A Liberal View on Burnham's Speech

If Andy Burnham really has no intention to call a General Election as he says, then this Conference speech has not made a very convincing show of it, there were a lot of policy announcements for, "The next Manifesto." or 2030. (A year past the next scheduled election.) If he really is going to sit the full mandate Labour were elected on in 2024 then these policy announcements for what will be almost three years in the future ring like hollow attempts to keep his polling in place while in reality continuing the path of not doing nearly enough to resolve the big issues that face our country in this day and age.

Given these circumstances it is hard not to speculate whether the November General Election is going to happen should Polanski be defeated in Holborn & St. Pancras, Guardian polling is suggesting Burnham could squeak a majority thanks to tactical voting and if we're lucky Reform could even be inched into a distant fourth. But ultimately spending too much time worrying about General Elections is a futile exercise, we need to be much more proactive in our campaigning than we currently are, and in waiting for someone to give a special date for us to start we are already losing.

So what is the substance of what he has said? I'm feeling nice today so I'll start with what I liked best; getting rid of the Triple Lock on State Pensions. The Triple Lock has always been one of the more misguided consequences of Liberal Democrat thinking during the Coalition, creating a system that meant the value of Pensions was always rising above the average wage, inflation or 2.5% if neither were higher. This was intended to restore the value of pensions, which it did. But fifteen years in has had the unintended consequence of creating an fiscally unsustainable, exponentially expanding benefit for an increasingly wide aged population, one Governments were historically afraid to challenge, given the older a voter is the more likely they are to well... Vote...

This plan to switch to a Double Lock hasn't left Pensioners hung out to dry, however, as part of the savings made from this will go towards a National Care Service that will provide free social care at the point of delivery and support for existing carers. Given this costs of this are predicted to be around £15 billion more than the £2 billion saved from scrapping the Triple Lock, the question of where the money will come from under Labour's current spending rules is dubious, especially given the (appreciated) scrapping of VAT on electricity bills. My concern is, as was the case with the bus fare cap, this may yet again come out of the environment and international aid budgets to avoid having to increase taxation. Despite this, the cross-party talks on the matter are appreciated and may be able to resolve these issues, particularly as this has been a long-time Liberal policy

The rest of his policy announcements however, made me raise some eyebrows; the potential nationalisation of the water companies sounds like a good idea on paper, but how this would work in practice is unclear, the reason the nationalised companies began to struggle in the 80s was because the Regional Water Authorities had their power to borrow severely curtailed by the Thatcher Government, and while they had racked up about £4.9 billion in debt by the time they were sold off, the privatised companies now have £70 billion worth of debt, with anywhere up to 28% of it is put on customers bills depending on their region. How nationalisation will solve this, or the many other problems with our water companies is not outlined, which made the announcement feel very much like playing to the base.

Another thing that worried me was, once again, his insistence on giving Mayors the power to hold water (and energy!) companies to account; this feels ripe for exploitation along Party-political lines and confirms my worries from Liberator #437 about this serious concentration of power in the executive branch of Local Government that Labour has come to favour. It also raises serious questions over why Labour opposed the 44 Liberal amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 that were intended to create a new stronger and independent regulator to replace the failed Ofwat as was recommended by the Water Commission. If Labour is serious about resolving the structural issues of our Water Industry, rather than just moving the burden to the State, then perhaps they should take notes from our recent Conference motion on the matter, as they clearly did with the National Care Service.

Perhaps the most egregious suggestion in his speech was yet another Commission for Electoral Reform - no doubt, commissions can be good when we need to fully explore options, but electoral reform has been explored to death - it was just under thirty years ago now that the Jenkins' Commission produced it's report on the matter, and just over thirty years ago the Plant Commission did the same. There hasn't been any significant development in electoral systems since then as far as I know, and the findings of these reports were both relatively comprehensive, regardless of your opinion on their conclusions, so I can only see this as stalling from a Labour Government that wants to avoid having to answer the question for another decade or so in hopes that they'll keep maintaining their own power, it is profoundly disappointing.

Overall, he's left a slightly better impression on me now than he did in my Liberator article, but none of my criticisms there have been invalidated, and in a few cases, they have been vindicated. His choice to save all these commitments for 2029 also begs serious questions as to why he fears fighting for his own mandate, given the existing Manifesto is so obviously failing to deliver the change it promised; a nicer face won't prevent that reality from sinking in forever.

Should the Grimond Society Become an Associated Organisation?

Yesterday I received an email in my inbox asking whether the Grimond Society, a pressure group supporting cooperatives within the Liberal Democrats, should become an Associated Organisation to the Party. I had presumed this had been a long-term goal anyway based on meetings held, but I appreciate it has been put to vote to let us have our say, which feels very much in the spirit of co-operative organisation, and as such I felt it would only be fair to make clear my own thoughts on the matter.

