Editing Winter of Discontent (section)

===Divisions in Labour Party over macroeconomic strategy===

Under the influence of [[Anthony Crosland]], a member of the more moderate [[Gaitskellite]] wing of the Labour Party in the 1950s, the party establishment came to embrace a more moderate course of action than it had in its earlier years before the [[Second World War]]. Crosland had argued in his book ''[[The Future of Socialism]]'' that the government exerted enough control over private industry that it was not necessary to [[nationalise]] it as [[Clause IV|the party had long called to do]], and that the ultimate goals of [[socialism]] could be as readily achieved by assuring long-term economic stability and building out the social [[welfare state]]. His "[[The Future of Socialism#Labour revisionism|revisionist]]" views became Labour's perspective on the [[post-war consensus]], in which both they and the [[Conservative Party (United Kingdom)|Conservative Party]] agreed in principle on a strong government role in the economy, strong unions and a welfare state as foundational to Britain's prosperity.<ref name="López 40–45">{{cite book |last=López |first=Tara Martin |title=The Winter of Discontent: Myth, Memory and History |date=2014 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-1-78138-601-9 |pages=40–45}}</ref>

In the 1970s, following the surge in radical left-wing politics of the late 1960s, that view was challenged in another Labour figure's book, [[Stuart Holland]]'s ''The Socialist Challenge''. He argued that contrary to Crosland's assertions, the government could exercise little control over Britain's largest companies, which were likely to continue consolidating into an [[oligopoly]] that, by the 1980s, could raise prices high enough that governments following [[Keynesian economics]] would be unable to ensure their citizens the opportunity for [[full employment]] that they had been able to since the war, and exploit [[transfer pricing]] to avoid paying British taxes. Holland called for returning to nationalisation, arguing that taking control of the top 25 companies that way would result in a market with more competition and less inflation.<ref name="López 40–45" />

Holland's ideas formed the basis of the [[Alternative Economic Strategy]] (AES) promoted by [[Tony Benn]], then [[Secretary of State for Industry]] in the Labour governments of [[Harold Wilson]] and [[James Callaghan]] as they considered responses to the [[1976 sterling crisis]]. The AES called on Britain to adopt a [[protectionist]] stance in international trade, including reversing [[1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum|its recent decision]] to join the European Common Market, and impose no incomes policies to combat inflation. Benn believed that this approach was more in keeping with Labour's traditional policies and would have its strongest supporters in the unions, with them vigorously supporting the government against opposition from the financial sector and "commanding heights" of industry. It was ultimately rejected in favour of the [[Social Contract (Britain)|social contract]] and extensive cuts in public spending as the condition of an [[International Monetary Fund]] loan that supported the pound after the sterling crisis.<ref name="López 40–45" />

The left wing of the Labour Party, while critical of the revisionist approach and the Social Contract, was not universally supportive of the AES either. Many thought it did not go far enough, or avoided the issue of nationalisation. [[Feminism in the United Kingdom|Feminists]] in particular criticised it for its focus on traditionally male-dominated manufacturing jobs and ignoring the broader issues that the increasing number of women in the workforce faced, preferring a focus on broader social issues rather than just working conditions and pay, the traditional areas unions had negotiated with employers.<ref name="López 40–45" />