|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 30, 2020 19:29:32 GMT
What if Hugh Gaitskell had lived to see the Labour Party through the 1964 general election, and thus become Prime Minister in October 1964 instead of Harold Wilson? How would he have fared as PM compared to Mr Wilson?
Mr Gaitskell was only 56 when he died in 1963, yet 2-3 decades later some right-wing Labour MPs were still called "Gaitskellites".
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,546
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 1, 2020 13:18:55 GMT
Its likely he would have gone on to win the following year's GE, possibly with a bigger Labour majority than Wilson managed.
And its not hard to see how he might have been quite a capable PM.
One big possible fly in the ointment, though - Vietnam. Gaitskell was of course a fervent Atlanticist and would he have been able to, or even wanted to, resist getting the UK overtly involved despite US displeasure like his successor as leader did? However, actually sending British troops there would have been hideously divisive within the party (think Iraq, only probably still worse) and might even have led to unrest more widely given how things generally were in the late 1960s.
In extremis, we might have been looking at another 1931 type "National government" situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 1, 2020 13:27:47 GMT
Its likely he would have gone on to win the following year's GE, possibly with a bigger Labour majority than Wilson managed. And its not hard to see how he might have been quite a capable PM. One big possible fly in the ointment, though - Vietnam. Gaitskell was of course a fervent Atlanticist and would he have been able to, or even wanted to, resist getting the UK overtly involved despite US displeasure like his successor as leader did? However, actually sending British troops there would have been hideously divisive within the party (think Iraq, only probably still worse) and might even have led to unrest more widely given how things generally were in the late 1960s. In extremis, we might have been looking at another 1931 type "National government" situation. And he was anti-Common Market too, which might have caused ructions. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 1, 2020 15:05:47 GMT
Gaitskell's anti-EEC position wouldn't necessarily have caused problems, since De Gaulle had already vetoed the application. Wilson didn't apply to join until May 1967 which was partly because of the ongoing economic problems.
Yes, he'd probably have sent troops to Vietnam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Dec 2, 2020 10:17:50 GMT
British troops in Vietnam, sent in by a Labour government, is a fascinating historical idea. We often think of the effects of it on American society, but Australia is an interesting parallel. Let's say everything pans out in a similar way- what are the consequences socially and culturally?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 2, 2020 10:32:10 GMT
British troops in Vietnam, sent in by a Labour government, is a fascinating historical idea. We often think of the effects of it on American society, but Australia is an interesting parallel. Let's say everything pans out in a similar way- what are the consequences socially and culturally? Going off Neighbours etc, that despite only a relatively small minority of people serving, every male soap character of a certain age will be a Vietnam vet.. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,546
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 2, 2020 11:32:00 GMT
Its likely he would have gone on to win the following year's GE, possibly with a bigger Labour majority than Wilson managed. And its not hard to see how he might have been quite a capable PM. One big possible fly in the ointment, though - Vietnam. Gaitskell was of course a fervent Atlanticist and would he have been able to, or even wanted to, resist getting the UK overtly involved despite US displeasure like his successor as leader did? However, actually sending British troops there would have been hideously divisive within the party (think Iraq, only probably still worse) and might even have led to unrest more widely given how things generally were in the late 1960s. In extremis, we might have been looking at another 1931 type "National government" situation. And he was anti-Common Market too, which might have caused ructions. Though of course it is easy to forget now that most of the party would have been with him on that! (though far from all of his own wing of course, hence his wife's fabled comment that "all the wrong people are clapping") |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Dec 2, 2020 18:38:34 GMT
Having been involved in demonstrations against the Vietnam war, including a rather ugly one when Wilson spoke in Cambridge, I don't think that the Labour Party would have survived in the form it did had Gaitskell sent British troops to Vietnam. The anger about what was happening in Vietnam, even without our involvement, mobilised a generation. Wilson played his cards well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 2, 2020 18:43:12 GMT
Having been involved in demonstrations against the Vietnam war, including a rather ugly one when Wilson spoke in Cambridge, I don't think that the Labour Party would have survived in the form it did had Gaitskell sent British troops to Vietnam. The anger about what was happening in Vietnam, even without our involvement, mobilised a generation. Wilson played his cards well. Wilson often made good strategic choices and did manage to maintain relatively broad based cabinets without too much conflict. Gaitskell was much more factional. |
|