The benefits of becoming an Associated Organisation are perhaps somewhat obvious; the ability to sponsor Motions and Amendments at Conference is a real strength, particularly as the leadership is attempting to shift the Party to better serve their own goals of appealing to One-Nation Conservatives and the Middle Class, usually through bypassing the Constitution itself, so having a way to prioritise policy that stands in contrast to their vision will no doubt be an asset. In addition to this, the status that comes from being an Associated Organisation is potentially a strength in the press as it will mean our comments hold some level of added authority.

But what about the less travelled path? Organisational independence is one thing mentioned in the email, but I think the argument for this is weak, while we would be forced to adopt membership and voting rules consistent with the Constitution, this is hardly much of an ask in my opinion and makes perfect sense to ensure cohesion within the Party. What would be concerning is the potential loss of a voice in internal Party matters as we (as an organisation) would be committed to public-facing neutrality in elections. This would realistically be fine if we were to remain wholly dedicated to pursuing policy dedicated to promoting Co-Operatives in Party Policy as most motions that go through Conference tend to get passed, which would mean being outside the Party would only be to our disadvantage.

While this does seem like a slam dunk in favour of becoming an Associated Organisation, I would like to at least consider the alternative for a minute; the thing the Radical Association, Social Liberal Forum and Liberal Reform all have in common is that they are much broader tents than most Associated Organisations, which are mostly focused on single-issues such as environmentalism or electoral reform, or for clearly representing a group of people, such as women or Christians. If the Grimond Society wishes to go down the path of focusing solely on cooperatives then Associated Organisation status would obviously fit best, but if it seeks to promote a more broad view of Grimond's Liberalism, opposing concentrations of power in the State, Trade Unions, Corporations and wherever else they may appear in favour of mutual aid, profit-sharing and individual initiative, it may do better divorced from Party politics, where it can freely promote it's agenda without regards to partisanship, as the Social Liberal Forum did when it chose to back Corbyn's 2017 Manifesto for closely aligning with their values.

Ultimately, the question is whether we want to promote something small in a wider group, or promote our own vision independently. I personally believe that the direction of travel in the Liberal Democrats towards electoralism as a means to power rather than to convince the public of the merits of Liberalism has meant there is a sore need for a force outside of party politics to restate the case for it, and indeed promote it among the public. I feel no other organisation is doing this at the minute, and it is something that has the potential to benefit the communities left behind by the Government altogether, which I'm sure Grimond himself would be behind us on. As such I believe we would be better to maintain our independence, at least for now.

Liberal Democrats Should Mean More than "Business"

I was recently reading through the agenda for the Autumn Conference this year (2026, if you're reading from the future) and I came across a motion that particularly bothered me; the motion in question that I am referring to being F6, titled "The Liberal Democrats Mean Business" the part that irked me in particular was this description of the Party:

"The Liberal Democrats are the natural party of business, as the only truly internationalist, pro-enterprise and fiscally responsible political force, advocating for a mutually beneficial partnership between the public and private sector."

I feel this has come as part of a long line of comments from the top of the Party that try to present the Liberal Democrats as the successor to Cameron's Leadership Conservative Party; fiscally austere, internationalist insofar as it helped the business interests and socially reformist insofar as popular opinion would benefit him. In fact, he sums up his philosophy remarkably well in his speech from the 2015 Conservative Conference, I don't recommend you listen to the whole hour, but the points he makes on Europe and the economy strike a very similar chord to this motion.

But as I read further my issues grew beyond the rhetoric, the description of the Employment Rights Act 2025 as somehow only offering limited improvements for workers seems at odds with the reality, workers who engage in strike action will be protected from unfair dismissal, . The fact the motion has the audacity to say the Act was "limited" in the improvements it offered and then brag about reducing the improvements for workers by reducing what was meant to be a day one protection from unfair dismissal to a six month one is shameless.

There is another point that also caught my attention for all the wrong reasons, the discussion of Artificial Intelligence and the impacts it will have on employment, or rather, the lack thereof. We know that AI is invariably affecting people's ability to be hired, whether that be from AI discriminating against both women and ethnic minorities when used as a hiring tool or simply taking low-level jobs that would've once been given to young people to get them on the ladder; far from proposing community based data models that reflect local areas unique makeup, or preventing AI use where it could harm employment - a cornerstone of humanities' of sense of self and meaning - the Motion disappointingly proposes that a cut to National Insurance and some worker representation on company boards will be able to resolve the issues AI poses, a distinctly weak solution that offers little insight into the thought process behind how this could improve the situation.

I won't pretend that Labour's policies for business haven't had some problems, a few small business owners and freelancers I know have found their national insurance rise, alongside a number of sneaky VAT rises in order to stay within their fiscal rules, as quite punitive on their livelihoods, and I think there's room for discussion about what we do on the topic of tax rates, especially given many our unhappy with the current distribution of the burden. (Though for all intents and purposes, we are a low tax country.) But I fear the broad strokes of this policy are so strongly in favour of business that any amendment proposed would not be able to change the overall message of the motion, with it's scepticism of regulation laid out so clearly, with little reference to meaningful alternative, and as such I cannot see myself voting in favour of it under any circumstances.

