Talk:Harold Wilson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old discussions

QUERY: in the 'Death' section of this article it says, "Not long after Wilson's retirement, his mental deterioration from Alzheimer's disease began to be apparent. He rarely appeared in public after 1985 and died of colon cancer in 1995, at the age of 79." - Is this what is meant?? Surely the deterioration of his mental health was apparent BEFORE his death!?--TymShepherd 04:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Many would claim it was apparent while he was still in office.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.172.187 (talk • contribs)

What's with the MI5 plot section? Does this really deserve mention? john 07:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe if it's well known trivia, but it's the first I've heard of it. Mackensen 17:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Wilson Plot is much discussed in the context of the history of MI5 and deserves a mention here, although its effect on Wilson's career was minimal. Perhaps a special article on it is mentioned. See 'The Wilson Plot' by D. Leigh, or 'Smear' by S. Dorril and R. Ramsay for book-length treatments.Dbiv 12:40, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

QUERY: No mention of his frequent visits to Stalin's Moscow, nor of the deal to sell Rolls Royce Nene and Derwent engines for a few thousand tons of wheat (enough for a slice and half for every UK citizen). The Soviets reverse-engineered these jet engines (they were well behind in jet technology at the time) and the resultant RD-45 engine and its derivatives went on to power the MiG-15 through to MiG-19 jet fighters. Nice one, Harold.

Response to Query: Multiple sources confirm that the deal providing the Soviets with the Nene jet engines was struck in 1946. The MiG-15 was reportedly already in the air by mid-1947. As such, all this took place before Wilson began to work on Trade -- he would still have been a junior figure at the Ministry of Works at the time. Nandt1 14:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wilson sank the offshore pirate radio stations midnight August 14 1967

I would like to see some reference to the fact that the Wilson government tried to rid the airwaves of the very popular offshore "pirate" radio stations with the "Marine Broadcasting Offences Bill" in 1967. At the time there were 14 pirate radio stations broadcasting on air with over 22 million listeners. The only remaining station is Radio Caroline which had car stickers calling for "Wilson To Walk The Plank" and is still broadcasting today, 40 years later.

Esq?

The section on Wilson's titles claims that from the time of his birth he was entitled to use the term "Esq." Surely this is not the case? Even given the broader and less technically accurate meanings of the term esquire, using it from birth would be unlikely. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Response: In the UK, unlike the US, the expression Esq. is used simply as an alternative to Mr. and has no other connotation. Nandt1 13:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rehabilitation

Coming across the Wilson page for the first time, I felt it would benefit from more of an explanation for his contemporary popularity (he did win four elections as PM - more than any other Labour leader including Blair, and more than any other 20th century British party leader), and a nudge towards the need for his reputation to be revived in light of recent events. In response to the question of the M15 plot, it is important, not only for the importance Wilson gave it (when most opinon felt he was being paranoid) but for the fact that with the release of government papers since then his suspicions turned out to be well founded.Marvin Khan 22:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Plot against Wilson

This Enough of this cover-up: the Wilson plot was our Watergate from The Guardian, 26th of March 2006, may be a useful source regarding the plot against Wilson. Alun 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Beatles song

shouldnt it say that he was mentioned in a Beatles song. taxman. not many people have that distinction.

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

I think it's beyond question that Wilson is the 'Mr. Wilson' in the song. However, the text currently says that the song was protesting Wilson's high taxes. This makes it seem more patisan than it was - while it indirectly mentions a 95% tax rate (one for you, nineteen for me), it names Mr. (Edward) Heath, the then Conservative leader, as well as Wilson. I'll edit the text to reflect this if no-one objects. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Glaring Omission

It is extremely puzzling that there is no mention whatsoever of Wilson's personal life.

