| Line 38: |
Line 38: |
| | Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.<ref> O'Hara (2006)</ref> | | Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.<ref> O'Hara (2006)</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the "white heat" of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on "high tech" R&D could even be detrimental to such growth.<ref> David Edgerton, "The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s." ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. </ref> | + | The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the "white heat" of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on "high tech" R&D could even be detrimental to such growth.<ref> David Edgerton, "The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s." ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.<ref> Keir Thorpe, "The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike". ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].</ref> |
| | + | ===Immigration=== |
| | + | Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.<ref>Dennis Dean, "The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government". ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283 in [[EBSCO]] </ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.<ref> Keir Thorpe, "The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike". ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].</ref>
| |
| | ===Socialism=== | | ===Socialism=== |
| | Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. | | Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. |