If Liberal Democrats want to know how a Party that primarily appeals to business and freelancers above other interests performs, they need look no further than the Free Democrats in Germany as these groups are their only consistent supporters. While they have experienced occasional bursts of popularity, such as through a viral speech, much like we have, their weak support base - lacking the size of weight of the Church to the Union or the Trade Unions to the Social Democrats - has meant in recent years that they have not weathered incumbency well. 

Is that truly the future we want for the Party? 

It is in my opinion that a Liberal Party of any seriousness must do more than represent a narrow section of interests. Of course the self-employed (small business owners, freelancers etc.) will naturally have a part to play in that, as they quite naturally reflect the "Liberal ideal" of having a large enough degree of self-sufficiency to pursue their interests without falling into the realm of posing significant threat to the freedom others; but this accounts for only 13.3% of British People a number that is nowhere near enough to win a General Election, even if we presume every single self-employed person did vote Liberal Democrat. So it begs the question, if we aren't just representing business, who else is there?

If we look to Canada we may begin to see some of our answers, the Liberal Party of Canada is the dominant force in Canadian politics, having been in power for 70 years of the last Century, and avoided the marginalisation we faced after the first world war due to remaining flexible in it's voter base. Ideologically they are quite similar to us as well, with an emphasis on Social Liberalism in particular. Today, much like us, they are particularly popular with well-educated people with a stable income, but there are other key demographics that they have successfully tapped where we haven't; women for one, are a core part of the Liberal voter base, and this is a demographic I know we can win, because we've done it before; in 2010 we were the most popular Party aged among women aged 18-24, so there's no reason to think we don't have the appeal. Additional to this minorities of all shades are likely to vote Liberal in Canada, and while by their nature they do not make up a majority of the population, these are people who in my experience are much more likely to be activists as their rights are ever more threatened than those of the majority.

So in short, the values that translate to a modern Liberal success in terms of voting demographics are not simply responsible economics, but a commitment to individualism, social justice and equality; values that when communicated clearly can drive the support of those they affect most, alongside the conscientious urban populations, all of whom now flock to the Greens for these same reasons. 

When viewed in this perspective it becomes clear why F6's prescriptions will hamper us long-term, AI implementation cannot be solved with workers on company boards alone, as it disproportionately affects the employment chances of too many of what should be our core voters, and the Employment Rights Act, which has increased the scope of liability for sexual harassment, should not be overlooked as simple "red tape" that obstructs business, but a small step of many in creating a fairer society for women.

That is the future I want for the Party, and that is why I will be opposing F6.

The Wealth Tax is a Progressive Fallacy

Recently, I caught self-styled 'Inequality Economist' Gary Stevenson's Documentary, How to Get Filthy Rich on Channel 4; to say it frustrated me would be an understatement. The fundamental thesis of the documentary is that rising inequality is going to leave the grand majority of the population worse off, (which is true) and that the solution to this is a wealth tax. I've explained my concerns with a wealth tax before, but I think I'm going to go into more detail on my problems with it here, not only because it is becoming a thorn in the side of serious Left-wing economics, but also because I fear it is becoming an all-encompassing slogan that fails to present a real and nuanced vision for the economy. 

To be fair to Stevenson, he does have to deal with some pretty odious people - while it is incredibly clear in the documentary the degree to which people have continued to suffer since 2008, with a particularly stark moment being his visit to the Bristol caravans, showing how the average £2000 rent in the city has left people without secure housing even when they've worked their whole lives, dividing the community over the health risks this has posed - many of his richest interviewees are seemingly uninterested; his first Interviewee and Reform party donor Bassim Haidar, essentially argues that any sufficiently hungry person can get rich, seemingly unaware that unlike him, most people who live paycheck-to-paycheck would rather be frugal and stable rather than take a risk that could cost them what little they had if it were to fail. If one thing was obvious it's that these people were not particularly curious as to changing the status quo, or how things were in the past.

But I also felt in many ways this incuriosity was also true for Stevenson himself, as the Guardian put it, he evangelises the wealth tax, implying that before Margaret Thatcher it was something Parties had a consensus on using as a method of helping the working class; but we never had a direct Wealth Tax during this period - though, one was proposed by Labour in 1974, but never implemented. He even goes as far as to talk about how other taxes were different in "the 30s after World War II" to account for this extra social spending, such as the top rate of income tax being over 90% and inheritance tax sitting around 80%. I think it's pretty hard to argue Stevenson isn't misleading the audience somewhat, and it doesn't reflect well on him for doing so.

Of course there is the counterargument I've seen some make that despite it's many flaws the documentary draws attention to the deep inequality in society. But to be honest, I think this is a weak argument; you don't need to tell people experiencing a cost-of-living crisis that they're unequal because they already know it, and the arguments of the documentary often look so poor when challenged that I think if you were using it to convince someone wealth inequality was the problem, it'd probably have the opposite effect.