A more politically significant omission is the absence of a discussion of Wilson and Barbara Castle's aborted effort to reform industrial relations (labor law) in the UK -- the plan known as "In Place of Strife". This episode led to a confrontation with the trades unions, from which the government in effect backed down. It provides an important part of the background to the subsequent more decisive assault by Margaret Thatcher upon the legal status of British labor unions. It would be good to see a qualified contributor take this on. Nandt1 13:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

deliberate collapsing of the value of the British pound

Lyndon LaRouche speaks of the first Harold Wilson government collapsing the british pound as a direct attack on the Bretton Woods system. What is known about the collapse of the pound under Wilson?

Response: Far from being "deliberate" in any way, the Wilson government resisted devaluation for three years, arguably at considerable economic and financial cost. They let the exchange rate go only when they had no real alternative. "Collapsing" is, in addition, a somewhat hyperbolic description of a devaluation of roughly 15%. Nandt1 13:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Favouritism

I believe that that the introduction is basic spin. It says that Wilson was one of the most electorall successfull PM becuase he won four elections. Whom ever wrote that failed to mention that two of them was was witha wafer thin majority and with another one he didnt even have a plurality of votes. (81.79.9.113 20:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

The point you make about the closeness of the election results is factually accurate - but it doesn't change the fact that narrow victory or otherwise, minority government or majority - he still emerged the overall victor in 4 General Elections. And that does make him one of the most electorally successful Prime Ministers. There is an article about individual elections that relates the detailed results. Davidpatrick 06:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, describing him as the "most electorally successful politician" seems problematic. One could easily argue that Blair or Thatcher, who both won three elections with solid majority, have been more electorally successful than Wilson, who only had one solid win (1966). The only reason that Wilson has so many victories is because his 1964 majority was so small that he had to try again in 66, and because he didn't even have a majority after the first 1974 election. It is fair to say that he won the most general elections of any 20th century PM (and probably is tied for the most of any PM - of other PMs, Walpole, Liverpool, and Gladstone all won 4 (if you count 1885 as a Gladstone victory), but nobody has won more than that), but it is not fair to say he was the "most electorally successful" - one could easily make cases for both Thatcher and Blair as more successful, and even for people like Attlee or Campbell-Bannerman or Lloyd George who won enormous single victories. john k 16:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Member for ...

I have reverted the change of 'Member for' to 'Member of Parliament for'. The version 'Member for' is the accepted standard except that one editor seems to be going round making this unilateral change. Not a huge point, but any views welcome. BlueValour 16:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Accepted standard? I haven't seen any discussion to that effect, and a lot of articles do have the format "[[Member of Parliament]] for "[[constituency]]<nowiki>". For a variety of resaons, I think it makes more sense. :For now, I have reverted the change, because the alternative inserted "<nowiki>[[Member]] for "[[constituency]]" leaves the bare word "member" as the link text, which isn't helpful. If you feel that "Member for" is more appropriate, could we discuss it| I suggest on Category talk:British MPs, unless you see a beter place? --BrownHairedGirl 20:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, start the debate and I will respond.BlueValour 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't see why the 'standard' is to make a completely useless link. BrownHairedGirl's revision makes much more sense to me. Average Earthman 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

'Member of' has served us well until BrownHairedGirl has gone around changing some but not all. If she wants to make the case, fine, we can discuss it but it should have been discussed first before reversing what has been common amongst all MO articles. BlueValour 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather agree with BlueValour on this. Have been watching BrownHairedGirl go through many of the pages I've created for members of parliamement with some dismay. The normal fashion in the UK is 'Member for' not the longer version BrownHairedGirl has been applying. Indeed the rather 'generic' member of parliament link thats been applied is rather redundent as above the member box I always add Parliament of the United Kingdom info box with its direct link to the UK Parliament where all these 'members' sit. Sorry BrownHairedGirl, I agree with a lot of things you've done in the past but I rather disagree on this, epecially for the longer named constituencies which your new form looks rather bad on. Galloglass 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not always seen eye to eye with Galloglass but he has done a fantastic job on parliamentary constituencies. BrownHairedGirl should now reverse each and everyone of the changes she has made - as a newly created admin she should realise that you get agreement first and make the change second. BlueValour 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm sorry that this seems to have caused offence -- that was not my intention.

