Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
A Labour lesson in winning from Harold Wilson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2022
- Harold Wilson won a landslide in a snap election in 1966, before being thrown out of office by the electorate in 1970. But he staged a comeback, winning two elections, in February 1974 and then again in October that year.
No wonder a new book about Harold Wilson is called The Winner.
And its author, Labour MP and shadow international trade secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds joined us to discuss.
---
Times Radio brings you the latest breaking news, expert analysis and well-informed discussion on the biggest stories of the day.
📻 Listen now - www.thetimes.co.uk/radio
Follow Times Radio on social:
🔵 Facebook
/ thetimesradio
🔵 Twitter
/ timesradio
🔵 Instagram
/ timesradio
Subscribe here: / @listentotimesradio
Wilson a great Labour leader and PM that gave space to his colleauges and private members bills for great social and legal reforms. Wilson kept us out of Vietnam. What a human being and will remembered as a great along with Atlee
Absolutely correct
British troops served in Vietnam.
His social reforms were a disaster.
@MarkHarrison733 your comment says a lot about you and all of it negative. Clearly a right wing fundamentalist who would be happy in a regime similar to that operated by the mad mullahs in Iran or the bearded men in Afghanistan. Your day is over. Go away.
@@roscomeon3965 British troops served in the Vietnam War, and Wilson's vile social "reforms" destroyed the UK.
Was sad to see Harold had not enough money to look after himself in the period of his retirement and illness .
Dunno why this whole revelation of him having an affair is coming out now the mans been dead for nearly 30 years
Why does the presenter keep sounding like he's calling Wilson," Howard"?
Clueless nepo journalist who probably only got the job because of daddy probably
Wilson carried out genocide in the Biafran War at the behest of the USSR.
I never knew this as my relatives was affected by this and my late dad's side of the family was destroyed by the war. This happened years before I was born in 1975....
Harold Wilson became PM in 1964
Only due to Scotland.
@@MarkHarrison733 Scotland is part of the UK and still is
@@huwdavies6153 Nope.
@@huwdavies6153 Not since Labour's one-sided devolution broke up the UK, and caused Brexit.
HP Sauce....Wilsons gravey
Remember Thorpe 😮
Wilson's record is a complex one. Uniquely, he seems to have united both wings of the Labour Party in condemnation of his record.
Tony Benn from the left despised him and said "Harold Wilson could do the job of PM standing on his head. And in fairness, he often did."
Denis Healey from the right said Wilson lacked a sense of direction, padded his cabinets with yes men and women to maintain control of it, and suffered from a delusional "Walter Mitty" factor which made his colleagues doubt his judgement.
It all was done in an attempt to keep the crumbling Labour Party together. Shirley Williams encapsulated it by saying she rated Wilson's party management skills near the top but that set limits on what he could achieve as PM because he put party unity even above the national interest.
Roy Jenkins said that Wilson had "many dreams of empire" that affected his judgement and that the "dragon's teeth" that destroyed the Labour party in the 80s were sewn during the Wilson era.
Apart from his catastrophic attitudes to party unity, it could be said of him that he was typical of someone born in his era when the Empire was still intact. He struggled to comprehend the scale of Britain's post war decline - like most people in that era. Healey said that the Wilson government, like all other post war governments had failed to grasp the huge adjustments that would need to be made in post empire Britain.
What was his legacy? Well, in his first term, the economy drifted from one sterling crises to another, in his second term inflation exploded and reached 25-30 % in '75. Industrial relations worsened during his tenure culminating in 68-69, and he completely failed to curb union power as laid out in "In Place of Strife". He tried desperately to solve the problem with South Rhodesia, but failed. He even tried to broker a peace in Vietnam but failed at that also. It was also during his first term that violence in Northern Ireland started to escalate. The "National Plan" was abandoned in favor of deflation to keep the pound afloat. The fundamental problem in the British economy (inefficient state-owned industries) was never tackled. Rather big failing state industries were just merged into huge conglomerates (like British Leyland). And finally he allowed his cabinet to be riddled with factions and mistrust, which shows that his leadership qualities were questionable.
Wilson did not win in February 1974.
He ended up PM and the highest number of MPs, so yes, he did win.
@@th8257 He lost, which is why there had to be a second GE that year.
@@th8257 Only after Heath's talks with the Liberals had broken down.
The same Tony Benn Harold interviewed on his failing chat show when he embarrassingly suggested he thought Benn ‘immatured with age’ when he was himself clearly confused and beginning to show signs of dementia.
Is that on RUclips?
@@Da1Dez I haven't found the interview but the statement about Benn is confirmed in 'Harold Wilson Night part 3' here. ruclips.net/video/syksAKpeOFc/видео.html around 1:17:40
Dennis Skinner confirmed Wilson knew he had dementia by 1975.
He was joking. Get it. He had a massive brain unlike people who can't understand a super mind and when he was joking.
@@roscomeon3965 I know. It was a good joke but I bet Benn saw it , probably correctly, as patronising and a put down. Those shows stopped because in them you could plainly see Harold was suffering the onset of dementia.
