear Disarmament, in OTL they were cautious and didn’t rebel till 66’ by which point they had lost power due to the size of the majority.

-Devaluation occurs slightly earlier but Wilson probably still waffles until 65/66’, which could possibly help lead to an early spring back…or not.

-Walker will probably be Foreign Secretary, Callaghan probably becomes Chancellor as Otl because Wilson doesn’t trust Crosland at all (the feeling was mutual). The East of Suez policies and European Integration probably are attempted. Rhodesia could be interesting, I could maybe see Wilson being more confident in negotiations, though this will probably still see the UDI declared (maybe Britain implements economic sanctions and supports that coup attempt that I think @Warthog has discussed before).

-Meanwhile on the Liberal front, Jo Grimond retires earlier as he only stayed on till 1967 due to internal pressure over a possible Lib-Lab pact and then to keep Thorpe out I think (@monroe @iainbhx I could be wrong). If Grimond leaves earlier then Lubbock and Hooson are in with more of a chance of winning in an alternate Liberal leadership. All three (Thorpe, Lubbock and Hooson) provide interesting possibilities for the Liberals in the 60s.

 

[monroe]

So I pondered this question some time back here, but to summarise;

- A Wilson Majority of, let’s say 20 to 30 (which is fairly politically safe and considered to be a possibility on election night) does mean that stuff only really got off the ground in his second term, like Open University or Steel Nationalisation would occur earlier in 65’.

-The Tribune Group would probably try and rebel more on stuff like Seaman’s Strike, Rhodesia and Nuclear Disarmament, in OTL they were cautious and didn’t rebel till 66’ by which point they had lost power due to the size of the majority.

-Devaluation occurs slightly earlier but Wilson probably still waffles until 65/66’, which could possibly help lead to an early spring back…or not.

-Walker will probably be Foreign Secretary, Callaghan probably becomes Chancellor as Otl because Wilson doesn’t trust Crosland at all (the feeling was mutual). The East of Suez policies and European Integration probably are attempted. Rhodesia could be interesting, I could maybe see Wilson being more confident in negotiations, though this will probably still see the UDI declared (maybe Britain implements economic sanctions and supports that coup attempt that I think @Warthog has discussed before).

-Meanwhile on the Liberal front, Jo Grimond retires earlier as he only stayed on till 1967 due to internal pressure over a possible Lib-Lab pact and then to keep Thorpe out I think (@monroe @iainbhx I could be wrong). If Grimond leaves earlier then Lubbock and Hooson are in with more of a chance of winning in an alternate Liberal leadership. All three (Thorpe, Lubbock and Hooson) provide interesting possibilities for the Liberals in the 60s.

Grimond's choice was Jim Davidson, and he would have probably run/had the road paved for him had Grimond stressed he was only asking him (a worse night for the Tories would prolly bring him in in '64)

 

[AH Layard]

Agree with that TE. There is probably also a more ambitious attempt to restructure Whitehall, I.E. DEA as a genuine counterweight to HMT, greater intake of specialists.

If there is a devaluation on schedule then as Thande noted then an earlier election would be trouble for Labour. OTL Jenkins had to hold back spending for several years and the economic outlook was beginning to improve in 1970 (bad trade figures withstanding).

 

[Tamar]

And more specifically in this case (assuming things ran on the same schedule) that'd be after the devaluation of the pound, when the local elections were an essentially unmatched bloodbath for Labour and a ridiculous landslide for the Conservatives. There isn't a wiki page yet for the whole set of elections but there is one for London, which gives you an idea.

Wilson would definitely put the election off as long as he could.

One of the reasons for the Labour left gaining strength in the 70s was that after those locals they were pushing on an open door in a lot of places. If a GE turns out anything like that...

 

[RyanF]

I'm wondering if we still get the Department of Economic Affairs and if it's still headed by George Brown. Was all agreed beforehand, of course, but deals made in the back of taxis have a certain provisional nature to them.

Can't see joining the EEC going any different, without additional changes in France (well, one particular Frenchman at least).

