The Effects of Hugh Gaitskell as Prime Minister?

[Time Enough]

So per se, Gaitskell doesn’t die in 1963 and manages to win a 1964 election in some capacity (if you’re wondering how, maybe Hogg becomes Tory leader, anyway). What would be the effect of having Gaitskell as Labour leader?

I do think a major one is that education reform is likely to be slower and maybe the open university either doesn’t come into existence or is neutered in some capacity, due to Gaitskell not being as interested in education reform as Wilson.

Additionally it would be interesting what happens to the parliamentary Left over time and their development alongside the Trade Union Left and extra parliamentary groups in a timeline where Gaitskell lives. The Liberals could maybe gain more supporters from the Red Guards?

 

[AH Layard]

Possible that Crosland is Chancellor and devalues, although this is not a panacea for the economy and would require a few years of spending restraint to control inflation. After this it’s quite possible that the economy recovers and is in a better state than in OTL 1970.

The Gaitskellites were big on taxing wealth to reduce inequality so would probably get higher capital gains tax and perhaps some reform of the rates. There probably wouldn’t be a DEA although Gaitskell believed in some planning and controls.

Key social reforms E.g. legalisation of homosexuality, abortion, all proceed the same. However it’s quite possible that Gaitskell rejects calls to restrict immigration in 1968-9, and is more hostile to Smith’s regime in Rhodesia.

Gaitskell was against UK entry into the EEC (which thoroughly depressed some of his allies, notably Jenkins).

A big WI is how he would respond to strikes eg the 1966 seamen’s strike and whether he would push through with something like In Place of Strife.

 

[Time Enough]

Possible that Crosland is Chancellor and devalues, although this is not a panacea for the economy and would require a few years of spending restraint to control inflation. After this it’s quite possible that the economy recovers and is in a better state than in OTL 1970.

I get the sense it may not be Crosland as Chancellor (Callaghan, maybe Douglas Jay who was certainly on a similar wave length) but I do think Gaitskell may not be as nervous to devalue as Wilson was. The spending restraint probably doesn’t make the Left Wing of the party happy to say the least.

The Gaitskellites were big on taxing wealth to reduce inequality so would probably get higher capital gains tax and perhaps some reform of the rates. There probably wouldn’t be a DEA although Gaitskell believed in some planning and controls.

Interesting, I get the sense that as the 60s continue this probably doesn’t make corporations happy and May start moving elsewhere. Amusingly this could lead to a big role for asset strippers in the 60s economy.

Key social reforms E.g. legalisation of homosexuality, abortion, all proceed the same. However it’s quite possible that Gaitskell rejects calls to restrict immigration in 1968-9, and is more hostile to Smith’s regime in Rhodesia.

I do remember hearing that the social reforms probably happen no matter who’s in charge. As for Smith, I could see Gaitskell being more amicable to working with the US in placing pressure on Rhodesia. Military wise, Britain can’t really do much, though I did hear there were plans to possibly support a coup if Smith did UDI that got swept aside when it was realised that it would be incredibly unpopular in Rhodesia.

Gaitskell was against UK entry into the EEC (which thoroughly depressed some of his allies, notably Jenkins).

So I’ve heard contradictory things on that, mainly from what I’ve heard, Gaitskell was Pro-EEC but realised that party wasn’t entirely with him so he decided to appease the Anti-Marketeers. This does mean though that we probably get no 1967 attempt at all that.

A big WI is how he would respond to strikes eg the 1966 seamen’s strike and whether he would push through with something like In Place of Strife.

There probably would be a bill that would be attempted to be passed similar to In Place of Strife due to events like the Seaman’s Strike which I think is hard to butterfly away, and likely angers the Unions and Left of the Party, worse, instead of a Soft Left leader doing it, it’s someone who’s already tried to alter Clause 4 and the like, so it could possibly lead to a bigger crisis now that I think about it.

 

[heraclius]

Incidentally, as a 'Wykehamist' (old boy of Winchester School) Gaitskell would have been the first ex-Winchester PM since Pitt the Younger's sidekick Henry Addington (PM 1801-4) rather than this role going to Rishi Sunak. Gaitskell had the same well-off middle-class background and private school education as Crosland but was as far as I've read not much interested in egalitarian education theory, unlike C, and would have backed off from any idea of legislative action against the public schools rather than clash with the 'Establishment' to which he belonged (not least as a keen socialite and London party- and club-goer, in which he was a complete contrast with Wilson). But as a former part-time Workers Education Association lecturer in the 1930s he would probably have been keen on expanding the red-brick universities and vocational training via polytechnics and other colleges to open up access to skilled jobs for more working class people , if not as committed to the Open University unless a fan of the latter who was close to him had persuaded him - and he was , unlike Wilson, a political foe of the Wilsonite arts minister and OU supporter Jennie Lee. his ex-rival Bevan's widow, who was unlikely to get a job from him.

More and earlier promotion for ex-Communist turned centrist moderate Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins as the 'Number Two' in the govt instead of the working-class ex-union official Callaghan, an earlier 'In Place Of Strife' or its equivalent with a Blair-style enthusiasm for attracting centrist voters by marginalising Trade Union influence and standing up to wildcat strikes, but HG continuing his personal opposition to the EU so no Wilsonian style second attempt to get into the EU 1968-9 and possibly a rift with Jenkins over this as 'missing the boat'? Jenkins resigns and is eclipsed as the natural successor by either Crosland or Peter Shore, and once HG either loses an election and retires as leader or retires anyway (c. 1972, after a successful second election victory and largish majority in 1967 or 1968?) a struggle between marginalised Left and dominant right in the party? Led by Foot or TU-supported Callaghan for the Left, vs either Jenkins or (if the anti-EU line in Downing Street has led to him giving up in a huff and going off to a Brussels job) Crosland/ Shore? But in this scenario, with a presumably strongly technocratic and 'proto-Social Democrat' faction in charge in the Cabinet in the late 1960s, do we get Benn the then technocratic enthusiast (postal then technology minister in Wilson's govt 1964-70) staying with the moderate wing of the party as anti-EU and challenging Crosland as a more populist, pro-TU, and youth-friendly alternative?

Would Gaitskell be more engaged with anti-USSR activism and revolts in eastern Europe esp in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, and thus closer to LBJ, than Wilson, given his earlier involvement in anti-authoritarian local resistance (to the Dolfuss regime and the Nazis) in Austria as a visitor there in 1934, and his emigre Austrian Jewish wife? And so inclined to sign up to sending troops to Vietnam as a US ally, enraging the Left and so exacerbating late 1960s splits in his party? Would this even lead to a 'Socialist' secession to form a new party with militant union funding from more pro-Moscow TU leaders in the early 1970s if he kept an iron grip on the party and cabinet promotions and was seen as a 'US stoodge' by the Left , esp younger members, cf Blair after 2003? With collapse in Vietnam as a 1970s version of the real 2000s Iraq war as a lightning rod for a demand to 'take the party back' or leave, and the party leadership having to choose between Atlanticism (under Healey?) or a pro-EU move under HG's successor?