What was telling for me was the scene with the Patriotic Millionaires, a group which Stevenson is a member of. This is a single-issue campaign group of millionaires (shocker) who want a Wealth Tax of 2% on wealth above £10 million. Watching this scene I made me realise quite how hollow this whole Wealth Tax thing is, fundamentally these people are hoping that if they pay a bit more in tax, they can keep their lifestyles and not have to deal with a bigger structural change that could dislodge it. It reminded me oddly of a Disraeli quote "The palace is not safe when the cottage is unhappy." and I think that comes to the crux of some of my issues with one, beyond the logistics.

At it's core the Wealth Tax is Paternalistic Conservatism, and I think that speaks to why 3/4 of millionaires are actually okay with it. This is not something that developed up from the grassroots like the Co-Operative movement, presenting a genuine alternate vision for an ethical economy, it is a plaster intended to stem the bleeding of a failed economic system, while keeping the people it benefitted in places of power. Perhaps ironically, use of power is the documentary's greatest success, it has drawn attention to Gary Stevenson and probably made him some money by directing people to his YouTube channel, giving him more influence in these discussions, for better or worse. 

If you think I'm not being fair to Stevenson, then I think you should look at his maths. In the documentary he says that this Wealth Tax could raise £24 billion a year and that this could fund the NHS, but notably fails to put that figure in context; even if every single pound raised went into the NHS it would only be a 8.8% increase to what is already £294 billion worth of health spending, only slightly more than the 7.7% increase between 2024 and 2025, and if this were to be dispersed more equally across the budget for housing too or cut lower tax brackets as he suggests, it'd probably be less. It is hardly a revolution of aid for working people. 

For me the documentary reached it's thematic conclusion during the interview with Dan Neidle, who is a tax lawyer with a pretty strong reputation as a bipartisan. The report by the Wealth Tax commission that Stevenson shows Neidle to back up his points is not supportive of an annual Wealth Tax and Neidle calls this out, explaining that setting one up would take at least a year of preparing systems that could monitor the wealth of about 20,000 people would be unlikely to even raise revenue until 2029 and likely reduce foreign investment. When pushed on other solutions to poverty Neidle is clear that a Land Value Tax is the potential solution, something Stevenson calls "a simple and obvious change" without really rebuking, having to use a section afterwards to explain that it wouldn't solve anything because many of the richest wouldn't pay it, which would only be true if over half of the land of Britain wasn't owned by 1% of the population, particularly ironic given the Neidle interview comes after Stevenson spoke to an inheritor of 3000 acres in Devon, and almost perfectly summing up every problem with the documentary I have brought up.

I mentioned earlier that Labour proposed the idea of a direct Wealth Tax in both their February and October 1974 Manifestos, what I withheld was why it failed; part of the issue was that the proposal itself was developed as part of a compromise to get the Trade Unions to accept even minor deflationary measures - the failure of which no doubt contributed to Thatcher adopting policies that we still feel the negative consequences of today - but what was quickly found by the Civil Service was that such a tax would severely affect investor confidence in Britain (something Neidle mentions) and cause capital flight from important institutions, such as banks, outside of the country, with a Capital Transfer Tax in order to stem cases of tax avoidance being seen as a better solution to the problem of inequality. In 1989 Denis Healey, the Chancellor at the time, would reflect on the 1974 proposal:

"Another lesson was that you should never commit yourself in Opposition to new taxes unless you have a very good idea how they will operate in practice. We had committed ourselves to a Wealth Tax: but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle."

In rewatching the documentary to write this I found so many points that were either misrepresentations or simply incorrect that I have decided not to include them all. (Norway being a successful example of a Wealth Tax is a particularly bad one) If this documentary should be responsible for anything, it should be for killing the direct Wealth Tax as a serious idea in progressive circles.

Long-Term Planning in the Age of Weak Government

"Long-Term Planning" is a term I hear thrown around a lot about Governance, usually because people feel it isn't happening. This isn't for lack of trying either, in 2024 Keir Starmer was making clear that his Premiership was going to last at least ten years; while that looks unlikely today, it does raise some serious questions about what long-term planning looks like in an era when leadership is highly fragile. To really put this in context, the last Prime Minister to serve a full-term was David Cameron during the Coalition from 2010-2015, and the last Prime Minister to serve a full-term with a  majority was Tony Blair between 2001-2005, two decades ago. Votes have also become more fracticious as a multi-party system chafes against an electoral system designed for about 850,000 people and a few loose groups of MPs. If the projections from the 2026 locals are to be believed, the winner of the next General Election will be Nigel Farage, with only 74% of the country voting for opposing Parties, a number that will no doubt rapidly rise if he's the incumbent, as many politicians have found recently.

So what can we do if leadership is likely to collapse every 2 or 3 years and knowing what Party will command enough support to lead is increasingly unpredictable? Well, we should start looking to change our models of long-term planning from one where we presume the vision will stay same for at least a decade and towards one where the plan can adapt to many different visions. This will inevitably require compromises, and even moreso than past Manifesto backtracking, (See: House of Lords reform) but towards necessary ends. Let's say, for instance, Zack Polanski becomes Prime Minister in some unlikely scenario; in that situation the Greens are presumably either going to build or requisitition new Council Housing through central planning. The problem is given Zack's other weak policies and poor tolerance of scrutiny, he would likely have a really short honeymoon period before receiving challenges to his authority, and assuming the next Parliament is hung, he could easily face a no-confidence vote.

