I saw some of it, got it recorded as well, its on again on Saturday daytime.
I didn't like the way Peter Snow seemed to lament him on a number of things when he had guests on, some of whom seemed to be joining in, inc Douglass Hurd and I got the impression even Wilson's advisor from 74-76 was having some digs here and there as well.
Wilson achieved 4 General Election victories which is more than what either Thatcher or Blair "achieved", so that should tell all those who slate him something about how much he must have been liked by the public at the very least!
Maybe his slaters do realise that point and they just can't handle it, hence why they slate him so much?!
That's a spurious point because the only reason Wilson won so many elections was because he struggled to win big so he had to keep going back to the country and Labour's vote shares in the two 1974 elections were nothing to be proud of. Labour's decline of the 80s, actually started under Wilson in the early 70s.
Found it all really interesting, Harold Wilson also had a dry wit to him it seemed. I much preferred the lower key conference speech from all this theatre there is now.
Certainly today too, few, if any, leaders would remain leader after losing an election unlike Wilson who was able to lead the party back to Govt after only one term in opposition.
You need to look at it in the context of the mutt he was up against, he should have had a landslide victory but he didn't.
That's a spurious point because the only reason Wilson won so many elections was because he struggled to win big so he had to keep going back to the country and Labour's vote shares in the two 1974 elections were nothing to be proud of. Labour's decline of the 80s, actually started under Wilson in the early 70s.
That's a spurious point because the only reason Wilson won so many elections was because he struggled to win big so he had to keep going back to the country and Labour's vote shares in the two 1974 elections were nothing to be proud of. Labour's decline of the 80s, actually started under Wilson in the early 70s.
???????
If he wasn't a popular PM then not only would he have not been re-elected so many times but he would have been replaced as leader of the Labour party too.
Didn't he get a majority of about 90 in the 66 election? When I have time, I'l try and look up the figures for the 74 elections but seeing that politics was followed by so many more people back then and it was still a pretty conservative country when Wilson first got elected, I think he did very well and much better in terms of achievement than Blair, who came in after 4 terms of a Tory Government and had it much easier to win an election as a result.
Wilson did a good job of holding the Labour Party together but it was at the expense of being a good PM. I don't think you can be a great party leader and a great PM.
There's more than one way of being a leader of a party and more than one way of being a PM.
Wilson was very like Stanley Baldwin in the way he did both. He concentrated on being a perty manager to keep everybody going in roughly the same direction, whailst as PM letting his Ministers get on with their jobs and not interfering, but instead acting as the proper primus inter pares that being the Chairman of the Cabinet entails. That way he could sit back and not have too heavy a workload himself.
I never thought he had much ideology or dogma attached to him, which is probably why he was an effective party manager - he wasn't bound to any one faction within the party.
He made good and bad decisions like any PM, but if I had to use one word to sum up the way he approached his tenure, I'd plump for 'shrewd'.
That's a spurious point because the only reason Wilson won so many elections was because he struggled to win big so he had to keep going back to the country and Labour's vote shares in the two 1974 elections were nothing to be proud of. Labour's decline of the 80s, actually started under Wilson in the early 70s.
On the nail, General.
Well you would think that, wouldn't you. As for "General" you may need to brush up on your reading skills.
The point is neither side won big in that era. If that was a sign of Labour decline then it was a sign of Tory decline too. Alternatively it might be seen as the consequence of the post war consensus where the parties were more evenly balanced and there were no divisive "big win" policies, so no landslides (with minority votes). Such as we had under Thatcher and Blair, popular with some, deeply unpopular with others. In the Wilson/Heath era both leaders got their share of ridicule but neither was so divisive as Thatcher or Blair (post Iraq).
I am not impressed that they left out how Wilson kept us out of Vietnam and they didn't focus in on that in general. Something they need to return to.
