Editing Hugh Gaitskell (section)

== Leader of the Opposition, 1955–1963 ==
=== Suez ===
In 1956 the Egyptian ruler Colonel [[Gamal Abdel Nasser]] nationalised the [[Suez Company (1858–1997)|Suez Canal Company]], beginning the [[Suez Crisis]]. Gaitskell initially told the Prime Minister, Sir [[Anthony Eden]], and the Chancellor of the Exchequer [[Harold Macmillan]] at a dinner with King [[Faisal II of Iraq|Faisal II]] of [[Iraq]] on 26 July 1956, that they would have the support of public opinion for the use of military action against Nasser, but warned Eden that he must act quickly and would have to keep the Americans closely informed.<ref name="Barry Turner 2006 pp 231-232">Barry Turner, ''Suez 1956'' (2006) pp 231-232.</ref><ref>Williams 1985, p419</ref> Gaitskell denounced Nasser's action at 11am on 27 July in the House of Commons debate.<ref>Thorpe 1989, p217-8</ref>

Gaitskell's position became more cautious during the summer, and he suggested the dispute with Egypt should be referred to the United Nations. His first speech on Suez (2 August 1956) attacked Nasser and was welcomed by many Conservatives, and implied that he would support the use of force, but in Brivati's view did not give enough emphasis to his stipulation that it be done through the United Nations.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.289" /> He had believed Eden's assurances that he had no intention of using force.<ref>Campbell 2010, p231</ref> In two letters to Eden sent on 3 and 10 August Gaitskell condemned Nasser, but warned that he would not support any action that violated the United Nations charter.<ref name="Barry Turner 2006 pp 231-232" /> In his letter of 10 August, Gaitskell wrote: "Lest there should be any doubt in your mind about my personal attitude, let me say that I could not regard an armed attack on Egypt by ourselves and the French as justified by anything which Nasser has done so far or as consistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Nor, in my opinion, would such an attack be justified in order to impose a system of international control over the canal – desirable though this is. If, of course, the whole matter were to be taken to the United Nations and if Egypt were to be condemned by them as aggressors, then, of course, the position would be different. And if further action which amounted to obvious aggression by Egypt were taken by Nasser, then again it would be different. So far what Nasser has done amounts to a threat, a grave threat to us and to others, which certainly cannot be ignored; but it is only a threat, not in my opinion justifying retaliation by war."<ref name="Barry Turner 2006 pp 231-232" />

Gaitskell passionately condemned the eventual Anglo-French military intervention to secure the Suez Canal, supposedly launched to enforce international law and to separate the Egyptian and Israeli combatants; the Israeli attack had in fact been launched in collusion with the British and French to supply a pretext for the invasion.<ref name="Barry Turner 2006 pp 231-232" /> On 31 October he publicly called the invasion "an act of disastrous folly" which threatened the Atlantic Alliance, the United Nations and Commonwealth solidarity.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.289" /> On 4 November 1956 Gaitskell gave a powerful broadcast, attacking the Prime Minister now it was clear Eden had been lying to him in private. Gaitskell was accused by the Conservatives of trying to appeal to the Labour Left, and of betrayal.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.289" /><ref>Turner, ''Suez 1956'', p 232.</ref>

Gaitskell's stance on Suez attracted some Liberal support. The pollster Mark Abrams convinced him of the need to broaden Labour's appeal by picking up anti-colonialist votes, but this would be a development of longer-term importance to the Labour Party. At the time Gaitskell was much-criticised in the press, especially for his ill-judged and unsuccessful plea for Tory dissidents to remove Eden from power.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.290" /> The Conservatives not only attacked Gaitskell as unpatriotic for failing to support British troops in action, but also tried to exploit perceived differences between Gaitskell and Bevan, who had rejoined the Shadow Cabinet earlier in the year and who had now been promoted to Shadow Foreign Secretary. Crossman noted that this forced Bevan to be loyal to Gaitskell (15 December 1956), making the two men allies of a kind.<ref>Campbell 2010, p231-2</ref>

=== Nationalisation and political philosophy ===
Gaitskell was a consensual leader in 1955–59, in contrast to his earlier and later image. Labour was widely expected to win the next general election and in Campbell's view he arguably did not give a clear enough lead or attack the Conservatives aggressively enough.<ref>Campbell 2010, p228-9</ref>