There are several issues here. The first is that the changes which BlueValour has just done have created a useless link to Member, which redirects to Membership, and offfers no hint of any parliamentary context. You may have a case about another form of linking, but "[[Member]] for [[constituency]]" is just silly. Please don't do that :(

Secondly, there have long been hundreds of articles on MPs with succession boxes in the format "[[Member of Parliament]] for [[constituency]]". As well as being widely ued by others, it is the format I have used on every MP article I have created, and on the hundreds more to which I have added succession boxes; this is the first time that anyone has suggested that it is inappropriate, so I'm afraid that I cannot accept that it is somehow an "accepted standard" to use the format "[[constituency|Member for constituency]]". That has been one of several formats in use.

Now, the main purpose of my edit run was to insert {{s-par|uk/gb}} tags and fix categorisation; the "Member of" replacement was but one of many chnages made, so simply reverting those edits isnoy sensible -- it would strip categories and lots of other material.

This is not an appropriate place for a wider discussion on what is apporopriate, so I won't reply further on this talk page: if you want to try to establish a policy on this, I'd be very happy to discuss, but not here. As before, I suggest Category talk:British MPs ... and meanwhile, I will desist from further changes to existing "Member for" entries. --BrownHairedGirl 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry about breaking the extra bits you put in. I have reverted to your version, here and elsewhere, but using the [[Member of Parliament|Member]] formulation to produce my prefered style of Member whilst wikilinking to Member of Parliament. As you suggested, I have put some initial thoughts on Category talk:British MPs. BlueValour 03:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhodesia?

Is it entirely acurate to say "Ultimately Wilson's position led to the end of white minority rule in Rhodesia." I'm entirely sure that Nationalists under Mugabe and Nkomo would claim this, that the incoming Tory government might also claim this, that Samora Michel, Julius Nyrerer, the Apathied government and the American might all put a justifiable claim to having brought down the Smith Government. One can justifiably claim that Wilson's presance (similarily Blair's presance now with regards to Mugabe) in No 10 only strenthened the Smith government. As to the coup plot, while it did occure I'm sure there is no where near enough proof to back up the claim.

contradiction between this page and The Lavender List page

According to The Lavender List "it was later alleged that the head of Wilson's political office, Marcia Williams, had written the original draft on lavender-coloured notepaper, although no documentary evidence exists to support this claim. Williams, later Baroness Falkender, has always denied this - as did Wilson himself." This contradicts what is written here where it takes for granted that she did write it. Which is correct? JoshuaZ 01:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Family

The article should include a section about the Wilson family. For instance, his children(if any) and his marriage is not mentioned. Can anyone add this section? Thanks--218.103.210.164 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lavender paper

"...caused lasting damage to his reputation when it was revealed that the first draft of the list had been written by Marcia Williams on lavender notepaper"

Why? What's the scandal in lavender paper/Marcia Williams? Njál 10:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One aspect of the "Lavender List" affair was the activity of (Roland James?) Milhench, who was supposedly a relative of Mrs W., who was found guilty and imprisoned for forging Wilson's signature on documents he (Milhench) issued in order to buy some land in (or around) Wigan. The accusation was made (no evidence supplied) that Wilson was in on it in return for a cut and that the subsequent difficulty arose and denials issued only when it was found out. In the absence of any hard evidence, it has to be assumed that this was a case of Wilson being smeared at a distance by the actions of a remote connection of an associate. The Wilson/Williams relationship was the subject of much salacious tittle-tattle in the 1960s and 1970s. In Labour Party circles, it was hot gossip that Mrs Williams' husband sued for divorce intending to name Wilson as co-respondent, and that in order to avoid a scandal, party bosses bunged Williams cash out of party funds and arranged for him to disappear to the colonies. Guy 08:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Retirement