Housebuilding from both the Public and Private Sectors in Britain since 1860. (source)

This problem would mean any long-term plans the Greens have for housebuilding would be stalled, and as centrally planned housebuilding has declined massively since the 1980s from Governments across the spectrum, so it can reasonably be assumed that should a new Party come to power they might not follow through. As such it may be worth considering reducing the extent to which we rely on a system designed for an era in which central planning was at the forefront of Government policy, not to prevent it from happening, but to have failsafes for a political culture that is less interested in it.

Another thing that will have to happen is the entrenchment of our Rights into law; given all mainstream Parties on the Right have expressed an interest in repealing them, something that will not only be problematic on the basis of limiting Government ability to interfere with people's lives, but also lead to the potential 'tug of war' that we've already seen in American politics where the extent to which certain Rights exist has become wholly dependent on the political alignment of the ruling Party and Supreme Court. With Democrats introducing new Rights, only for Republicans to end those Rights, afterwards being reintroduced by the Democrats again, before being ended again within the by the Republicans. Given our Rights are even more precariously protected due not separating regular laws from Constitutional ones (thus making those more important ones harder to repeal) we are likely going to be left in an even more precarious position in terms of Rights law, if we aren't already heading there...

Unless Proportional Representation comes in the near future to prevent rapid electoral shifts based on increasingly marginal votes to create consensus-based Governments that are representative of popular opinion, this is what is long-term planning will need to look like, and I don't think anyone will be happy about it.

The Liberal Prime Minister Who Wasn't

Often in Liberal circles, the question comes up as to Prime Ministers we should claim the legacy of; this is understandable considering the Party hasn't had a PM since 1922, over a century ago now. Usually the chief candidate for this position is Winston Churchill, who was a key player in the Liberal Governments of 1906-1922, and whose stint as Conservative Prime Minister during World War 2 is so ingrained in British memory that I don't even have to write anything about it for you to understand my point. Churchill  consistently topped most rankings among academics, the public, and journalists at the end of the 20th Century, so it's easy to see why he'd be a popular choice for a Prime Minister to claim as sharing our values, particularly as the Conservative Party moves away from Thatcherism and more towards National Populism. I however would like to propose a different candidate for the job, Harold Wilson, the longest serving Prime Minster of the post-war consensus, who was successfully reelected on four occasions. - more than any other 20th Century PM. 

Harold Wilson characteristically smoking his pipe, a common occurence in photos of him. 

This one's turned out far longer than usual as it spans several decades of history and requires explaining some dynamics in the Labour Party, so maybe grab a warm drink. With regards to this I have also decided to split this into multiple Parts and sections so that I don't spend forever on an overly long post, please feel free to skip context you may already know, I have written presuming my audience doesn't.

Liberal Influences up to 1950

The first and most obvious reason for Liberals to claim Wilson's legacy, is that his early political career was steeped in influence from the Liberal Party, which he had initially joined during University, much like his Father, who had been involved in Churchill's 1908 by-election campaign, It was only during the Great Depression, which forced him to witness his own father and classmates falling into joblessness, that Wilson was convinced to switch to the Labour, though he notably never joined Oxford's Labour Club, stating in his Memoirs that "What I felt I could not stomach was all those Marxist public school products rambling on about the exploited workers and the need for a socialist revolution." It was clear, even at this point, he was more interested in Socialism from a Technocratic standpoint than and Ideological one. When the war broke out in 1939 he was deemed placed in the Civil Service as a researcher for William Beveridge, a Liberal MP, under which he would provide the crucial research for the 1942 Beveridge Report, which provided the crucial basis for both Labour and the Liberal Party's 1945 Manifestos. As such we can observe that Wilson was already steeped in Liberal influence from the start of his career.

Wilson himself would stand as Labour MP for Osmkirk in the 1945 General Election, winning the Seat with a comfortable majority of just over 7000 votes. While there is certainly something to be said about his role in the Attlee Government, he was generally regarded at the time as an unremarkable MP compared to some of his contemporaries, with one critic remarking his very technical speeches were "Mountainous sandwiches of tedium." Yet despite this, a power struggle between the Left and Right Labour would soon bring him to the top of the Party; but to understand this, we must look at what the bigger players of the time were doing.

A taste of the posters that the major parties displayed in 1945, it's easy to see the strengths of Labour's campaign.