Gaitskell had initially believed nationalisation to be both morally right and economically efficient, and hoped in vain that manager-worker relations would be transformed.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.288" /> But in 1956 he published a Fabian pamphlet ''"Socialism and Nationalisation"'' (actually written three years earlier), arguing that there was no need for greater public ownership, and that his goals were full employment, [[industrial democracy]] and a greater spread of economic power. Gaitskell still supported physical controls and his views were a little to the left of those expressed by [[Anthony Crosland]] in ''"The Future of Socialism"'' (1956).<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.291">Matthew 2004, p.291</ref>

Gaitskell's political philosophy became known as [[Gaitskellism]], and from the late 1950s brought him into increasing conflict with the trade unions over nationalisation.<ref name=quizlet>{{cite web|url=https://quizlet.com/82580255/bevanism-vs-gaitskellites-labour-party-divisions-flash-cards |title='Bevanism' vs 'Gaitskellites' Labour Party Divisions flashcards |publisher=Quizlet |date=1956-07-26 |access-date=2016-03-29}}</ref> Besides repudiating the unquestioned commitment to public ownership of the means of production, now seen as merely one of numerous useful devices, he emphasised the goals of personal liberty, social welfare and above all social equality. Gaitskellism tended to downplay loyalty to the Labour movement as a central ethical goal, and argued that the new goals could be achieved if the government used appropriate fiscal and social policy measures within the context of a market-oriented mixed economy.<ref name="Richard Heffernan 2000 p 301" /> Gaitskell's cadre of supporters included [[Anthony Crosland]], [[Roy Jenkins]], [[Douglas Jay]], [[Patrick Gordon Walker]] and [[James Callaghan]].<ref>Brian Harrison, ''Seeking a Role: The United Kingdom 1951–1970'' (2011) ch 8.</ref>

[[Frank Cousins (British politician)|Frank Cousins]] became General Secretary of the TGWU in 1956, beginning the process whereby the unions began to shift left. The 1957 Conference endorsed the document ''"Industry and Society"'', which called for more flexibility, including state purchase of shares in small private firms. This was loudly condemned by Bevan's wife [[Jennie Lee, Baroness Lee of Asheridge|Jennie Lee]] and by [[Michael Foot]], editor of ''[[Tribune (magazine)|Tribune]]'' but out of Parliament at the time.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.290" />

=== 1959 general election ===
In the summer of 1959 Bevan supported Gaitskell on the NEC against Frank Cousins over unilateralism, which Bevan had opposed at the 1957 Conference, and nuclear tests (24 June 1959). Crossman believed Bevan could have overthrown Gaitskell (17 July 1959) and that both Bevan and Gaitskell thought Wilson an unprincipled careerist (13 August 1959).<ref>Campbell 2010, p236</ref> In the summer of 1959 Hugh and Dora Gaitskell, accompanied by Bevan, went to the [[Soviet Union|USSR]] to copy Macmillan's recent successful trip.<ref>Campbell 2010, p236-7</ref>

At [[Newcastle upon Tyne|Newcastle]], with a general election clearly imminent, Gaitskell pledged that Labour's spending plans would not require him to raise income tax, for which he was attacked by the Tories for supposed irresponsibility.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.290" />

During the 1959 election campaign Crossman thought Gaitskell had become "a television star" with Bevan "a rather faded elder statesman behind him" (22 September 1959).<ref>Campbell 2010, p237</ref> The Labour Party had been widely expected to win the [[1959 United Kingdom general election|1959 general election]], but did not.<ref>David E. Butler and Richard Rose, ''The British General Election of 1959'' (1960)</ref> The Conservatives increased their majority, a fact partly attributable to the post-war prosperity that Britain was now experiencing.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.290" /> Gaitskell was undermined by public doubts about the credibility of proposals to raise pensions and by a highly effective Conservative campaign run by [[Harold Macmillan]] under the slogan "Life is better with the Conservatives, don't let Labour ruin it."<ref name="auto">{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/in_depth/election_battles/1959_over.stm | work=BBC News | title=Election Battles 1945–1997}}</ref> This election defeat led to questions being asked as to whether Labour could ever win a general election again, but Gaitskell remained as leader.<ref name="auto" />

=== Clause IV ===
Following the election defeat, bitter internecine disputes resumed. Gaitskell blamed the Left for the defeat and attempted unsuccessfully to amend Labour's [[Clause IV]]—which its adherents believed committed the party to further [[Nationalization|nationalisation]] of industry, while Gaitskell and his followers believed it had become either superfluous or a political liability.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.291" />