The retirement of Harold Wilson was not particularly surprising. He was a very proud man, and conscious of the way he appeared in public. The Wilsons had a holiday cottage on St Mary's in the Isles of Scilly. In the early days they used to cross on the ferry. This gave Wilson an opportunity to glad-hand the other passengers, which he genuinely enjoyed. However, one year he caught the "Scillonian" on a bad day. The trip from Penzance can be extremely rough, and Wilson was very seasick. Not wishing to take the chance on appearing so badly in public again on a ship where privacy was non-existent, the Wilsons flew over on the helicopter ever after. Such a trip would be totally forbidden nowadays on security grounds, of course. His departure from office was similar. He was aware, as the article hints, of increasing mental impairment. His pride took over, hence he groomed James Callaghan to make a swift transition. I worked in the Cabinet Office at the time, and a colleague who worked fairly closely to the politicians said that there were many signs that Wilson was going. For example, despite his long stint in office, the first time he attended the office Christmas party was not long before he left, and he went far beyond the call of duty in circulating and talking to people. Wilson dreaded the possibility that his increasing disability might lead him to make an inadvertent gaffe in the full glare of the spotlight, his pride would not allow that to happen, and so he retired gracefully. Guy 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While his retirement may not have been surprising to insiders, I think it was surprising to the country at large. British Prime Ministers do not generally make unforced retirements - they tend to either lose an election, or be pushed out by their party. Since the end of the second world war, only Churchill (who was in his eighties) and Wilson have really retired voluntarily, without significant pressure from their parties, or an obvious, heavily damamging political event. So when a Prime Minister, in apparent control of their party, and with two to three years to go to an election, announces their immediate resignation, that's a pretty surprising event from most people's point of view. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Even Churchill's retirement was not totally voluntary. He'd been stringing out his retirement for ages (to the frustration of Eden) and finally went when it became clear he couldn't achieve anything more or see off the pressure from the Cabinet.

The only twentieth century PMs to go voluntarily were Salisbury and Baldwin, both retiring after the Coronations, though Campbell-Bannerman and Bonar Law were purely on personal health grounds. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Eden retired voluntarily, on health grounds. He was operated upon to remove his gall-bladder, the surgeon made a pig's ear of it, with serious consequences (that was always a big risk in the pre-keyhole era). Macmillan also - HM was summoned to the hospital to enquire after the state of Macmillan's prostate gland - Macmillan resigned shortly thereafter. Guy (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The question of which Prime Ministers retired "voluntarily" is somewhat subjective. Another contributor wrote in the article that Wilson was the first "since Baldwin" to do so and I have removed that as far from a clear factual statement. Churchill is, as conceded above, a grey case, and the same might be said of Macmillan, who decided to quit after a health "scare" and is said to have regretted it subsequently when he recovered his health. Nandt1 (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess that they are all grey cases - was Wilson's retirement completely voluntary if he was worried about his mental faculties? But that wasn't the original topic - the question is, was Wilson's retirement surprising? To anyone other than political insiders, it certainly was. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Prior to his retirement, Wilson groomed Callaghan for several months to take over. They travelled round Europe together, seeking to re-negotiate terms with the Common Market. Wilson was always seen as paranoid about possible rival leadership bids - Roy Jenkins was seen as the main threat, but Callaghan was widely regarded as a serious rival. When Wilson and Callaghan started schmoozing together, many commentators took it as a sign that Wilson would soon step down and hand over to Callaghan. Guy (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian

Did Harold Wilson speak Russian ? If so, could reference be made to this in the text together with how well he spoke it and why he learned it ? Robert2957 12:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicity

Under "Prime Minister" you have:

"Wilson also rejected American requests for British military support in the Vietnam War and instead opted for diplomatic public support."

Well, actually the second part is correct. However, while he may have publicly said there was no military involvement by Britain, there was. MI6 provided a great deal of logistical assistance, Army officers received training while on secondment to Fort Bragg and were then inducted into the US Army, British SAS members joined Australian and New Zealand SAS units and took part in fighting.