Wilson only really won in 1966. He only got in because of Scotland in 1964 and October 1974.
Stick to the political facts not Tory fairy stories
@@willhovell9019 He only won one GE out of five.
Scotland is part of the UK and still is
@@huwdavies6153 No.
And? What’s your problem with Scotland?
Wilson only really won one GE out of five.
Everyone else can count four, if you become PM with 4 seats or 96 majority, you won.
@@grahambuckerfield4640 He only won due to Scotland in 1964. He lost in 1970, lost in February 1974, and only won due to Scotland in October 1974.
Scotland was and currently is a part of the UK and the Tories had the advantage of Northern Ireland in 1964 and 1970 until Heath lost the UUP. You play by the rules of the game and Wilson won the most seats (A.K.A won) 4 of 5 elections by those rules.
Also I'm pretty Churchill and the Tories would have lost the 1951 election if Scotland wasn't included which likely would have lead to more Labour dominated politics in the 50s and 60s which makes your argument seem even dimmer.
Anyway Wilson = Successful PM while Heath isn't even well regarded among Conservatives.
It is what it is.
@@Pipwit27 Wilson lost in February 1974. He was a complete failure at everything.
Heath is hated by Conservatives because he was a Europhile.
@@Pipwit27 Wilson only won in 1966.
Churchill lost in 1951.
Wilson abused children, enabled genocide, and sent troops to Vietnam and Northern Ireland.
He did not win in February 1974, and he only won because of Scotland in October 1974 - just like in 1964.
The worst PM of the last century? Keep it up, listening to you hacks keeps me honest.
Well he was right to bringing you into the EU but you guys like ruining your country 😂😂 I guess that’s where Americans get it from. We also like ruining great things
@@ccutehoney We joined the EU under Major.
The Labour Party is horrible. Their leadership ca articulate opposite to Conservative gaffes and BS. But you cannot give them a majority because they have bad economic policies and scary foreign polices.
The Liberals at least offer a viable leadership alternative to the Conservatives. The fact they have to make deals with Labour and the Greens often makes good policies extreme and actually bad.
This is partly the Parliamentary system of the UK. However, the UK has to really explore these foundation issue as:
1-Is the House of Lords viable, or should it be a representative Senate offering specific areas of the UK political expression?
2-After Queen Elizabeth II passes, will succession be altered? If not, should the Monarchy by greatly reduced in number and non-taxable property?
3-How will the UK operate after Brexit and is there a path back to the EU with potential reforms suggested by Germany?
4-Is the Commonwealth viable?
5-What do we want 2050 UK to look like?
I want a Local Social Democracy
One were local people rule and one were parliament asess in joining the people and allows us to grow
Harold wilson understood this perfectly as he kept the Yorkshire accent and wore Tweed Jackets and smoked the pipe an man who know his power
He bring something to our generation's take for granted Harlod Willson is my personal hero
@@sglenny001 Explain your concept of a local democracy and how it roles up into a larger country?
@@stephensipe5405 a local democracy focus on having a very murch federation and allows there to be money that got via tax. A system that allows growth will be the system that has Nationalise inthucture and has local businesses grow. I would rather a local bakery in my Town. An anlow an open market to grow just as a local market grows. Local Schools learn local history and National History. The thig will have pretty much every legalise along as it can be tax. an integrated public transport system form buses to tram to train. A national government will still be in power but would be the decision makers on were to spend The National Annual Budget. Private companies can invest in to local areas but up to local people what they want. MPs will only have vist Parliament once an month to see the PM on National events. MPs will meet with there Countcy every wendsday to Friday the last Saturday of every month will be a National day of every month become an day of for workers. The country will only Centreslize in advent of War or Emredcy.
@@sglenny001 You vision will not happen as you see it. Local control is good for certain local issues. However, villages/townships, towns, and cities all have different funding streams. Counties have other funding streams. National governments have still further funding streams. In the UK health coverage is by NHS. Not all government levels can fund NHS. Your concept of devolution is therefore hopelessly flawed unless you work through many critical pieces of social organization.
The UK has sub-populations which are distinct yet also interrelated. Could the UK devolve into a federal-state structure like the US or Australia? This is a possibility.
My suggestion was for the House Of Lords to be removed completely from politics. It should be a club of significant contributors to the UKs success. They would be knighted by the Monarch as an honor. They could meet annually for social interaction and to add a member(s). They would have no political role.
In place of the House Of Lords would be the UK Senate. The Senate would represent regional areas of the UK which would be politically organized as States. The States I envision are: Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Cornwall South England, North England, England, and London. Each State would have 5 Representatives 3 elected directly by the people of that state, 1 appointed by the Governor and 1 appointed by the Legislature. The Senators have to approve all laws passed by Parliament and confirm all appointments by the PM. The Senate controls no revenue but can ask questions.
My concept as actual organization compared to your plan. It does not mandate nationalization not prevent chain stores or an Amazon. It sets up a framework for more State control and less Federal control. However, I did not specify particular State rights which only Parliament can initially determine.
@@stephensipe5405 I actually like your ideas
Wilson only really won one GE out of five.
Lies
@@roscomeon3965 In 1966.