Editing Hugh Gaitskell (section)

=== Assessments ===
Gaitskell's socialism was, in Campbell's view, that of a public servant wanting to see the world more rationally governed.<ref name="Campbell 2010, p198" /> Gaitskell very likely might have become Prime Minister had he lived; however, he left no lasting monument other than "the fading memory of promise unfulfilled". Gaitskell, although no Marxist, was a sincere socialist but nonetheless was in some respects the first "moderniser" who saw how Labour would have to adapt to survive.<ref>Campbell 2010, p242-3</ref>

His longtime close friend [[Roy Jenkins]] concluded a decade afterwards, in an article which he later quoted in his memoirs:
:All his struggles illustrated some blemishes as well as exceptional strength. He would not have been a perfect prime minister. He was stubborn, rash, and could in a paradoxical way become too emotionally committed to an over-rational position which, once he had thought it rigorously through, he believed must be the final answer. He was only a moderately good judge of people. But when these faults are put in the scales and weighed against his qualities they shrivel away. He had purpose and direction, courage and humanity. He was a man for raising the sights of politics. He clashed on great issues. He avoided the petty bitterness of personal jealousy. You could raise a banner which men were proud to follow, but he never perverted his leadership ability; it was infused by sense and humour, and by a desire to change the world, not for his own satisfaction, but so that people might more enjoy living in it.... He was that very rare phenomenon, a great politician who was also an unusually agreeable man.<ref>Roy Jenkins, ''A Life at the Center '' (1991) pp 141-42</ref>

Because he never became prime minister, and because of the great capacity many considered that he had for the post, Hugh Gaitskell is remembered largely with respect from people both within and outside of the Labour Party. Gaitskell is regarded by some as "the best Prime Minister we never had".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/public-affairs/press-releases/index.phtml?menu=pressreleasesarchive&code=CAB-175/04&create_date=06-dec-2004|title=Press releases|work=nottingham.ac.uk|access-date=13 April 2016}}</ref>

Brivati acknowledged that he had "an almost reckless honesty and courage"<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.293" /> which could turn into stubbornness.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.288" /> "His leadership was a heroic failure" and "The defining moment of the post-war history of the Labour Party".<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.293" /> Although by 1963 Gaitskell appeared to be on the verge of leading Labour back into power, it still took what Brivati describes as "the greatest performance by a leader of the opposition [last] century" for [[Harold Wilson]] to lead Labour back by a narrow majority.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.292" />

Brivati writes that for Gaitskell "socialism was not an end state ... but the reform of institutions and practices for the more effective realisation of preferred values". Evan Durbin's ''Politics of Democratic Socialism'' (1940) was a seminal text.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.291" /> Gaitskell was not, in Brivati's view, a "progressive" in any modern sense. He favoured equality and thought the free market wasteful. He wanted to incorporate Liberal opinion within the Labour vote. However, the modernising leaders of subsequent generations, [[Neil Kinnock]] and [[Tony Blair]], were to a certain extent continuing Gaitskell's tradition.<ref name="Matthew 2004, p.293" />