In the 1960s as the Royal Navy was running down, it had rather more sailors than battleships. In the USA, the converse was true, they had more sophisticated hardware than trained and experienced manpower to operate it properly. As a result, a deal was done so that many good quality NCOs were seconded to fighting posts with the US Navy. They were supposed to be advisors and instructors, but many ended up at sea off the coast of Vietnam. Even now, if you talk to most ex-sailors who were around and close-by at the time, you will get blanked. Guy 08:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One could go on and mention other things that don't seem to have entered into the Wilson hagiography, such as the support for Indonesia, the military campaign in Aden et cetera.

Ian Smith's assessment of the man wasn't far off the mark. (which was? Guy 08:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

194.46.233.9 02:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

She bore him two sons?

"She bore him two sons" is awful. The language is antiquated and suggests having children is woman's gift to man. I suggest replacing it with the more equinanimous and direct "They had two sons..." 64.178.103.252 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion or Removal Shadow Foreign secretary in info box

An Anon user has been adding this to the Info box at regular intervals and several other users have been removing it as its not normal Wiki practice to include minor opposition offices of major figures in the box. Has there been any change to what we now include in the Info box? To me it seems rather odd that this has been repeatedly added as Wilson held several more important offices, including cabinet posts that our Anon friend seems to think are less important than the Shadow one he is adding. Opinions please on the inclusion or removal of Shadow Foreign secretary from main info box. Galloglass 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Education

Did Harold Wilson have a research doctorate?

No, he didn't...if you read Ben Pimlott's biography Harold Wilson, London: Harper Collins 1992 pp.55-62 then you will see that although he was lecturing in Oxford 1934-38 he then got shifted onto research work for William Beveridge and so never took a doctorate.Peter morrell 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter.

It may also be worth adding that in Britain, by comparison to the US for example, the possession of a doctorate was comparatively rare (outside science and mathematics departments), even among academics at the top universities, until at least well into the 1970s. Nandt1 18:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has maintained two mutually contradictory accounts of Wilson's results in his final examinations at Oxford. One version, citing Pimlott, stated that he achieved alphas on every paper. A second version, without citations, claims he achieved 17 alphas out of a possible 18. It is not possible for both accounts to be correct. Since the first version cites a highly credible source, I have deleted the alternative version. Nandt1 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Leslie Smith's 1964 biography 'Harold Wilson', he secured 17 Alfa marks out of 18 in the final examinations, with the one "miss" being a beta-double plus. He also states that he gained an alpha plus for what he considered to be his weakest subject (economic theory).Sealman 08:15, 21 March 2008

Cabinet lists

Kenneth Robinson is mentioned in the text as Minster of Health, but the position does not appear in the cabinet lists. So why was he a Privy Councillor? So I checked Pear's Cyclopedia for 1967, which indeed lists him as a minister not in the cabinet. However for "Wilson's Second Labour Cabinet (as re-formed January 1967)", I note it also says Bottomley's was not a cabinet position, and neither was Shackleton in the Cabinet (although he was a Minister without Portfolio). --Cedders^tk 00:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A number of politicians who are not or never have been in the Cabinet have been made Privy Councillors, usually as a reflection of their personal political standing, occasionally because the job is regarded as important even if not included in the Cabinet. It's not a "Cabinet Members past and present only" club. Timrollpickering 14:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact you might note that every single Liberal Democrat leader there has been, and also surviving Liberal leaders and every Leader of the Opposition whether they have ever been a minister or not, also become a Privy Counsellors - it isn't limited to government ministers although it is automatic for cabinet ministers to join. It isn't even limited to politicians - there are members of the Royal Family and Judges, clergy and Commonwealth spokesmen.--Lord of the Isles 17:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