Even if devaluation comes a little earlier I can see an election being held off until 1969, possibly with the voting age being lowered a year earlier than OTL.

A lot of interesting by-elections during the period: Leyton 1965 presumably doesn't happen if Patrick Gordon Walker held Smethwick in 1964; without the Walker situation do the government try to get Frank Cousins into Parliament via the Nuneaton by-election held on the same day? If devaluation is introduced in 1965 might it buoy the Unionists in the Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles 1965 by-election, preventing David Steel from entering Parliament when he did; does this let Douglas-Home hold on for a bit longer? Carmarthen and Hamilton too in 1967.

 

[monroe]

Grimond's choice was Jim Davidson, and he would have probably run/had the road paved for him had Grimond stressed he was only asking him (a worse night for the Tories would prolly bring him in in '64)

okay actually, and I know this is a bit of a digression from the point of the thread, but: the key problem with trying to avoid Thorpe is... you can't? By which I mean, there's a good reason Hooson and Lubbock could never beat the guy, he was the golden boy groomed by the Liberal hierarchy for like 20 years to be their leader, with the only real challenge being getting him into Parliament (would he have inherited Clement Davies seat of Montgomeryshire - for which he became fluent in Welsh for while living with the Lloyd George family - or North Devon, 'where the real challenge was'?). Imo the only way you really avoid a Liberal Party led (and thus badly mismanaged) by Thorpe is not rolling the dice and hoping for a different outcome to the '67 leadership election, but by introducing MPs in 1964 who would have plausibly have stronger legitimacy within the party to be seen as Grimond's inevitable successor- one such figure being the Frontbench Economics Spokesman Christopher Layton, who ran for Chippenham in the 1962 by-election and again in 1964, coming close to winning both times but failing both times.

 

[Time Enough]

Agree with that TE. There is probably also a more ambitious attempt to restructure Whitehall, I.E. DEA as a genuine counterweight to HMT, greater intake of specialists.

I'm wondering if we still get the Department of Economic Affairs and if it's still headed by George Brown. Was all agreed beforehand, of course, but deals made in the back of taxis have a certain provisional nature to them.

I do think it’s a coin flip if the DEA is allowed to live or if it’s just doesn’t. I could see maybe a Prices and Income Board being created earlier (and suffering from the same problems that Aubrey Jones experienced otl).

David Steel from entering Parliament when he did; does this let Douglas-Home hold on for a bit longer? Carmarthen and Hamilton too in 1967.

I could see Douglas Home staying on slightly longer, if more to settle on to a successor rather than going onto 1968/69’, from what I remember reading Home felt rather awkward about the whole ‘leader of the opposition’ thing.

It would be interesting if it would still be Heath as otl, whilst Maudling would still be a poor campaigner it could be closer due to the increased losses probably effecting Heath and Maudling.

Frank Cousins into Parliament via the Nuneaton by-election held on the same day?

An interesting thing with Frank Cousins is if he decides to stay a full parliamentary term, he could still just resign after a couple of years, but I could see Cousins in an Alt In Place of Strife debacle being one of the leaders of the Left within that conflict.

 

[RyanF]

An interesting thing with Frank Cousins is if he decides to stay a full parliamentary term, he could still just resign after a couple of years, but I could see Cousins in an Alt In Place of Strife debacle being one of the leaders of the Left within that conflict.

I was wondering about the potential of Labour going into the GE with *In Place of Strife being the last big thing before the election.

 

[Time Enough]

I was wondering about the potential of Labour going into the GE with *In Place of Strife being the last big thing before the election.

I remember when I was planning a ‘John Silkin/Someone else from the Labour Soft Left is leader in the late 70s’ timeline idea and part of it was Wilson Losing in 1969 and James Callaghan taking over in the aftermath.

And when you mentioned that, that it occurred to me that In Place of Strife being one of the last big policies and the ensuing chaos around it would likely shatter the illusion of Wilson and his attempts at Party Unity, and would likely increase the possible power of James Callaghan (particularly if combined with the party infighting over Europe after the Otl 1970 election).

