WI: Hugh Gaitskell became Prime Minister of Great Britain in October 1964

If Hugh Gaitskell, the leader of the Labour Party, had not died at the age of 56 (born 9 April 1906) in January 1963 and had become Prime Minister of a Labour government after the general election on 15 October 1964, how would the policies of his government have differed from those of Harold Wilson in OTL.

Would Gaitskell have agreed to send British troops to Vietnam? As a person of principles and integrity I do not believe he would have introduced legislation to restrict the rights of Kenyan Asians with British passports to enter Britain.

Gaitskell's posthumous reputation is higher than that of subsequent Labour leaders, except for John Smith and possibly Michael Foot with left-wingers. Would he have been more or less popular with the voters than Wilson was?

If Gaitskell had a single figure majority after the October 1964 election, presumably he would have called a general election within two years. Most likely this would have been won by Labour with at least a good working majority. Would the Tories have won a general election in 1970 or 1971? There is also the question of likely successors to Gaitskell as Labour leader.
 
Economically I'd imagine it'd be Butskellism with a focus more on controling unemployment than changing intrest rates
 
Would Gaitskell have agreed to send British troops to Vietnam? As a person of principles and integrity I do not believe he would have introduced legislation to restrict the rights of Kenyan Asians with British passports to enter Britain.

I don't think any British Labour leader is daft enough to get into Vietnam. A PM George Brown might or might not attempt it, but you have to make him PM without also sobering him up, which is ASBish.

I think the currency crisis and the later union relations crisis is pretty unavoidable under a Labour government during the sixties, as I think Gaitskell would rely upon a lot of the same advise as Wilson did IOTL. Wilson might be Gaitskell's chancellor, f'rinstance.

An early first re-election victory is very doable. It's the late sixties/early seventies where things really diverge in a Gaitskell Britain.
 
Well for one you'll get a lot less re-nationalisation, though given Gaitskell's general economic outlook he might be interested in a British form of dirigism, that of government interventionism to support large 'national champions' in areas of industry, self-sufficiency in energy (alot more nuclear power), maybe encouraging cooperatives and PEAs (partial-employee ownership) as a way to divert the left-wing of the Party into another form of socialism.

Ultimately however Gaistkell is only going to have a full, successful term if he can cow the hard-left, and frankly considering the trouble Kinnock had even after Labour had reached its nadir in the 1980s, something special is going to have to happen. As mentioned with the coops, maybe instead of fighting to remove Clause Four, he merely redefines the party's definition of public ownership? But still Britain will need some great event, whether political and economic to give Gaitskell the authoriy in the early 1960s to take on and beat the Left.
 
Gaitskell was opposed to Britain joining the Common Market (EEC). In his speech at the 1962 Labour conference he said it would be the end to a thousand years of history. But the so-called Gaitskellites - people like Roy Jenkins, Bill Rogers and Shirley Williams - were passionately pro-European.

While De Gaulle was President of France any British application to join the EEC would be rejected, but if Edward Heath won a general election in 1970 or 1971 and applied to join as he did in OTL, if Gaitskell were leader of the opposition, I assume he would have lead his party against it. In OTL, the European Communities Bill received a second reading in the House of Commons on 17 February 1972 by only 8 votes. 15 Conservatives voted against and 4 abstained. There were 4 Labour MPs abstentions. If the Conservatives had a smaller majority the Bill would have been defeated and the UK would not have joined the EEC, at least in 1973.

Originally posted by Jape
Ultimately however Gaitskell is only going to have a full, successful term if he can cow the hard left

If Gaitskell had a substantial majority of say over 70 in the House of Commons after a 1966 general election, he would not have needed to worry about the hard left.

If Gaitskell had resigned as leader of the Labour Party in the mid to late 1970s, his successor might have been Dennis Healey, who would most probably have been able to stop, or at least minimize the breakaway of the Social Democratic Party.
 

Indeed I forgot about the EEC, however Labour was the anti-Europe party into the 1980s even if its more centrist (indeed maybe because of it), I doubt acsension into the Community won't take place, or to take moderately popular Europhobe dream, Gaitskell/Heath pushes to join the EFTA instead alongside Norway.

By the hard-left, admittedly using it in its modern connotations, I don't mean the Trotskyite fringe I mean the pretty substantial base (both in the grassroots and NEC) commited to nationalisation and strong Union rights. Gaitskell was the heir to Crosland who was virtually pillored by the Party in 1938 for suggesting state-owned corporations would'nt have that much effect on equality and a progressive society. Sure in the Commons Gaitskell could ignore the solid Left but if he moves away from these two cornerstones he'll be on pretty thin ice with the Party itself, which wont help him much in the long-run. To take a crass parallel I have this image of a Gaitskell Ministry suffering the same fate as LBJ, parliamentarily strong and popular enough with the majority, but radical elements will be his undoing. Remember Gaitskell isn't simply a more rightist Wilson, Wilson was a fudger who tried to paper over Party divisions, Gaitskell openly antagonised his enemies in his effort to 'purify' Labour in his revisionist image. Things could get messy.

probably have been able to stop, or at least minimize the breakaway of the Social Democratic Party

I'm sure Owen would have found a way. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA2LmhJlKsk
 
Hmmmm...
I'm not as familiar with British politics, but with Gaitskell as PM, would Wilson's "White Heat of Technology" push still go on? Or, could it be more high-tech? Or could it be less? (An earlier poster did point out that Gaitskell could be more pro-Nuclear.) Would there be more of a push for Concorde?

Also, would Gaitskell have given MBEs to the Beatles? (That was a bit of a cultural turning point...)
 
Top