WI: Harold Wilson had won a substantial majority in 64’

[Time Enough]

So I’ve seen scenarios where Harold Wilson loses 64’ or wins another majority in 70’ etc. But I haven’t seen any discussion about Wilson having a slightly bigger swing in 64’ and thereby getting a more workable majority along the lines of fifteen-twenty.

With a majority that won’t cut to ribbons by by-elections, Wilson would very likely avoid calling a 1966 snap election.

An interesting factor would be if this effects the Conservative Leadership election, given that Heath would by seventeen over Maudling you could see a tighter race where Heath or Maudling just manages to pip the other to the post.

Another factor would be the Tribune Group, who felt hemmed in OTL by the slim majority and there were swamped when Wilson gained his landslide, could be more likely to throw there weight around and push for certain policies with more vigour than they did in OTL.

 

[Time Enough]

Wilson's greater majority gives more time to his passion projects like the Open University and education reform. It's unlikely for him to delay devaluation like IOTL with an election due sooner, perhaps until 1966 at the latest. With the economy picking up Labour are in a better place to win the next election.

Interesting, I do think Education Reform and Open University being passed earlier probably helps a lot of students and all that.

As for devaluation, I’m not sure, Wilson and a significant portion of the Labour Government was incredibly stubborn on it so I’m in two minds, one is that he’s able to get over his fears and devalues around 65/66 (which the economists wanted), or he sticks to his guns and devalues in 67’ ala OTL.

Now if the first happens, the overheating is stopped at the right time and the British Economy begins to rebound in the late 60s, Wilson probably wins a second term. If the Second happens then the slow return that occur in OTL still happens but with a election looming on the horizon that probably makes Wilson look weak etc.

Heath fought a better campaign although a tighter margin could make Maudling Shadow Chancellor instead. Maudling was more collegiate and congenial and picked up support from the Old Right in a way that Heath never really could, including people like Edward du Cann. So until Poulson appears, you have a far more coherent economic management in government and opposition.

That makes sense, Heath’s main problem seems to be trying appease a number of different camps and pleasing no one, whilst if Maudling is Chancellor then it could mean Heath is more coherent, this probably doesn’t stop the blunders but it probably makes Heath more confident in an Alt 68/69 election.

I can see a greater push for nationalisations and a more Eurosceptic stance, initially. Ian Mikardo as a left-wing morderniser with people like Jo Richardson and Harold Davies in his circle would be prominent. Or perhaps if Richard Clements got into Parliament as well he could organise on the soft left, but not as a unity figure, going from his time as Tribune editor.

Maybe Ian Mikardo is invited into Government if Tribune has a habit of being an annoyance for Wilson, with a caveat that his radical proposal for reorganising and nationalising the dockyards is consider. I do think the Tribune Group would lead Parliamentary action against the Vietnam War and be the CND’s speakers in Parliament.

 

[Charles EP M.]

A rebounding 60s economy and second Wilson term probably bodes ill for the Tories, leaving them more likely to be the main government when the 70s goes to shit (if it still does)? We get some very different decades if Discontent is associated with Tory rule and Labour have a lingering 'party of good economy' rep

 

[Time Enough]

A rebounding 60s economy and second Wilson term probably bodes ill for the Tories, leaving them more likely to be the main government when the 70s goes to shit (if it still does)? We get some very different decades if Discontent is associated with Tory rule and Labour have a lingering 'party of good economy' rep

The 70s probably would still a bit janky (at somepoint in the 70s I think Nixon would ditch Bretton Woods and also the Oil Prices would raise at somepoint be it because of Alt-Yom Kippur, Iran or some other chaos) so I could see it happen.

I don’t think two successful Wilson terms would ever rid the natural Tory advantage that the parties had since the 1920s but I do think it probably evens the balance a bit more.

That all being said, Wilson being more successful likely does mean that Labour is overwhelmingly grounded in being a Social Democratic Party without the leanings towards the party’s Left later on.

 

[Time Enough]

If the Conservatives are more consistent on the economy, and Labour are tested more as a social democratic force by being in power longer, the turn away from Keynsianism is probably a lot smoother and less damaging to British industry.

Indeed, with Labour being shown that deflationary budgets and Social Democracy could mix and the Tory’s less likely to be in the thrall of Milton could definitely lead to a more staggered and less aggressive turn away. Indeed I remember reading that various NUM heads discussed Coal Mining being obsolete by 2000 and instead supporting job retraining schemes and the like.

I could see a scenario where Britain becomes a European Style Social Market Economy which whilst flawed would be a step up from what occurred Otl.

Devaluation could really go either way - a healthier majority probably means more enemies, in Wilson's mind. Anthony Crosland and Douglas Jay both pushed for it from the Gaitskellite wing, but I think others on the left like Tony Greenwood were more amenable too.

Tony Greenwood was more amenable to it I believe, I think the Left saw it as giving them breathing room and space to pursue the Socialist reforms that Britain needed. Douglas Jay being a pusher for devaluation makes sense given he was the biggest Social Democratic wonk in the world.

Interesting points - do you know what Mikardo's relationship with Shore and Foot was like?

I believe Mikardo was closer to Richard Crossman than he was with Foot and Shore who by many on the Left was seen as being a Gaitskellite stooge or Wilson’s LapDog.

Additionally I believe Mikardo had a slight Europhile streak to him compared to the other two.

 

[Roger II]

Honestly, I'm interested in a link between a stronger majority gettin Wilson to OU opening which in turn becomes a potential vehicle for job retraining schemes and (as @Time Enough suggests) giving the NUM time and space to work out an orderly wind-down of the coal industry. Maybe without even sacking anyone, just working out a scheme to wind down existing mines as people retire and massively push educational improvements and university access to coal towns.

 

[AH Layard]

I wonder if we could get a stronger push on the Department for Economic Affairs as a separate economic ministry to the Treasury and on the Fulton Report into civil service reform.

 

[Time Enough]

A great idea for expanding the OU as a means of allieviating industrial decline when it comes, and actually make for an interesting TL, the South East doesn't end up quite so overheated (and making Douglas Jay very happy, perhaps narked that he's not the one to have done it).

That would be a fun timeline, Wilson getting the majority he wanted leading to Open University becoming a bigger and more wider reaching organisation that helps alleviate the Industrial decline isn’t something I thought off when I asked this question.

I wonder if we could get a stronger push on the Department for Economic Affairs as a separate economic ministry to the Treasury and on the Fulton Report into civil service reform.

I could see the DEA as being something like the proposed Kinnock ideas for a National Investment Bank, which decoupling the DEA and likely NEDE from the Treasury probably means that it could have more of an impact in terms of directing economic policy, though I could see it becoming a fiefdom for whatever Minister gets the job.