On the Tuesday after the election Gaitskell lunched "bibulously" with Bevan at [[Asheridge]] in the [[Chiltern Hills|Chilterns]] to discuss his plans for party reform. At this time he had no plans to revise Clause IV. He told Crossman (19 October) that Bevan simply wanted to succeed Jim Griffiths as deputy leader and had shown no inclination to resist moderate policies. After initially expressing surprise, Gaitskell accepted Crossman's advice that Bevan be allowed a veto over any change to nationalisation policy.<ref>Campbell 2010, p238</ref>

The November 1959 Conference, postponed because of the election, was already divided by rumours that Gaitskell was planning action over Clause IV. Ignoring advice from his allies, and partly motivated by detailed polling by Mark Abrams which showed that younger voters regarded Labour as old-fashioned, Gaitskell pushed for reform. Brivati writes that Clause IV was irrelevant in practice but Gaitskell had made "a frontal assault on ... a Labour equivalent of the [[Thirty-nine Articles]] of the [[Church of England]]".<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.291" />

Bevan saw Gaitskell's speech in advance and made no objection to it at the time. Gaitskell did not rule out further nationalisation, but saw it as a means to an end, pouring scorn on the idea that Labour should be committed to nationalising "the whole of light industry, the whole of agriculture, all the shops, every little pub and garage". Bevan now claimed he had "misunderstood or misheard" what Gaitskell planned and was reported to be "absolutely livid" and "wondering whether to blow the whole thing wide open". In the end he made a conciliatory speech, mentioning that Barbara Castle (who had attacked Gaitskell's proposal) and Gaitskell had both quoted his own dictum that Socialism was about controlling the "commanding heights" of the economy. He argued that according to the principles of [[Euclid]] if two things are equal to a third thing they must both be equal to one another, and so there could not be any real difference between Castle and Gaitskell.<ref>Campbell 2010, p238-9</ref>

Benn wrote (28 November 1959): "Nye's speech this afternoon was witty, scintillating, positive, conciliatory – the model of what a Leader should do. He didn't knock Hugh out but he gently elbowed him aside". The cartoonist "[[Victor Weisz|Vicky]]" showed Gaitskell pedalling to [[Blackpool]] on a [[Tandem bicycle|tandem]] with Bevan behind him – then pedalling back again but this time with Bevan in the front saddle (30 November 1959).<ref>Campbell 2010, p239</ref>

There was much talk that Bevan might now seize the party leadership, but it seems unlikely that he had the stomach for this anymore, not least as he had never wanted to be leader solely for its own sake. Gaitskell could no longer afford to quarrel with his deputy, and he enjoyed a position of great influence as keeper of the party's conscience, similar to, but much more powerful than, the position of [[John Prescott]] relative to [[Tony Blair]] forty years later. Moreover, by the end of 1959 Bevan was seriously unwell; he withdrew from the public eye and died in July 1960.<ref>Campbell 2010, p239-40</ref>

In March 1960 the NEC agreed a new statement of Labour's aims as an addition to Clause IV rather than a replacement. Throughout the summer of 1960 union conferences, many of whose rule books had their own equivalent to Clause IV, were hostile to the new proposal, and in the end four of the six largest unions opposed Gaitskell's plans. The new proposal was demoted to a "valuable expression".<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.291" />

=== Unilateral disarmament ===
[[Unilateral disarmament|Unilateral nuclear disarmament]] was increasingly popular amongst union activists and was also debated in several union conferences in the spring and summer of 1960. The great majority of the PLP supported [[NATO]] and multilateral disarmament.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.291" />

Gaitskell took on Frank Cousins and wanted to show that Labour were a party of government, not just of opposition. At the October 1960 [[Scarborough, North Yorkshire|Scarborough]] Conference two resolutions in favour of unilateral disarmament – proposed by the TGWU and the Engineers' Union – were carried, whilst the official policy document on defence was rejected. Gaitskell roused his supporters by promising to "Fight and Fight and Fight Again" to reverse the decision. Labour doctrine was that the Parliamentary Party had discretion over the timing of implementation of conference policy. In practice, in the 1940s and '50s, the unions, whose block votes dominated conference, had been broadly supportive of the PLP, but this was now beginning to change.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.292">Matthew 2004, p.292</ref> Gaitskell was challenged unsuccessfully for the leadership by [[Harold Wilson]] [[1960 Labour Party leadership election|in November 1960]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/harold-wilson-2/ |title=Harold Wilson |website=number10.gov.uk |access-date=2011-07-31 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111011161640/http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/harold-wilson-2/ |archive-date=11 October 2011 |df=dmy-all }}</ref>