 

[Warthog]

Rhodesia could be interesting, I could maybe see Wilson being more confident in negotiations, though this will probably still see the UDI declared (maybe Britain implements economic sanctions and supports that coup attempt that I think @Warthog has discussed before).

Thanks TE. No Independence Without Majority Rule was the British position and didn't change between governments. It wasn't opposed by the Conservative Party apart from the lunatic fringe, so a larger Labour majority wouldn't make a difference.

Military action might have been considered- but it would have been a very "adventurous" attempt, in the face of local (white) opposition. Gibbs had made it clear to London that he'd face a mutiny in the army and police if Smith and Dupont were arrested.

There was discussion in London about sending a small unit of special forces via Kenya to arrest and extract Smith and Dupont, but I've not seen anything to suggest it was taken very seriously by Wilson. It would need someone more radical and interventionist in thr colonial office than Greenwood.

(As an aside, I once read a very fictionalized account of this, will see if I can track it down)

 

[Charles EP M.]

A thing I'm picking up is that a larger Wilson government is a more radical one on economics, industry, ministries etc but with Jenkins assumed not Hone Secretary, would likely be less radical on social grounds? But waiting in the wings:

One of the reasons for the Labour left gaining strength in the 70s was that after those locals they were pushing on an open door in a lot of places. If a GE turns out anything like that...

(And they or a less left Labour that had to accomodate some members won't be kept out forever)

 

[Time Enough]

It would need someone more radical and interventionist in thr colonial office than Greenwood.

That is amusing because on other issues Greenwood was quite radical and interventionist (given he was a former Bevanite) but found he was constrained by Cabinet Loyalty (I believe Frank Alluan as Greenwood's PPS resigned over Rhodesia if I remembering that @Comisario article in the Tribune correctly). So I think that as you mention, Wilson would probably pursue a similar route as OTL. Intresting Richard Crossman thought that Wilson could have done more by "means of Black Propaganda or subversive organisation to put pressure on Smith" which offers some interesting possibilities.

A thing I'm picking up is that a larger Wilson government is a more radical one on economics, industry, ministries etc but with Jenkins assumed not Hone Secretary, would likely be less radical on social grounds?

I do think stuff like Homosexual Decriminalisation would could still happen (given how some form of reform had been bounced around the Wolfden Report) but I could certainly see Abortion Reform, Policing and Theatre Censorship still being prevalent which provides interesting possibilities. Additionally a Wilson lose in 1969 could occur just before or during the Battle of Bogside and the subsequent intervention of the British Army, which offers interesting possibilities within it self.

(And they or a less left Labour that had to accomodate some members won't be kept out forever)

This seems like this could possibly lead to folks like Ken Coates and the Institute for Workers Control gaining a more prominent position within the party and parliament, which...could have interesting results, whilst I don't think this would lead to like a Bennite Labour Party or anything, it wouldn't surprise me if during the 70s a Labour Party being dominated by the Tribune Group (your Shore's, Silkin's, your Lestor's what have you).

 

[Comisario]

That is amusing because on other issues Greenwood was quite radical and interventionist (given he was a former Bevanite) but found he was constrained by Cabinet Loyalty (I believe Frank Alluan as Greenwood's PPS resigned over Rhodesia if I remembering that @Comisario article in the Tribune correctly). So I think that as you mention, Wilson would probably pursue a similar route as OTL. Intresting Richard Crossman thought that Wilson could have done more by "means of Black Propaganda or subversive organisation to put pressure on Smith" which offers some interesting possibilities.

Allaun resigned over government policy on Vietnam rather than Rhodesia, though both he and Greenwood shared a lot of criticisms of the constraints placed by Wilson, Patrick Gordon Walker, and Michael Stewart on the Colonial Office's ability to intervene in Rhodesia. He would have liked the freedom to be more "muscular" in his anti-white supremacy, but orthodoxy leaned conservative and he decided to abide by collective responsiblity. You'd need a different PM with different foreign policy priorities to give the go-ahead in order to make a more interventionist move against Smith and co.