Divides in Labour 1950-55

Understanding Wilson's rise to power in the Labour Party (as well as Labour more generally) requires understanding the internal split that had developed by the Attlee Government's second Term (1950-51) between two high-ranking Cabinet Members, Aneurin "Nye" Bevan, and Hugh Gaitskell:

Bevan was on the Left of Labour and was the mind behind the National Health Service, and he drew openly from Marxist theories of Class Struggle in his political tracts. Bevanites generally wanted to use Nationalisation as a tool to distribute economic power away from Capitalists and towards Managers and Workers, often (understandably) being very hostile to compromises that would reduce gains they'd made, though that does not imply inflexibility or lack of discussion around policy more generally. Bevanites were also sceptical of America and Europe, instead advocating a Socialist Alternative among willing countries, arguing that it would create lasting peace that would allow for partial disarmament, though they were divided on if Nuclear disarmament was realistically possible. These ideas were usually more popular among Labour's activists than the Parliamentary Party. When people refer to "Old Labour" they usually mean Bevanite Labour. Notable Bevanites included:

• Tony Benn - Friend of Jeremy Corbyn and credited by Zack Polanski as his favourite Politician, much of modern Hard-Left thought in Britain can be traced to his often very astute observations on politics.
• Micheal Foot - The future Labour Leader, whose 1983 Manifesto was infamously criticised by the Shadow Health Secratary as "The Longest Suicide Note in History" for it's positions against NATO, the EU and Nuclear Weaponry.
• Barbara Castle - A now oft-forgotten champion of Women's Rights in political discourse, she intervened to help striking Sewing Machinists who were being paid over 15% less than their male colleagues, culminating in her work passing the Equal Pay Act of 1970.
• Harold Wilson - the star of today's blogpost, though as you'll see, his relationship with the Bevanites is a bit more complicated. 

Gaitskell on the other hand, was on the Right of Labour, to the point where his followers were often dispargingly called Butskellites due to how often they aligned Rab Butler, the Conservative Chancellor. They did not believe that the Common Ownership of the Means of Production, as outlined in Marxist theory, was essential to achieving Socialism, and instead emphasised social equality, strong welfare, and personal freedom as the core of the movement, viewing the traditional Socialist ideas of Trade Unions and Nationalisation as mere tools towards their goals instead of essential parts of their ideology. They were generally in favour of more hawkish foreign policy as well as being more pro-Europe, though Gaitskell himself criticised his followers for the latter. These ideas tended to be more popular among the Parliamentary Party than Activists. Notable Gaitskellites included:

• Anthony Crosland - Arguably to the right of Gaitskell himself, his book 'The Future of Socialism' is seen as essential to the trajectory of New Labour's policies, with Gordon Brown writing the foreword for the 50th Anniversary edition.
• Roy Jenkins - Founding member of the SDP, and later Liberal Democrat. He played a key role in reducing restrictions on homosexuality, abortion and divorces, ending capital punishment and theatre censorship, and even oversaw a budget surplus in his time as Chancellor, paving the path to joining the European Communities.
• Shirley Williams - Another SDP Founder, and later Liberal Democrat. She was a supporter of Crosland's Campaign to establish Comprehensive Schooling and one of the Leaders of the Remain Campaign in the 1975 Brexit Referendum.
• Jim Callaghan - Future Prime Minister and Labour Leader. His loss to Margaret Thatcher in 1979 after insufficiently dealing with the Winter of Disconent - a series of strikes that paralysed the country - spelt eighteen years in Opposition for Labour

It should be noted that these factions were by no means as much of a monolith as I'm making them out to be; they were often, in reality, very fluid, and Labour MPs usually held several views in common with both factions. Tony Benn, for example, only moved to the Left in the early 1970s. Equally, these faction names were by no means consistent, what was called a Bevanite might now be referred to as a Corbynite, and what was a Gaitskellite now more closely resembles a Brownite. However, for the sake of consistency, I will be using their original labels.

Gaitskell (left) and Bevan (right) on an ITV Programme discussing their visit to the Soviet Union.

Regardless, in 1951 the divides between the two factions came to a head when Gaitskell, who had recently become Chancellor, decided to introduce prescription charges (which still exist in England today!) on previously free NHS Services to help fund the British effort in the Korean War. This angered Bevan and his allies who felt the move would disproportionately affected the Working Classes, defeating the point of the NHS, leading to a mass resignation of Bevanite MPs. The affair left George VI nervous that the Government, which had only won a slim majority of 5 Seats in 1950, would collapse while he was on a foreign trip, and requested an early election for 1951. At this point the public had grown discontented with the disunited Labour Party, and the Conservative Party, promising to respect several elements of the "Socialist Doctrine", won out.

By this time Attlee had grown nervous that if he stepped down the leadership contest would turn into a battle between Gaitskell and Bevan, that would divide the party; and so despite his declining health, he stayed as leader until after the 1955 General Election in the hopes the divides would calm down in the mean time. When Labour lost again to the incumbent Conservative Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, Attlee resigned, with Deputy Leader Herbert Morisson regarded as being the continuity candidate in the following Leadership Election. However, much like Attlee had predicted, the real competition would be between Gaitskell and Bevan, who both threw their hats into the ring. In the end Gaitskell would win with the support of 59% of Labour's MPs, alongside backing from the Transport, Mineworkers and General Unions, one of the single largest margins of victory in Labour History. 