The [[Blackpool]] Conference of October 1961 saw a narrow conference vote in favour of ''multi''lateral disarmament.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.292" /> Winning the unilateralism vote in 1961 restored Gaitskell's authority in the party and his reputation in the country.<ref name="Campbell 2010, p241">Campbell 2010, p241</ref> Unilateral nuclear disarmament remained a divisive issue, and many on the Left continued to call for a change of leadership. Gaitskell was again challenged unsuccessfully for the Labour leadership [[1961 Labour Party leadership election|in November 1961]], this time by [[Tony Greenwood, Baron Greenwood of Rossendale|Anthony Greenwood]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/10/16/where-have-all-the-scots-gone-and-are-they-coming-back-asks-kevin-meagher/|title=Where have all the Scots gone, and are they coming back, asks Kevin Meagher? " Labour Uncut|work=labour-uncut.co.uk|access-date=13 April 2016}}</ref>

The [[Campaign for Democratic Socialism]] was founded to promote the Gaitskellite cause – it never acquired much influence in the ranks of the trades unions, but achieved some success in promoting the selection of friendly Parliamentary candidates.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.292" /> Many of the younger CDS members would later be among the founding members of the [[Social Democratic Party (UK)|breakaway Social Democratic Party (SDP)]] in 1981.<ref name="Charlton">{{Cite book  | last1 = Charlton | first1 = Michael | author-link = Michael Charlton (journalist) | title = The Price of Victory | year = 1983 | publisher = [[BBC]] | location = London  | isbn = 0-563-20055-3 | page = 274 }}</ref>

[[Richard Hamilton (artist)|Richard Hamilton]] with his wife, Terry Hamilton, both supporters of [[Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament]], collaborated to produce ''Portrait of Hugh Gaitskell as a Famous Monster of Filmland'', 1964, with Richard completing the piece in 1964 after Terry's death in 1962. [[Arts Council England]] bought the piece for the national collection, which caused controversy. The painting was considered a tasteless attack. Hamilton stated in his posthumously published autobiography (written in the third person):

{{blockquote|When it was completed he was unhappy about the result. The painting did not have the aggression he had intended or the stylistic polarity he had aimed at. It was perhaps too smart-alecky, too clever: sarcasm was not the right tool for a subject that affected all humanity.<ref>Richard Hamilton, Philip Spectre, Introspective, 2019, (Köln:Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther König), p. 164</ref>}}

=== EEC entry ===
[[File:Hugh Todd Naylor Gaitskell.jpg|thumb|upright|Gaitskell in 1961]]
Gaitskell alienated some of his supporters by his opposition to British membership of the [[European Economic Community]], which Conservative Prime Minister [[Harold Macmillan|Macmillan]] had been seeking since July 1961. Although not entirely opposed in principle to British entry, he believed that the EEC was resistant to reform and that membership would hurt Britain's relations with the Commonwealth.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.292" /><ref>Williams 1985, pp.702-749</ref><ref>Roy Jenkins, ''A Life at the Center '' (1991) pp 136 – 45.</ref>

Gaitskell was particularly fearful that British membership would undermine ties with the Commonwealth. He was worried that the close-knit economic and political ties with Commonwealth nations would have to be dismantled, and replaced by the protectionist Common External Tariff and Common Agricultural Policy in the European Community. 

In a speech to the party conference in October 1962, Gaitskell argued that if the aim was for Britain to participate in a [[Federalisation of the European Union|Federal Europe]], this would mean "the end of Britain as an independent European state, the end of a thousand years of history!" He added: "You may say, all right! Let it end! But, my goodness, it's a decision that needs a little care and thought."<ref name="Charlton" />

In the speech Gaitskell summoned up the memory of [[Battle of Vimy Ridge|Vimy Ridge]] and [[Gallipoli campaign|Gallipoli]], where [[Canadian Corps|Canadian]] and [[Australian and New Zealand Army Corps|ANZAC]] troops had fought alongside British, mixing his defence of national identity with the tradition of the Commonwealth. The speech dismayed many of Gaitskell's natural supporters but was applauded by many on the Left, causing his wife Dora to observe "all the wrong people are cheering".<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.292" />