An old post I have decided to recycle on the fiftieth anniversary of the Aberfan disaster:
***
"Opposition politics proved less congenial to Robens, though his political fortunes continued to advance. He was shadow minister of labour and shadow foreign secretary (appointed by Clement Attlee), and there was talk of him becoming leader of the party. He himself admitted that he 'yearned to become Prime Minister' (Robens, *10-Year Stint*, 4); and he had his supporters in the Labour Party. However, Gaitskell was uneasy at Robens's left-wing political views and did not think he had the talent for foreign affairs (a view shared by others in the Labour Party, who felt that Robens had put up an indifferent performance during the Suez crisis). At the end of 1956 Robens was replaced by Aneurin Bevan as spokesman for foreign affairs and returned to shadowing the minister of labour. At this point Robens formed a dim view of his prospects (he was approaching fifty), and when the Conservative prime minister Harold Macmillan offered him the chairmanship of the National Coal Board (NCB) in 1960 (as successor to Sir James Bowman) he willingly accepted. (He was not to know that within two years Gaitskell would be dead and that his chances of the top job, as an alternative to Harold Wilson, would have been greatly increased. He went on record later as believing it highly probable that he would have been prime minister if he had stayed on the Labour front bench.)" Geoffrey Tweedale, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, "Robens, Alfred" http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=72445&back=&version=2004-09
So suppose Robens is more optimistic about his future in the Labour Party and declines Macmillan's offer--assuming Gaitskell dies on schedule? There were plenty of people in the Labour party who were unhappy about the choice between Harold Wilson and George Brown--Tony Crosland called it a choice between a crook and a drunk. Could Robens have won the leadership, and if so would he have gone on to win the closely-contestant 1964 general election?
Assuming he wins, how does a Robens government differ from Wilson's OTL government? Obviously the Aberfan disaster will forever blight Robens' reputation as NCB chairman, but we should not underestimate his politcal skills; according to Tweedale, "Joe Gormley, a leading National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) official, remarked: 'In his first few years...he could charm the sparrows off the bloody trees--as indeed he *must* have been able to do, since he was winning standing ovations at our conferences at the same time as he was cutting the industry in half...'"
Tweedale summarizes Robens' character and political views:
"Robens was more renowned for his self-confidence and showmanship than for his modesty. He was remembered as a 'big, jolly man, a supreme extrovert whose boundless self-confidence, vigour and strength of feeling often gave him an aura of superficiality which he did not merit. Nothing could knock him down ... [and] ... he always landed on his feet' (The Independent, 29 June 1999). He did not endear himself to everybody. Politically, he moved during his life from the left to the right, eventually shedding his working-class socialism and becoming a wealthy apolitical businessman. He believed that most problems could be solved by superior management techniques and human engineering. His later economic philosophy was summed up in the title of a lecture he gave in 1976 at the Royal Society of Arts: 'Great Britain Limited'--denoting managerial government run by people like himself. However, he was to be as disappointed with the Conservatives in following this philosophy as he was with the Labour Party. He left Vickers in 1979, and though he retained some of his other posts into the 1980s, he retired from public life and the House of Lords about 1982. He lived long enough to see the government divest itself of many of the nationalized industries and renounce the kind of social engineering he had once advocated..."
Thoughts?
***
"Opposition politics proved less congenial to Robens, though his political fortunes continued to advance. He was shadow minister of labour and shadow foreign secretary (appointed by Clement Attlee), and there was talk of him becoming leader of the party. He himself admitted that he 'yearned to become Prime Minister' (Robens, *10-Year Stint*, 4); and he had his supporters in the Labour Party. However, Gaitskell was uneasy at Robens's left-wing political views and did not think he had the talent for foreign affairs (a view shared by others in the Labour Party, who felt that Robens had put up an indifferent performance during the Suez crisis). At the end of 1956 Robens was replaced by Aneurin Bevan as spokesman for foreign affairs and returned to shadowing the minister of labour. At this point Robens formed a dim view of his prospects (he was approaching fifty), and when the Conservative prime minister Harold Macmillan offered him the chairmanship of the National Coal Board (NCB) in 1960 (as successor to Sir James Bowman) he willingly accepted. (He was not to know that within two years Gaitskell would be dead and that his chances of the top job, as an alternative to Harold Wilson, would have been greatly increased. He went on record later as believing it highly probable that he would have been prime minister if he had stayed on the Labour front bench.)" Geoffrey Tweedale, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, "Robens, Alfred" http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=72445&back=&version=2004-09
So suppose Robens is more optimistic about his future in the Labour Party and declines Macmillan's offer--assuming Gaitskell dies on schedule? There were plenty of people in the Labour party who were unhappy about the choice between Harold Wilson and George Brown--Tony Crosland called it a choice between a crook and a drunk. Could Robens have won the leadership, and if so would he have gone on to win the closely-contestant 1964 general election?
Assuming he wins, how does a Robens government differ from Wilson's OTL government? Obviously the Aberfan disaster will forever blight Robens' reputation as NCB chairman, but we should not underestimate his politcal skills; according to Tweedale, "Joe Gormley, a leading National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) official, remarked: 'In his first few years...he could charm the sparrows off the bloody trees--as indeed he *must* have been able to do, since he was winning standing ovations at our conferences at the same time as he was cutting the industry in half...'"
Tweedale summarizes Robens' character and political views:
"Robens was more renowned for his self-confidence and showmanship than for his modesty. He was remembered as a 'big, jolly man, a supreme extrovert whose boundless self-confidence, vigour and strength of feeling often gave him an aura of superficiality which he did not merit. Nothing could knock him down ... [and] ... he always landed on his feet' (The Independent, 29 June 1999). He did not endear himself to everybody. Politically, he moved during his life from the left to the right, eventually shedding his working-class socialism and becoming a wealthy apolitical businessman. He believed that most problems could be solved by superior management techniques and human engineering. His later economic philosophy was summed up in the title of a lecture he gave in 1976 at the Royal Society of Arts: 'Great Britain Limited'--denoting managerial government run by people like himself. However, he was to be as disappointed with the Conservatives in following this philosophy as he was with the Labour Party. He left Vickers in 1979, and though he retained some of his other posts into the 1980s, he retired from public life and the House of Lords about 1982. He lived long enough to see the government divest itself of many of the nationalized industries and renounce the kind of social engineering he had once advocated..."
Thoughts?