UUP support

I've removed the comment in the intro that Wilson had UUP support in the Feb-Oct 1974 parliament. The main reason he was able to form a government was that Labour was the largest single party in the Commons, popular assumptions regarded them the "winner" of the election (remember this is the only hung parliament elected since 1929) and so the convention was "give them a go", and Ted Heath's attempts to stay in power with deals with both the Liberals and UUP had failed, so it wasn't as though there was an alternative. The Labour Government got through the Parliament on a key vote matter - for example getting clarity that if defeated on the Queen's Speech they could ask for an election, rather than Heath being allowed another chance (which raises the "what if..." scenario that if Heath had resigned the premiership immediately on the basis Labour had more MPs, he might then have been able to use a Commons defeat to say "Labour can't form a government in this Parliament - it's my turn to try"). The key point is that the Sunningdale power sharing executive was not scrapped immediately (the key demand the UUP had made when Heath offered them the whip again) - the UUP would not have settled for anything less. If they supported the government in any votes it would have been on an individual issue basis, not an agreement. Timrollpickering 14:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It hadn't mentioned an agreement, there is difference between support and an agreement - a party can decide to vote on the side of the government in conference motions and on other matters without having an agreement with them, it amounts to support in numerical terms in the sense that without it the government collapses - so far as who might have wanted a quick early election, it amounts to speculation and so outside what could be used on Wikipedia, however both the Liberals and SNP had seen a huge rise in their vote and so certainly had every reason to hope that there might be a further rise, Labour had failed to win a majority and had their lowest vote since 1931, almost certainly Edward Heath would have not wanted a General Election to be held when Labour wanted it which would almost certainly be at the time that Labour felt it was most likely to win a majority. No one really expected the Conservative Party to not oppose a Labour government, the UUP however certainly were not well disposed towards Heath by then and a minority government was the best prospect of smaller parties to gain influence and both they and Harold Wilson knew this. So far as budgets for election campaigning goes, everyone is hit during a General Election and so another General Election following quickly on just means everyone has less money to fight it, and certainly at that time Labour was in a far weaker position than the Conservatives when it came to securing big donations.--Lord of the Isles 17:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The key offending term was "to form a minority government with Ulster Unionist Party support". This, in a UK context, would imply that Wilson had the support in some form when he accepted the Queen's commission - unlike the devolved assemblies (or for that matter the Irish Dail) there isn't a formal nomination vote in the House of Commons required before a PM can take office, but sometimes in a hung parliament leaders will seek the support of smaller parties to get them through initially. The first vote of confidence in a parliament is the Queen's Speech and Labour got through this by backdoor arrangements that discouraged the Conservatives from forcing a division - there's a letter from Joe Haine in the paperback edition of Alan Clark's history of the party which sets out that through enquiries between the Palace, Lord Chancellor and Shadow Lord Chancellor it was clarified that if a vote on the Queen's Speech was lost, the Queen would grant Wilson a dissolution, not give Heath another chance to form a government in that Parliament, so if Heath had wanted another election he could have at least tried this. Remember that the Conservative vote share had had a record low for an even longer period and the public are not fans of constant elections so the Conservatives springing another election on the public within a few months was not a wise strategy. Instead Heath aimed at renewing the idea of co-operation with the Liberals, and in October 1974 called for a National Government. The Liberals didn't take the bait before an election though.

