Editing Hugh Gaitskell (section)

=== 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" />