 

[Roger II]

Picking up the "black propaganda and subversive organization" thread, suppose a larger majority doesn't give Wilson or the Cabinet leeway to outright intervene in Rhodesia but does give them a bit more confidence to try something like this. Does it actually get anywhere? Could see some interesting joint projects...

 

[Warthog]

Intresting Richard Crossman thought that Wilson could have done more by "means of Black Propaganda or subversive organisation to put pressure on Smith" which offers some interesting possibilities

Allaun resigned over government policy on Vietnam rather than Rhodesia, though both he and Greenwood shared a lot of criticisms of the constraints placed by Wilson, Patrick Gordon Walker, and Michael Stewart on the Colonial Office's ability to intervene in Rhodesia. He would have liked the freedom to be more "muscular" in his anti-white supremacy, but orthodoxy leaned conservative and he decided to abide by collective responsiblity.

Very interesting. In some ways the propaganda that was needed was both local and also on the home front, to dissuade British voters from the "kith and kin" argument.

Thing is though, anything drastic needed to happen immediately while the crime of UDI was well in people's imagination.

The position taken by the Anglican Church in Rhodesia* could have been made more prominent both at home to influence political opinion, and through propaganda broadcasts into Rhodesia, as a start to undermine Smith, given the immediate censorship Smith imposed on media in the country.

That's just an example, but more ambitiously, a British sponsored radio station in Kafue, Zambia, or Francis town, Botswana, could have been an interesting project.

* Both the Bishops of Mashonaland (Cecil Alderson) and Matabeleland ("Red" Ken Skelton) denounced UDI on the day, but this was censored from Rhodesian newspapers and radio, and only the cathedrals' congregants actually heard it.

 

[Elektronaut]

Home would almost certainly have retired after agreement on the new leadership rules had Labour won a stable majority - IOTL the party agreed on them in February of the new year, it might happen sooner if Home is already on the way out.

Divergence is possible, Heath won support due to his response to Callaghan's spring budget (Maudling having unwisely vacated the treasury brief) and I think a lot of the divide between the supporters was generational. I would have to examine things closely in terms of seats but I suspect a larger Labour majority would help Maudling. Maudling's campaign was a shambles IOTL and I wouldn't understate that fact but there was still only 17 votes in it at the end of the day.

 

[Comisario]

Divergence is possible, Heath won support due to his response to Callaghan's spring budget (Maudling having unwisely vacated the treasury brief) and I think a lot of the divide between the supporters was generational. I would have to examine things closely in terms of seats but I suspect a larger Labour majority would help Maudling. Maudling's campaign was a shambles IOTL and I wouldn't understate that fact but there was still only 17 votes in it at the end of the day.

Honestly, there’s a question as to whether Heath is even an MP. Bexley was not exactly a safe seat and he came close to being ousted by Labour in ‘64 (roughly 4000 votes in it) and ‘66 (roughly 2000 votes in it). Depending on the size of the majority and the swing to get there, Labour might well have taken him out before the next leadership election.

Even if he survives, his majority would probably be tiny and he’d likely be a big target with a high risk of being Balfoured. That makes him somewhat less attractive than OTL.

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

Thanks TE. No Independence Without Majority Rule was the British position and didn't change between governments. It wasn't opposed by the Conservative Party apart from the lunatic fringe, so a larger Labour majority wouldn't make a difference.

Military action might have been considered- but it would have been a very "adventurous" attempt, in the face of local (white) opposition. Gibbs had made it clear to London that he'd face a mutiny in the army and police if Smith and Dupont were arrested.

There was discussion in London about sending a small unit of special forces via Kenya to arrest and extract Smith and Dupont, but I've not seen anything to suggest it was taken very seriously by Wilson. It would need someone more radical and interventionist in thr colonial office than Greenwood.

(As an aside, I once read a very fictionalized account of this, will see if I can track it down)

That just seems like a set up to do Operation Eagle Claw but on the Veldt.