"Forming a government with the support of another party" would have meant that Labour had obtained support (or the promise of support) from the UUP by advance agreement. No parliamentary manager would try to run a government long term on the basis of uncertain support from a smaller party - rather they'd try to run the country in the meantime, eyeball the opposition to disrupt this (increasing voter sympathy if an election came) and then go to the country for a "let's have this full time" election when both polls and party finances were encouraging. Timrollpickering 17:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Harold Wilson was just trying to get a Labour government and keep it going, if he had believed that Labour would not be able to win a majority at an October General Election then he would have tried to continue with a minority so long as was necessary. As for running minority governments long term - Jim Callaghan had a pact with the Liberal Party for a considerable length of time after Labour was reduced to a minority, he formed alliances with Nationalist parties and almost certainly would have won a majority in Autumn 1978 and yet despite being reduced to a minority continued until being brought down by an Independent Socialist MP abstaining rather than voting with Labour as he had been doing previously, so these things very much vary according to who is in charge - Harold Wilson always was looking to win a majority at an early General Election, it was his strategy to wait until he thought Labour could win an election and then call one even if it was early which was what he did in 1970 although it wasn't even approaching 4 years. As for the Conservative vote share, although the Conservative vote had fallen to it's lowest level since 1945 at the February 1974 General Election, it was still higher than Labour's vote which had fallen to it's lowest level since 1931 and so in a situation in which neither party could form a government there would not necessarily be any reason to suppose that Labour would win a majority and in fact in October 1974 Labour scraped a majority more as a result of a drop in votes for other parties than any gain on their part - there was little desire for a Labour government in either 1974 General Election and in October 1974 merely a halt on the decline of the Labour vote which had started at devaluation and resumed after 1979, in fact dissillusionment with Heath among Conservatives had more to do with his having lost all but one General Election - to hold onto the Conservative leadership he needed to pull something off quite quickly.--Lord of the Isles 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Callaghan had formal arrangements with several minority parties - offering influence to the Liberals (who also wanted to postpone an election until Rinkagate died down), the chance to get devolution through to the Nationalists and increasing the number of seats for Northern Ireland to the Unionists. (By the way it wasn't an Independent Socialist abstaining who brought Callaghan down, although Frank Maguire, an Independent Republican who rarely atteneded did show up to "abstain in person" - and has been accused or really just turning up for the bars - but SDLP MP Gerry Fitt, normally a reliable Labour vote, voted against.) The Conservative share, according to my copy of Peter Clarke's Hope and Glory: Britain 1900-1990, was 37.9% - even lower than the 38.5% in 1922. (The exact percentages seem to vary a bit in different sources - I suspect a mixture of "average share in seats the party contested", "Great Britain only" and "all United Kingdom" are clashing.) It may have been lower in 1918 because of the Coalition (Clarke's table sticks Coalitions and National Governments together) but in general Heath's 1974 results are the worst the Conservatives got until 1997. Having more votes than Labour may appeal to the PR lobby, but isn't much use if the votes are in the "wrong" place (and the Conservatives had benefitted from the reverse situation in 1951). As for the problems in October 1974, Wilson and a lot of commentators expected a bigger majority (Lord Hailsham said that he expected Labour to be in power for ten years, suggesting a similar view in the Conservative camp) and indeed the swing on the night itself suggested a workable majority - it seems Heath's "national unity" strategy had a rallying effect on Liberal voters in marginal seats and more rural seats (which declared the next day). Timrollpickering 23:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The vote share for February 1974 is generally given as 38% for the Conservative Party and in October 1974 as 35.8%. The actual Labour vote in total numbers voting varied only within a few hundred thousand in the 3 General Elections in the 1970's from February 1974 on with turnout going down in October 1974 and sharply up in 1979. Of course in 1922 the Conservative vote when given as 38.5% includes votes for Unionist candidates from Ulster who contributed to the Conservative majority, a grouping that later became the Ulster Unionist Council and became separate. It isn't just that the Conservative Party got more votes than Labour in February 1974, but also that Labour's vote had fallen sharply at the same time and that Labour had not got a majority of seats, in fact Labour gained a total of 13 seats in February 1974, it won the political horse trading in the aftermath really rather than the election--Lord of the Isles 16:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Rather than a statistical rundown of won elections, shouldn't the intro give an idea of what he actually did in office? EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

History will arguably remember him more for those stats than anything else Whitstable (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a general paragraph in the introduction. I agree that the statistics are overdone, but I haven't taken them out yet. I liked the addition on education, but the specific vision of Wilson's ("White Heat of Technology speech etc" is what makes him Wilson.Johncmullen1960 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Have retained your basic framework, but added material which I hope gives a fuller context. Nandt1 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question on the introduction - this line looks wrong to me:

"Harold Wilson was first prime minister during a period of low unemployment and relative economic prosperity (though also of significant problems with the external balance of payments)."

Surely this should be 'first labour prime minister'? TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified this sentence - it was a question of punctuation.Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I didn't read it very well :o) TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)