Also, what was David Dimbelby going on about in his response to the programme Yesterday's Men. Wilson was angry about that programme and Dimbelby thought it might have been because Wilson might have been touchy if they knew about a legal tax avoidance scheme he had? That a book written by Wilson could not be taxed until it sold copies?????? So Dimbelby thinks people should be taxed even if their goods don't sell?
I am not impressed that they left out how Wilson kept us out of Vietnam and they didn't focus in on that in general. Something they need to return to.
Also, what was David Dimbelby going on about in his response to the programme Yesterday's Men. Wilson was angry about that programme and Dimbelby thought it might have been because Wilson might have been touchy if they knew about a legal tax avoidance scheme he had? That a book written by Wilson could not be taxed until it sold copies?????? So Dimbelby thinks people should be taxed even if their goods don't sell?
Suggest you watch that again you seemed to have missed quite a bit and therefore come to the wrong conclusion
There's more than one way of being a leader of a party and more than one way of being a PM.
Wilson was very like Stanley Baldwin in the way he did both. He concentrated on being a perty manager to keep everybody going in roughly the same direction, whailst as PM letting his Ministers get on with their jobs and not interfering, but instead acting as the proper primus inter pares that being the Chairman of the Cabinet entails. That way he could sit back and not have too heavy a workload himself.
I never thought he had much ideology or dogma attached to him, which is probably why he was an effective party manager - he wasn't bound to any one faction within the party.
He made good and bad decisions like any PM, but if I had to use one word to sum up the way he approached his tenure, I'd plump for 'shrewd'.
He may have been like that in the 1974-76 government, when his powers were on the wane but he was an interfering power hog during the 1964-70 period. He even admitted himself before he came back in 1974 that he would play as a "sweeper" (in football terms) instead of trying to hog the ball as he had done in the 60s.
You say 'shrewd' but for most observers, Wilson's approach was cynical, opportunistic and self-serving. There was a joke during that period that summed up the view of Wilson - "there are two things I don't like about Harold Wilson. His face".
When I look at Heath, Wilson & Callaghan, I see weakness and resignation.Their inability to put the Unions in their place and keep the size of the state to a sensible level is why Thatcherism became necessary. I dread to think what would have happened to Britain if the electorate hadn't elected her in '79.
When I look at Heath, Wilson & Callaghan, I see weakness and resignation.Their inability to put the Unions in their place and keep the size of the state to a sensible level is why Thatcherism became necessary. I dread to think what would have happened to Britain if the electorate hadn't elected her in '79.
But it was probably the Wilson Governments of 64-70 that gave the Unions the O T T power that they got given in the first place so they wouldn't have seen it necessary to put them in their place back then would they?
Also the unions did not cause the trouble during the 64-70 period did they? It was from when Ted Heath got in onwards wasn't it and also the massive inflation played a big part in the unions demanding more pay?
Having said that, I'd love to see the reasons whichever Minister gave for giving unions the rights to secondary picketing/strikes and being able to call out their workers for little or no reason.
Anyone know when exactly those powers came in and how it was justified?
Ive finally got through these, and they were fascinating viewing. I think Wilson was more of a technocrat than an ideologue, and will primarily be remembered for his social reforms. It was interesting to see how the economy was managed in the 60s, with devaluation, control of prices and income etc, and the Tories being accused of trying to bribe the electorate with 9% mortgages! On a cultural note, I couldn't believe how much smoking went on! People were lighting up everywhere, with Wilson giving his 1975 conference speech next to a huge ashtray and behind clouds of smoke!
Ive finally got through these, and they were fascinating viewing. I think Wilson was more of a technocrat than an ideologue, and will primarily be remembered for his social reforms. It was interesting to see how the economy was managed in the 60s, with devaluation, control of prices and income etc, and the Tories being accused of trying to bribe the electorate with 9% mortgages! On a cultural note, I couldn't believe how much smoking went on! People were lighting up everywhere, with Wilson giving his 1975 conference speech next to a huge ashtray and behind clouds of smoke!
