You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Harold Wilson's first two governments (October 1964 – March 1966 and March 1966 – June 1970) promised to modernise Britain through the "white heat" of the scientific revolution and to drag a deferential, amateurish country into a meritocratic, technological age. In practice, Wilson's premiership was dominated by economic crisis — above all the long, doomed defence of sterling that ended in the devaluation of November 1967 — and by an ambitious but uneven programme of social reform. The decade saw transformative legislation on capital punishment, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, censorship and the voting age, much of it passed as Private Members' Bills under a sympathetic Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins. Yet the same years exposed the limits of a government's power to plan an economy and re-engineer a society, and ended in the failure to reform the trade unions (In Place of Strife) that foreshadowed the industrial conflicts of the 1970s.
Wilson is one of the most contested figures of the period. To admirers he was a dazzlingly clever tactician who held a fractious party together, kept Britain out of the Vietnam War, and presided over a genuine widening of personal freedom. To critics he was an unprincipled fixer, obsessed with short-term manoeuvre and the management of the Labour movement, who squandered the modernising promise of 1964 on the futile defence of an overvalued pound.
Key Question: Did Wilson's governments of 1964–1970 modernise Britain, or did economic crisis and political expediency frustrate the "white heat" project — and where does the balance lie between economic failure and social-reform success?
Key Definition: Permissive society — the loosening, especially in the later 1960s, of legal and social restraints on personal conduct (sexuality, censorship, divorce, the death penalty). Whether this amounted to a genuine "cultural revolution" or a limited liberalisation driven by a small metropolitan elite is a central historiographical question.
This lesson belongs to Paper 2, Option 2S — The Making of Modern Britain, 1951–2007, Part One ("Building a New Britain, 1951–1979"). The depth-study format means examiners expect close mastery of the sequence of events — the precise economic measures of 1964–67, the named reforming Acts and their sponsors, the detail of In Place of Strife — and reward analysis rooted in specifics.
| Key Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Background | Born in Huddersfield, Yorkshire; grammar school and Jesus College Oxford (a brilliant economics student who became an Oxford don in his early twenties); deliberately projected as the meritocratic antithesis of the fourteenth Earl, Douglas-Home |
| Political career | President of the Board of Trade under Attlee (1947–51); resigned with Bevan over health charges (1951); won the Labour leadership in February 1963 after Hugh Gaitskell's sudden death, defeating George Brown |
| "White heat" speech | At the Labour conference in Scarborough on 1 October 1963 Wilson argued that a modern Britain must be "forged in the white heat" of the scientific and technological revolution — contrasting Labour's modernity with thirteen years of Conservative "amateurism" |
| 1964 election | Labour won on 15 October 1964 with an overall majority of just 4 (317 seats to 304). The narrowness owed much to the public's weariness with a scandal-tainted, aristocratic Conservatism rather than to enthusiasm for socialism |
| 1966 election | With government barely workable on a majority of four, Wilson called a fresh election on 31 March 1966 and won a comfortable majority of 96–98 (363–364 seats to 253), seemingly securing a mandate to govern decisively |
The image-management was deliberate and modern: Wilson cultivated a pipe-smoking, Gannex-mac, man-of-the-people persona, associated himself with the Beatles (whom his government recommended for MBEs in 1965), and exploited television as no previous Prime Minister had. This mastery of presentation is itself a theme — critics argued that Wilson's genius for image substituted for substance.
Wilson inherited a balance-of-payments deficit of around £800 million and immediately confronted the question that would shadow his whole first government: whether to devalue sterling from its fixed Bretton Woods rate of $2.80.
| Option | Arguments |
|---|---|
| Devalue | Devaluation would make exports cheaper and imports dearer, helping to correct the trade deficit. Several economic advisers, notably Nicholas Kaldor and Thomas Balogh, favoured early devaluation to free the economy from the deflationary straitjacket |
| Defend the rate | Wilson feared a "Labour devaluation" would brand the party as economically incompetent (Attlee had been forced to devalue in 1949). The United States, anxious that sterling's collapse would expose the dollar, exerted heavy pressure to hold the rate, reportedly linking support to British restraint over Vietnam and "East of Suez" |
Wilson, Chancellor James Callaghan and George Brown formed a "triumvirate" that resolved in October 1964 to defend the parity and even forbade officials from discussing devaluation (the "unmentionable"). The rate was held through repeated deflationary packages — spending cuts, credit squeezes, higher taxes, and a statutory prices-and-incomes policy (the Prices and Incomes Act 1966, following the seamen's strike). The cost was the strangling of the very growth and public investment that "white heat" had promised.
After three years of speculative pressure and a damaging July 1966 sterling crisis, the government was finally forced to devalue from 2.80to2.40 — a cut of about 14.3%. Wilson's television broadcast that evening contained the notoriously mocked reassurance that the move did "not mean that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or in your bank, has been devalued." The phrasing — technically defensible but politically tin-eared — came to symbolise a government accused of spin over substance. Callaghan resigned the Chancellorship (swapping jobs with Roy Jenkins), and Jenkins's subsequent austerity (the "two years of hard slog") eventually produced a balance-of-payments surplus by 1969 — arguably too late to save the government electorally.
Historiographical anchor. Jim Tomlinson (The Labour Governments 1964–1970, vol. 3, 2004) argues that the prolonged defence of an overvalued pound was Wilson's gravest economic error, consuming the political capital and policy freedom of the first government. Ben Pimlott (Harold Wilson, 1992), the standard biography, is more sympathetic, stressing that American pressure and the fragility of Bretton Woods genuinely narrowed Wilson's options — devaluation in 1964 might have triggered an international run that Britain could not have withstood.