Becoming the Leader of Labour 1955-1963

With that relatively lengthy detour out the way we return to Wilson himself. Wilson had been part of the 1951 Rebellion of Bevanites and resigned his role as President of the Board of Trade during it, in this time he had begun to make a name for himself as one of the first and foremost MPs of the Bevanite faction alongside others like Foot, and when Bevan died in 1959, he quickly rose to be leader of the faction due to his more moderate positions on Nuclear Armaments and more respectable and less dogmatic demeanour than someone more abrasive, like Micheal Foot. 

 
A Vicky Weisz Cartoon depicting Wilson and co. as young troublemakers attacking the successful Gaitskellites.

When Labour lost Seats for the third General Election in a row in 1959, one they were expected to win, Gaitskell decided there was a need to reshape Labour, and began to make moves to change Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution to remove the commitment to the Nationalisation of all industry, he had continually defied the Policy of Nuclear Disarmament that had won popular support at Labour's Conference that same year, angering the Left of the Party and leading to another set of resignations. With divisions still prominent almost a decade after the 1951 loss, Wilson decided in 1960 to challenge Gaitskell for the Leadership of the Party, stating that the problem was not Gaitskell's direction, but a question of  respecting the democratic will of the Party. With Gaitskell having already threatened to remove him from position of Shadow Chancellor in order to consolidate the Right of the Party, Wilson felt he had nothing to lose. 

Unforunately Wilson would lose the leadership race in 1960, and in a 1961 reshuffle he was demoted to Shadow Foreign Secretary. However, in January 1963 another opportunity would open up for Wilson when Gaitskell unexpectedly died, with Wilson, the most experienced candidate of the three tunning, winning 58% of the MPs on the ballot. With only a year to go before the next scheduled General Election, and the Conservatives polling increasingly poorly, Wilson would have the Herculean task to unite the Labour Party into a credible force of Governance in just under a year. 

Wilson initially challenge Gaitskell out of respect for the Party's vote in favour of Nuclear Disarmament, but in his first interview for Panorama in 1963, he would reiterate that he supported Gaitskell and instead opposed the way he tried to ignore the more Bevanite Grassroots, risking further Party divides. Additionally, Wilson avoided significantly reshuffling the Gaitskell Shadow Cabinet, keeping most Ministers in the same positions, despite much of Gaitskell's Shadow Cabinet being publicly known to have voted against him, alongside reinstating the Whip to his fellow Bevanites Barbara Castle and Foot, putting teamwork above personal ideology.

 

Of nine roles carried over from the Gaitskell Cabinet (excluding his own) Wilson retained 2/3 of Gaitskell's appointments.

It is here another Liberal trait of Harold Wilson presents itself; his belief in democracy and debate. Contemporary Labour MPs regarded him as a politician without principle, believing he put his ambition before any values, but the truth is respecting democratic choices was a principle in it's own right, and as you'll see in the next section, this by no means suggests he was passive about decisions. I occasionally hear it asked how Labour is so unhealthily factional compared to the Liberal Democrats, and it's got a lot to do with the centralised structure of the Party; as we've seen with the blocking of Andy Burnham, all you need to control the majority of the Party's functions, is to control the top. Wilson, in respecting democratic decisions by both activists and MPs kept the Party together in a way it has rarely seen, and this is a value we share, whether that be through our many forums for debate such as Lib Dem Voice or Liberator Magazine, or the Conference itself where we vote, debate and ammend documents that we'd like to become official Party Policy. The ability to direct a wide range of views towards a common goal was a value both we and Wilson share.

Leading and Campaigning 1963-1964 

In 1963 the Conservative Party had been faltering after twelve years in power, with rising unemployment, a failure to negotiate membership of the European Community, facing a veto from French President Charles de Gaulle over their pro-American foreign policy, and a Cabinet reshuffle so brutal it was variously dubbed by the papers as a 'Night of the Long Knives' and 'the most reckless political appointment since Roman Emperor Caligula made his favourite horse a Consul'. This was fertile ground for Wilson to strike, and when the Conservatives were found to have used Parliamentary Privillege to cover-up their MP John Profumo's infidelity in June 1963 - with his lover having links to Soviet intelligence - Wilson spared no time in tabling a Motion of No Confidence against the Conservative Government.  This decisive move allowed Labour to appear as serious opposition to the Conservatives when they were still largely expected to win in 1964, and while the Motion failed, it would irreversibly damage the Conservatives reputation, with the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan being forced to resign in October that year, using what was a benign prostate issue as an excuse. In the past decisiveness has been the make or break for the Liberal Democrats, 