It was said in one of the programmes too that the Tories had left the economy in a dire state in 1964 to Labour. So much for those who always say its labour who leave dire economies to the Tories then!
I agree with you about the smoking, I found it quite bemusing!
Comments
That's a spurious point because the only reason Wilson won so many elections was because he struggled to win big so he had to keep going back to the country and Labour's vote shares in the two 1974 elections were nothing to be proud of. Labour's decline of the 80s, actually started under Wilson in the early 70s.
You need to look at it in the context of the mutt he was up against, he should have had a landslide victory but he didn't.
On the nail, General.
???????
If he wasn't a popular PM then not only would he have not been re-elected so many times but he would have been replaced as leader of the Labour party too.
Didn't he get a majority of about 90 in the 66 election? When I have time, I'l try and look up the figures for the 74 elections but seeing that politics was followed by so many more people back then and it was still a pretty conservative country when Wilson first got elected, I think he did very well and much better in terms of achievement than Blair, who came in after 4 terms of a Tory Government and had it much easier to win an election as a result.
There's more than one way of being a leader of a party and more than one way of being a PM.
Wilson was very like Stanley Baldwin in the way he did both. He concentrated on being a perty manager to keep everybody going in roughly the same direction, whailst as PM letting his Ministers get on with their jobs and not interfering, but instead acting as the proper primus inter pares that being the Chairman of the Cabinet entails. That way he could sit back and not have too heavy a workload himself.
I never thought he had much ideology or dogma attached to him, which is probably why he was an effective party manager - he wasn't bound to any one faction within the party.
He made good and bad decisions like any PM, but if I had to use one word to sum up the way he approached his tenure, I'd plump for 'shrewd'.
The point is neither side won big in that era. If that was a sign of Labour decline then it was a sign of Tory decline too. Alternatively it might be seen as the consequence of the post war consensus where the parties were more evenly balanced and there were no divisive "big win" policies, so no landslides (with minority votes). Such as we had under Thatcher and Blair, popular with some, deeply unpopular with others. In the Wilson/Heath era both leaders got their share of ridicule but neither was so divisive as Thatcher or Blair (post Iraq).
Also, what was David Dimbelby going on about in his response to the programme Yesterday's Men. Wilson was angry about that programme and Dimbelby thought it might have been because Wilson might have been touchy if they knew about a legal tax avoidance scheme he had? That a book written by Wilson could not be taxed until it sold copies?????? So Dimbelby thinks people should be taxed even if their goods don't sell?
Still who would have known Harold was a tax dodger !!!!!!!!!
(Still like him though)
Suggest you watch that again you seemed to have missed quite a bit and therefore come to the wrong conclusion
He may have been like that in the 1974-76 government, when his powers were on the wane but he was an interfering power hog during the 1964-70 period. He even admitted himself before he came back in 1974 that he would play as a "sweeper" (in football terms) instead of trying to hog the ball as he had done in the 60s.
You say 'shrewd' but for most observers, Wilson's approach was cynical, opportunistic and self-serving. There was a joke during that period that summed up the view of Wilson - "there are two things I don't like about Harold Wilson. His face".
But it was probably the Wilson Governments of 64-70 that gave the Unions the O T T power that they got given in the first place so they wouldn't have seen it necessary to put them in their place back then would they?
Also the unions did not cause the trouble during the 64-70 period did they? It was from when Ted Heath got in onwards wasn't it and also the massive inflation played a big part in the unions demanding more pay?
Having said that, I'd love to see the reasons whichever Minister gave for giving unions the rights to secondary picketing/strikes and being able to call out their workers for little or no reason.
Anyone know when exactly those powers came in and how it was justified?
It was said in one of the programmes too that the Tories had left the economy in a dire state in 1964 to Labour. So much for those who always say its labour who leave dire economies to the Tories then!
I agree with you about the smoking, I found it quite bemusing!