To institutionalise modernisation, Wilson created the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) under George Brown, intended to challenge the cautious, sterling-fixated Treasury and to drive growth through planning. Its centrepiece, the National Plan (September 1965), set a target of 25% growth in national output by 1970. The Plan was effectively dead within a year, killed by the deflation required to defend the pound after the July 1966 crisis; the DEA limped on until abolition in 1969. Its failure is a powerful illustration of the recurring tension between the modernising and the stabilising impulses of post-war economic policy — and of the structural dominance of sterling over every ambition.
A balanced verdict on the economic record must weigh the genuine institutional innovations against their meagre results. The government created not only the DEA but the Ministry of Technology ("Mintech," under Frank Cousins and later Tony Benn), the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (1966) to promote efficient mergers, and a battery of regional and training initiatives — a serious attempt to address Britain's productivity weakness through planning and rationalisation. Yet the relentless priority given to the exchange rate undercut all of it: investment was repeatedly squeezed, "stop-go" persisted, and the much-trumpeted 25% growth target was abandoned. By 1969–70 Jenkins had restored a balance-of-payments surplus and tamed inflation, so the government left office with the public finances in better order than it had found them; but the political dividend came too late, and the broader promise to transform Britain's relative economic performance went unfulfilled. The episode is therefore best read not as simple failure but as constrained failure — ambitious in design, defeated by the structural and external limits within which any government of the period had to operate.
The Wilson governments oversaw a remarkable liberalisation of personal life. Crucially, most of these reforms were carried as Private Members' Bills to which the government gave time and (often) tacit support, rather than as government legislation — a point of real analytical importance, since it means responsibility is shared, and Wilson personally was often cautious. The reforming Home Secretary Roy Jenkins (1965–67) was the pivotal enabler, articulating the vision of a "civilised society."
| Reform | Detail |
|---|---|
| Abolition of capital punishment | Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 — suspended hanging for murder for five years, made permanent in 1969. The last executions in Britain were Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans on 13 August 1964 |
| Homosexuality | Sexual Offences Act 1967 — decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting men aged 21 or over in private, in England and Wales. Sponsored by Leo Abse; building on the Wolfenden Report (1957) |
| Abortion | Abortion Act 1967 — legalised abortion (up to 28 weeks) where two doctors agreed continuation posed a risk to the woman's life or physical or mental health, or that of her existing children. Sponsored by the Liberal David Steel |
| Divorce | Divorce Reform Act 1969 — made "irretrievable breakdown" the sole ground for divorce, ending the adversarial fault-based system. Effective from 1971 |
| Censorship | Theatres Act 1968 — abolished the Lord Chamberlain's power to censor stage plays, a power dating from 1737 |
| Voting age | Representation of the People Act 1969 — lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 |
Historiographical anchor. Dominic Sandbrook (White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties, 2006) argues that the "permissive society" was largely the project of a liberal metropolitan elite and met substantial resistance from a more conservative public; the reforms reflected the convictions of a few parliamentarians more than mass demand. Arthur Marwick (The Sixties, 1998) takes a more expansive view, treating the period as a genuine "cultural revolution" that durably transformed attitudes to authority, sexuality and personal freedom. The truth probably lies in distinguishing legislative change (real, lasting) from attitudinal change (slower, contested, regionally uneven).
| Policy | Detail |
|---|---|
| Comprehensive schools | Circular 10/65 (July 1965) — Education Secretary Anthony Crosland requested (not compelled) local authorities to submit plans to reorganise secondary schooling along comprehensive lines, dismantling the tripartite system of grammar, secondary modern and technical schools |
| The Open University | Chartered 1969 (first students 1971) — Wilson genuinely regarded this as his proudest achievement, opening higher education to mature students through television and correspondence |
| Plowden Report (1967) | Championed child-centred primary education and proposed Educational Priority Areas to steer resources to disadvantaged schools |
Comprehensivisation was among the era's most divisive policies. Crosland's egalitarian conviction (privately expressed in famously coarse terms about abolishing grammar schools) saw selection at eleven as socially unjust; critics argued it removed a ladder of mobility for able working-class children. The debate over selection has never closed.
| Legislation | Detail |
|---|---|
| Race Relations Act 1965 | Britain's first race-relations law — banned discrimination in public places and created the Race Relations Board, but excluded housing and employment and had weak enforcement |
| Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 | Rushed through in three days to restrict entry of East African (mainly Kenyan) Asians holding British passports who were fleeing "Africanisation" — widely condemned as racially motivated. Passed against the backdrop of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech (20 April 1968), after which Heath sacked Powell from the shadow Cabinet |
| Race Relations Act 1968 | Extended anti-discrimination provisions to housing, employment, and goods and services |
The tension here — liberalising discrimination law while restricting immigration — is a genuine paradox of the period and rich ground for analysis.
Barbara Castle, Secretary of State for Employment, published the White Paper In Place of Strife in January 1969, proposing:
The proposals provoked fierce opposition from the TUC and from Labour's own MPs and Cabinet — resistance led most damagingly by Home Secretary James Callaghan, who broke with the leadership. Faced with the threat of a backbench revolt, Wilson and Castle retreated, settling for a "solemn and binding undertaking" from the TUC that proved worthless. The failure to reform industrial relations weakened the government, exposed the unions' veto over a Labour administration, and foreshadowed both Heath's confrontation (1971–74) and the Winter of Discontent (1978–79). It is one of the most consequential non-events of the period.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.