Aside from his cunning, another skill Wilson developed at this time was his oratory, although this was not immediately obvious; in the aforementioned Panorama Interviw, Wilson kept a moderate, calm and almost Statesman-like tone, attempting to replicate Attlee's speaking style, often at the time as regarded as the only man who had kept the factions under control. However, this would soon be shed as Wilson delivered his first speech to the Labour Conference in October 1963. This speech, wholly written himself, 'The White Heat of the Technological Revolution' is regarded as one of the best he ever gave; in this speech, he made his principles clear, like Gaitskell, he would warn the the Labour Party that if it got stuck in old-fashioned industrial relations at a time where technology and lifestyles were rapidly changing, it would be doomed to continue losing. Wilson argued that if Labour refused to adapt to this new age of automation, corporations would use it to create unemployment instead of propserity in the name of profit, and if they rejected it altogether, Britain would lose it's innovative minds and become a backwater, as such he advocated for a regulated market and for education to be accessible throughout life, so all could have a chance to become innovators, George Brown, who had stood against Wilson in the leadership race would state "Although I had doubts about how we reached our leadership decision six months ago, I consider it an honour to pay tribute to the way we our being led now." Wilson's attempt at uniting the factions of Labour behind him had succeeded. This was a watershed moment, and one that would define the trajectory of his future Governments, and was well received by Conference compared to Gaitskell's attempts to force through his agenda. What this speech outlined is  also noticeably Liberal set of policies, suggesting both an overly controlling State and a totally free market would lead to failure, ideas clearly outlined in the preamble of the Liberal Democrat Constitution with the emphasis on education also reflected in our policy. 

Throughout 1964 the new Conservative Prime Minister and former Peer Alec Douglas-Home would avoid calling an election, as after the Profumo Scandal all credibility the Conservatives had left had dried up, this led to an unusual period of extended campaigning as the Tories had to combat a Labour that was ramping up action in hopes of an early election. During this campaign Wilson would fully shed his Statesman-like identity to present himself as a man of the people, in tune with modernity. In March 1964 he would appear on TV to present the Show Biz Top Award to The Beatles, the most popular band of the day - in which he cracked jokes about trying to stay "non-political" while reading a negative review about the band from a Right-wing paper to much laughter. This would become emblematic of his youthful campaign style, with an American-style convention in Wembley showcasing the growing multicultural nature of Britain through the employment of a Pakistani Dance show during the convention. Wilson also avoided dealing with the old papers that were already hostile to Labour, opting instead to use the emerging medium of Television to get his message out, which contrasted him with the aristocratic Earl Home, who struggled to keep up with the more rapid pace of debate and campaigning outside of the Lords, with his perceived old-fashioned demeanour perhaps best being exemplified by his By-Election campaign, when the ironically named George Younger, a 31 year old Tory Candidate stepped aside to let Home run.

In this way, Liberals may have a thing or two to learn from Harold Wilson's campaign strategy, we are stuck wondering why the papers and news channels seem completely disinterested in our sensible discussion, using increasingly absurd stunts to try and get more air time, despite several studies and polls  suggesting they're not successful. The truth is that in an era where podcasts and short snappy clips are key, we are not using Social Media effectively; this has been key to the rise of Reform and the Greens, and has contributed our slump into fifth place in the polls. It may be time we, like Wilson's Labour, become a Party of the People, instead of appealing to the old and tired Tories, that are flocking to Reform like a lifeboat.

The election night on the 15th of October 1964 would prove tense as in the closing months of the 1964 race the Conservatives had managed to close the gap between themselves and Labour by resorting to increasing anti-immigration rhetoric, defending their 1962 restrictions on further Commonwealth immigration, a discourse that had become increasing prevelant among much of the white working classes after the Empire Windrush first brought across black workers from the Caribbean to help with reconstruction in 1948. This significantly undercut Wilson's Campaign for racial equality to be enshrined in law, and when the night was over, there would be under a single percentage point between the Conservatives and Labour's results, securing Labour a slim majority of four Seats. Wilson had successfully united Labour and become the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Rosebery in 1894, but his mandate was limited, and time would tell if he would be able to pass the Liberal reforms he promised in his Manifesto and campaign.

Liberal Party General Election Manifesto 1906

I recently noticed the usual source for most pre-2005 Manifestos is noticeably missing the 1906 Liberal Manifesto; a speech delivered by Henry Campbell-Bannerman to his Constituents at Stirling Burghs ahead of the General Election and published in type form alongside other pamphlets relevant to the issues of the election. 

This is an important Manifesto in many ways, as it preceded the final Majority Liberal Government and cautiously outlines some of the tenents of 'New Liberalism' - better known today as Social Liberalism - which rejected the Classical Liberal ideas of Limited Government and instead argued that safeguarding freedoms required an active role from the Government to prevent them from being threatened by poor circumstance or oppression from other sources. 

Despite this, Campbell-Bannerman himself would not be responsible for many of these reforms, as though there was popular support for them within the Party, he was in many ways stuck in the ways of Victorian Era Gladstonian Liberalism, to the point the Neoliberal Economist Friedrich Hayek would remark "Perhaps the government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman ... should be regarded as the last Liberal government of the [Classical] type." 

By 1907 Campbell-Bannerman becoming increasingly ill, dying during his residence at 10 Downing Street in April 1908. His successor, H. H. Asquith, would then begin many of the reforms stated here in earnest.

As of now this Manifesto seems to be completely unavailable for free on the internet, and as such I have gone out of my way to source a copy for republishing, as it currently sits in the Public Domain. The following is the contents: