Skip to content

What Ed Miliband could learn from Harold Wilson

By Steven Fielding

On the morning of 16 October 1964, Harold Wilson entered Downing Street as prime minister. He had just ended 13 years of Conservative rule – one that had been predicted to last a generation just four years previously. Wilson, many believed, achieved this victory by promising to unlock the talents of all Britons, whatever their class, by unleashing the “white heat of technological change”. The Labour leader claimed his government would achieve this economic and social revolution by using the state to foster market dynamism.

Ed Miliband also hopes to enter Downing Street next year, yet his party has largely ignored the 50th anniversary of Wilson’s 1963 white heat speech and 1964 triumph. It’s true that early 21st century British politics looks different to its mid-20th century equivalent but Miliband should still take heed of Wilson’s 1964 triumph as he approaches the 2015 general election.

Miliband may be deliberately avoiding comparisons with Wilson because of the former Labour leader’s disappointing performance in office. In the long term, Wilson did indeed struggle to translate his promise of radical change into government policy, but his early period as leader proved to be one of Labour’s few historical high points. It was comparable with 1945 and 1997, when the party appeared, if briefly, to evoke a positive response from voters across all classes.

While Wilson made much of his background as an Oxford-trained economics expert, he failed to convince the public that he would be better at managing the economy than his Conservative rivals. Even though Alec Douglas-Home, the old Etonian aristocrat in charge of the Tories, publicly questioned his own ability to do maths, his party still enjoyed a 13-point lead when the public was asked who was best at managing the economy.

It would only be when Tony Blair became leader that Labour would first take the lead on this issue. Miliband and Ed Balls, his shadow chancellor, currently struggling to convince voters that they can be trusted with the economy, might take some comfort in that. Perhaps it doesn’t matter as much as they think on polling day.

Similarly, Miliband might also note that the public had little faith in Labour’s ability to manage immigration but still voted the party to power in 1964. After the 1958 Notting Hill riots, immigration quickly became a salient political issue for the first time. White sensitivity, much of it racist in origin, about unrestricted black Commonwealth immigration encouraged the Conservative government to impose limits on the numbers of people allowed into the UK. Labour’s response was uncertain. It first rejected, then endorsed, this controversial move. Wilson’s tactic was to ignore the issue as much as possible, for fear that even talking about it would hand his rivals an advantage. This appears to be Miliband’s line too.

When it came to threats from other political parties, Wilson didn’t have to deal with, as Miliband does, a party such as Ukip that exploited fears about immigration. The racist right was tiny and divided in the 1960s. But another group was threatening to take votes from Westminster’s two big parties at the time.

Taking advantage of discontent with Labour and the Conservatives, the Liberals won the Orpington byelection in 1962, and while their leader Jo Grimond was no populist, he still won as many headlines in the early 1960s as Nigel Farage today. Hoping to hold the balance of power, the Liberals stood in an unprecedented number of constituencies in the October election.

But instead of winning seats, the Liberals mostly took votes from the Conservatives. In so doing, they enabled a decisive number of marginal constituency seats to be delivered straight to Labour. Miliband must surely be hoping that Ukip will do the same in 2015.

No political conjuncture is ever the same, nor is the past an entirely foreign country. Wilson defied many disadvantages to win in 1964, and Miliband should look closely at his much-maligned predecessor’s achievement as the two leaders share a similar strategic position. Wilson set out to make himself acceptable to the suburbs while retaining Labour’s traditional working class support, which is what white heat was all about. Similarly, Miliband needs to win back voters lost in 2010 but keep hold of those who stayed loyal despite the Gordon Brown government’s troubles. Wilson’s 1964 victory was a narrow one, but he successfully navigated this tricky task. It’s a position Miliband would do well to emulate in 2015.

Wilson, however, was able to do something his successor has not yet done: project a persona that resonated with the public. His pipe, Gannex raincoat and penchant for HP Sauce might have made Wilson a fit subject for satire, but it also less than subtly gave the impression that, despite his elite education, this grammar school boy was a man of the people. The contrast with Miliband is stark. Perhaps that is why the Labour leader has avoided speaking of the early Wilson. He might suffer from the comparison.

This article was originally published on the Conversation

Steven Fielding is director of the Centre for British Politics and professor of Political History in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham.

Image credit: Wikipedia Commons

Published inBritish PoliticsLabourPolitics

One Comment

  1. Mike Mike

    Very interesting article. Milliband does suffer from being, correctly, identified as a member of the London Metropolitan elite that does not represent the typical voter, let alone the typical Labour voter. Labour has this dichotomy of people like Milliband being at ease in London but needing to have a safe working class seat in the North of England where they have very little knowledge or empathy of how those people live. Hampstead is not Doncaster. Milliband is also hampered by having, in the public view, a proper job before politics. At least Thatcher, Wilson and others did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.