Talk:Harold Wilson

Please explain his titles (here)!

The piece on Wilson and his titles has no doubt been worked on by someone who understands the arcane operation of UK forms of address far better than I do. Still, I'd like to know why -- according to this account -- it only became appropriate to address him with PC (Privy Council) after his name at the time he received his peerage. UK politicians are typically "sworn of the Privy Council" at the time they enter the Cabinet. Help, please, Miss Manners! Nandt1 (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In very quick terms, barons, viscounts and earls are automatically Right Honourable, so if they are also members of the Privy Council they are giving a suffix of PC to distinguish them from barons, viscounts and earls who are not members of the Privy Council. And incidentally, it is not strictly true about being sworn when they enter cabinet, there are a number of exceptions Whitstable 02:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Partial reversion on introductory treatment of Wilson's approach to socialism

Another user recently made changes to the introductory section on Wilson's brand of socialism. I accept that some of these changes were a marked improvement, as they removed an earlier speculative section ("suggesting" Wilson's attitude to traditional left wing approaches). This change is to be applauded. However, I propose that the additional changes -- which almost entirely focused attention on the "social reform" area of the Wilson governments' record, at the expense of his goals on opportunity, technology and growth -- create a confusion and imbalance between what Wilson himself set out to do and what a certain part of his administration (the Home Office largely under Jenkins) undertook. If one reads Wilson's own speeches, e.g., from the 1964 campaign, his own area of focus seems clear. I recognize that the same reader has asked for citation(s) to back up the article's claim that Wilson personally had little interest in the Jenkins agenda. While I think this is well known, I accept the challenge, and will just need a little more time to find suitable quotes to support this point. Nandt1 (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The citation requested has now been supplied. Nandt1 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Giving a little more thought to how to deal with the issues raised, I am now proposing a new reference to the social legislation in the introduction, but separated from the discussion on Wilson's approach to socialism. The larger significance of the "socialism" discussion, that we should try not to lose here, is that attitudes to public ownership have represented a central fissure within the Labour Party almost ever since the Attlee government lost office. Thus Gaitskell tried but failed to change Clause Four of the constitution, opposed by Bevan; much later Foot re-emphasized the left's traditional values; more recently, Blair actually changed the Party's constitution. Where does Wilson fit into this story? This article argues that he basically fudged the issue -- neither changing the letter of the constitution, nor doing very much to put it into practise. Nandt1 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In this context is the response of Attlee, who was presented with a shopping list of demands by Harold Laski (Labour Party Chairman), when Labour had won the 1945 election - supposedly he said words to the effect of "a period of silence from you would be appreciated" (Attlee was one of the politicians noted for taciturnity). Many of the Labour Party "socialists" felt that, notwithstanding the policy of public ownership and the setting up of the NHS, the Attlee government did not do as much as it could have done to advance the "socialist" agenda. Guy (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but why the scare quotes around the word socialism?? I understand that scare quotes denote so-called? This brings up the confusing idea that wikipedia editors consider socialism "so called" without any explanation as to why. Besides this is a colloquial usage and strikes me, at least, as excessively informal for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to make things as clear as possible for the ordinary reader. Does wikipedia have a policy on this? Wouldn't it be better to write, as in comments above, socialism (i.e., public ownership), or controversies over public ownership and its extent, which I gather is what is really meant. Mballen (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab at re-writing the paragraph in question, replacing "traditional" with "controversial" -- though the idea that it was traditional is still in there, I hope, since immediately afterward it says that it was in the platform. I wanted to suggest that it was contentious, if longstanding. Am not trying to add new content, just hopefully bringing the meaning that is already there. Also added internal reference to Social Democrat (didn't realize there was a distinction between Social Democrat and Democratic Socialist. Live and learn.) Mballen (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Section on "Reputation": Cuts and Weasel Word Label

The section on Wilson's reputation -- which has survived for some time -- attempts to provide a balanced account of the competing views, and to place his administration into the historical context of the intellectual climate of its time. Another user has now made heavy cuts to the section, accusing it of "polemic" and "weasel words" but without supplying any specifics in this discussion section. I have attempted to revert the text selectively, making changes where it seemed that the earlier language might touch a nerve. I would, at this stage, make a request for a collegial approach which seeks to preserve discussion that embodies serious intellectual content, while being ready to collaborate and compromise over any specific language that might be thought by some to fall short of balance. Nandt1 (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Near parallel dates with Edward Heath

• Wilson b.11 March 1916-d.24 May 1995
• Heath b.9 July 1916-d.17 July 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.139 (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the lead paragraph:

He emerged as Prime Minister after more general elections than any other 20th century premier.

I have no idea what that means. Is it a mistake, or am I missing something? Loganberry (Talk) 15:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's trying to say that he "won" four general elections whilst acknowledging that for one of them it's a little tricky to allocate a winner and follow his claim to have "become Prime Minister four times, the only person since Gladstone", on the dubious basis of counting a re-election as a becoming separately (and ignoring Baldwin who fits on this logic). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam

Mr Wilsons' position on Vietnam was made in his statement that; 'Britain would continue to suppot the United States in principle so long as we remain convinced, and we are convinced, that the Americans are serious in their negotiations for peace'.Johnwrd (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Basics

This article continues to have extensive unsourced material, including direct quotations and statements of opinion, more than 18 months after someone flagged it. Clearly, the author is not going to fix it, so the material should be removed. Wikipedia's flagging is an empty threat.76.23.157.102 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilson's first budget

Good or bad? Please include details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.83.27 (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know any! You sound like your are researching this project, after you have, could you add what you have found to the article? (make sure they are referenced in the article too, that is a big help) Thanks! ^_^ Captain n00dle ^T/_C 14:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Place naming policy

There is a very clear policy on UK place names at WP:UKPLACE It states:

• In England, disambiguated place names should go under placename, ceremonial county. Where this is inappropriate placename, Town/City
• In Wales, disambiguated place names should go under placename, principal area. Thus Queensferry, Flintshire, not Queensferry, Wales
• Where possible, articles on places in Scotland should go under placename. Thus Glasgow, not Glasgow, Scotland. Where the settlement is significant and disambiguation is needed, articles should generally go under placename, Scotland. Thus Perth, Scotland, not Perth, Perth and Kinross.

I was made aware of this towards the end of a debate on one page and it seemed to me to settle the issue so I tidied up the modern UK Prime Ministers to conform with it. I'm nor really surprised that Irvine22 went on a revert spree, he has a pattern of disruptive editing (see here and a recording of picking up a minor theme and running it over many pages (for example labeling any Irishperson born in England as English, even a Provisional IRA commander). More recently he has move this campaign to the Welsh from the Irish including edit warring on my own article on Wikipedia. His pattern of editing is to push to the limits of tolerance with the community, then back off with either an enforced or a voluntary withdrawal from editing for a period before he returns to start all over again.

I will also post a notice at the talk page of WP:UKPLACE but pending a change of policy agreed by the community at that location Irvine22's recent edits should be reverted. --Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Loss of 1955 Finance Bill

I've been reviewing Hansard for 1955, and I don't actually see the loss of the 1955 finance bill. What seemed to happen is that Wilson successfully brought to a close one late-night sitting of the Committee of the Whole House in a ways that suspended any further progress on the bill; such suspension was ended two days later by a motion of Parliament. The 1955 Finance Bill seems to have successfully completed Third Reading in late December 1955.Etrigan (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of comment here and uncited nature of the original statement, I'm about to amend the article to clarify. Etrigan (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issue -- recently added material on domestic achievements of 1964-70 government

A substantial amount of new material has recently been added to this article. It was originally inserted into the section on social issues, but it dealt with a wide range of policy areas going well beyond what is normally defined as social issues (e.g., transportation, etc.). I have therefore moved this new material into a newly created section on "domestic policy accomplishments." My larger concern is that this section has been drafted in what seems to me not to be a "neutral" way, as required by Wikipedia policy, but more as an advocacy piece for the Wilson administration. Do others see the issue that I see here? Nandt1 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Further exacerbation of POV issue with this article

The POV section highlighted above has recently been further expanded. We have here one specific user "on a mission" to extoll the achievements of the first Wilson administrations (the same user has a record of inserting similarly POV material into a number of other Wikipedia articles on left-of-center governments in various countries). My own view is that the section on "Domestic Policy Achievements" has by now developed into a lengthy personal essay that bears no resemblance to Wikipedia's institutional standards of neutral point of view, and that clashes with the attempted neutrality of other users in the rest of the article. There is a case to be made for deleting all of this material. Is anyone else reading this article nowadays? Nandt1 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[N.B., The following exchange was moved from the section below to this section, to which it refers.] Nandt1 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Which material in the section strikes you as POV? I'm not seeing anything too glaring, though the section in question seems unduly long and could probably be edited down. Salmanazar (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The section I find unbalanced is (as explained in the section above) not in fact the section on Conspiracy Theories, but the section on Domestic Policy Accomplishments, which seems to me written more in the manner of a Labour Party manifesto than of an encyclopedia. It is all exuberantly boosterish, with no attempt at balance in the way of reflecting any possible criticism of the government's record. Give it a read and ask yourself if you could imagine Britannica printing this. Nandt1 (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Domestic Policy Accomplishments" is the section I was referring to in my reply above. It seems a more or less factual list on the whole. Though I agree a section on criticism of the government would be a desirable counterbalance. Salmanazar (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I guess we see it differently. Let's see if others have views. Nandt1 (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC) To avoid confusion, I am moving this text to the previous section where it seems to me to belong: hope this is acceptable. Nandt1 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC) --

Excision of section on Conspiracy theories

The original section of this article summarising discussion on conspiracy theories was recently removed in toto (possibly to make way for the new material discussed above) and pasted into the more detailed article on Harold Wilson conspiracy theories. I have raised on the discussion page for the conspiracy theories page the problem raised for that article by the fact that the material was just pasted in, without integrating it into the existing article (hence all sorts of repetition).

Here I want to ask other users for their views on whether the loss to the present article is such that consideration should be given to reverting the cut? Nandt1 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: The new and inexperienced user who deleted this section has responded to my message to his/her discussion page: "I apologise for deleting the information on Harold Wilson conspiracy theories: I only intended to shorten the section on Harold Wilson, but it was not my intention to cause any mess." I have therefore reverted this cut, leaving the section as it was prior to the changes.Nandt1 (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bugging

During a TV interview Denis Healey, who knew Harold wilson well, stated that towards the end of his last term in office Wilson was so paranoid that he was dismantling the light fittings beleieving that they contained bugs.

After her term as head of MI5, Mrs Stella Rimmington gave a televised TV speech in which she denied that any such plot had ever existed.

Does anybody know if Altzheimers Disease causes increasing paranoia? AT Kunene (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wilson and Vietnam

I was serving with the British Armed Forces and sailing for Singapore when the ship was swept by rumours that the the then PM, Harold Wilson was under pressure from President Kennedy to divert the ship to give support in Vietnam.

Just how much differennce this would have made is uncertain but the Australians started landing in Vietnam at about the same time.

Does anybody have any further information?AT Kunene (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I doubt if Britain could have given much significant assistance to the United States in Vietnam anyway, as until at least the end of 1966 two thirds of the RN and much of the RAF and British Army and RM were committed to containing Indonesia, in the confontation struggle to protect Malaysian integrity, and contain Indonesian ambitions and its communist factions.The confrontation was in many respects a hot war, with British and Australian marines crossing the Indonesian border to hit at infiltration units and operating probably close to the doctrine and targeting of Wingate and US special forces. The use of the NZ Army/SAS was more restricted, officially from crossing the border on specific orders and monitoring by NZ CDS Rear Admiral Phipps. The confrontation and Indonesian threat was in the eyes of JFK., RFK and MacMillan, greater than that of North Vietnam and had a sig risk of nuclear escalation. Britain obviously had other priortity commitments to NATO and West Germany. The more sophisticated UK forces were not well suited to assist the Americans and Australians in Vietnam as the RN used significantly different ammunition and missiles which was also partly true of the RAF which aircraft and the RNs fighters used their own medium range red top missiles. Britain no longer had the gun cruisers suitable for the main naval task of GFS off Vietnam as Belfast was too old and the Tiger class guns were not suited for the sustained fire multiple target approach of hitting saying 18 targets in ten minutes with 400-800 rounds of the USS Newport News. The Tigers guns are for high fire rates in 10-30 seconds against soviet anti ship missiles and always jammed or needed maintance if a full rpm.

Wilson and Vietnam (correction)

In my haste I accidentally deleted a couple of lines. This should now read.

At the Nassau conference the then Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was offered Polaris instead of Skybolt by Kennedy. There was also some newspaper speculation that part of the agreement was that the UK would play some part in the then developing Vietnam conflict. Nothing seems to have come of this though.

I was later serving with the British Armed Forces and sailing for Singapore when the ship was swept by rumours that the then PM, Harold Wilson was under pressure from "The President" to divert the ship to give support in Vietnam. This must have been Johnson.

Just how much difference this would have made is uncertain but the Australians started landing in Vietnam at about the same time.

Does anybody have any further information?AT Kunene (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a read of this article. And also this Google Books link. Salmanazar (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wilson and Johnson

Thanks Salmanazar. Forty years later it seems that there was some truth to the ship board rumour. I now wonder who it was leaked the information on board in the first place.AT Kunene (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Elections

Wilson won three elections (1964, 1966 and October 1974). The February 1974 election resulted in a hung parliament. (92.10.142.53 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

The unavoidable fact is that he emerged as PM after four of the five elections he contested, including Feb 1974. Many people would count this as winning. But I have rephrased the sentence in question to make the point more precisely. Nandt1 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If Heath's talks with the Liberals hadn't broken down then he would have remained Prime Minister and Wilson would have resigned. (92.10.137.57 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC))

If. Nandt1 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We hear over and over again that no party won the 2010 General Election. Wilson did not win the Fenruary 1974 election by any means. (92.7.28.205 (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

We hear different things about 2010 depending on who is speaking and which axe they have to grind. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything, Heath won the February 1974 election but not with the necessary majority. (92.7.26.128 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC))

FRS or FRSS?

An innocent question, to which I do not claim to know the answer. We currently list Wilson as FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society). Is this correct? Or should it be FRSS (Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society)? He was certainly active in the Royal Statistical Society (President at one stage, I believe I recall). The Royal Society is primarily composed of scientists; was he definitely a Fellow there as well? Nandt1 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wilson was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on 12 June 1968. Salmanazar (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, that is progress. Thank you.

Now, beyond that question, he is at this stage listed in the Box (but not the text) as also FSS. Which I assume is Fellow of the Statistical Society. Except that it is, I believe, the Royal Statistical Society? So two issues:(a) Is it FRSS rather than FSS? (b) once we've sorted the title out, the Box and the text should be made compatible. Nandt1 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, FSS rather than FRSS is correct, despite the Society's name (see Royal Statistical Society#Royal charter) Salmanazar (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my recent changes

Recently, I added a lot more information on various initiatives carried out by Harold Wilson's government. I hope that people find it interesting, and perhaps useful for research purposes. Also, Nandt1, I was just wondering where I repeated myself? By the way, I hope that you liked the additions I made, and other people too. Zictor23 23 July 2011

Zictor23. Since you specifically asked me by name for my views, I will share them candidly. Obviously you have worked hard, and in some places genuine gaps have been filled. This said, as you and I have discussed before, my own view is that your contributions on Wilson (and, in parallel, on other articles related to left-wing governments around the world) take a one-sided position, and read more like a "brief" for the Labour government in question than the balanced NPOV approach that Wikipedia seeks to achieve: you and I have been here before and I do not expect to persuade you on this point or to change your self-proclaimed mission of "add[ing] information regarding reforms by Harold Wilson's governments so that people could see what was achieved by the Labour Party in office....".

Beyond this, I would have to say that the degree of detail you have recently been adding on the minutiae of legislation, changes in benefit levels, etc., seems to me to go beyond what is normal in articles of this kind. If you would like to look at other Wikipedia articles on major political figures (not including those you have edited), I believe you will see that they do not seek to compile a list of every single piece of legislation passed and the like. There is a very real risk of missing the forest for the trees. I have recently begun to do a little consolidation on this article, though less than I believe it really needs. The changes I have made so far speak for themselves, but as an example, we had two separate discussions of the First Wilson government's record on distribution in two different sections of the article, both I believe largely or entirely your work (one was labeled as a discussion of the government's legacy, but it dealt almost exclusively with distributional issues, which hardly constitutes a balanced discussion of a government's overall legacy). Again, I don't expect you to agree, but you did ask me explicitly for my feedback so here it is..... Nandt1 (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The degree of detail is unusual (and refreshing), perhaps it could be moved to a "Premiership of Harold Wilson" page, whilst this article focuses on his biography? It would be a shame to delete this information from Wikipedia as much of it is useful.--Britannicus (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful feedback Nandt1, and for the kind compliment Brtannicus. I hope that people do find the information I've added useful. Perhaps it amy not be such a bad idea, Britannicus, if the reforms I've added (which I found in books written by authors who both liked and disliked Wilson: I've drawn from a wide range of sources from peope who have differing views on the record of the First Wilson Govt.) get transferred to a new page like you suggested.Zictor23 24 July 2011

Clearly any biographical article on Wilson needs to provide reasonably full coverage of the main issues raised by his premiership, so that any cutting of the present piece would need to be done very judiciously. Rather than trying for a single overall article on his premiership (or his government), it might make better sense, I would suggest, if Zictor23 and others like Britannicus want to preserve a level of detail on some selected aspects that seems to me inappropriate in the context of the present article, to consider preparing a more focused piece in the areas where Zictor23 has mainly focused his attention. How about a free-standing article on the social policies of the Wilson 1964-70 administration, which seem to be the main area of Zictor23's work? This could provide a lot of detail on changes in the design and level of social transfers, as well as the evidence on their impact on distribution. The main article on Harold Wilson could then incorporate a summary and cross-refer to the detailed piece. Nandt1 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems unnecessarily convoluted. There is a precedent for having articles on premierships that deal with government policies that do not belong in biographical articles of the premiers concerned (Gladstone, Disraeli, Thatcher, Blair, etc.). It would surely make more sense in light of this to incorporate what you consider excessive detail into the article on Wilson's premiership (which for our purposes means the same as his government).--Britannicus (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your suggestions Nandt1. I forgot to mention earlier that while there are a number of other social reforms carried out by Wilson that I would like to add at some point, I was also thinking of including a section to do with the First Wilson Government’s fall from power, together with various policy failures that arguably contributed to its 1970 election defeat. One of these (as you mentioned earlier) was the First Wilson Govt.’s failure to build 500,000 houses per year, but others that I will mention include:

(1.) Its failure to introduce a compulsory superannuation scheme, which would have provided British pensioners with an income closer to what they enjoyed during the best years of their working life, when their earnings were at their highest (I think that many, if not most, pensioners on the Continent already enjoy this level of provision). According to one historian, this would have been Wilson’s largest reform of social security, had it been carried out. (2.) Its failure to significantly increase development aid, which was actually cut severely as a result of austerity measures. (3.) Its failure to introduce a “minimum income guarantee” for widows and pensioners. (4.) Its failure to boost economic growth to 4% a year. (5.) Its failure to tie increases in national insurance benefits to increases in avearge earnings (this reform, however, was eventually introduced in 1975, but abolished in either 1979 or 1980: I can't remember which year). Zictor23 24 July 2011

Referring back to the comment by Britannicus, I can only say that I disagree. To be candid, what has brought us to our present dilemma is a single contributor, Zictor23, whose highly energetic writings primarily on a specific aspect of Wilson's administrations, namely social services and transfers, have in my humble opinion thrown off the balance of what, overall, used to be a reasonably well-balanced article. Zictor23 has not, by and large, entered into other aspects of the Wilson administrations at any great length -- e.g., foreign and defence policy, macro-economic policy, etc. If, as I would argue, what is now unbalanced is the excessively detailed coverage of social policies, the logical response is to spin off Zictor23's enthusiastically detailed work in these areas into a self-contained article, rather than to butcher the main article on Wilson, his career and his administrations. Nandt1 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Zictor23. If one wanted to write an evidence-based discussion of why Wilson lost the 1970 election, it would seem to me one would want to start by examining in some depth the contemporary evidence from polls of what voters told pollsters was uppermost among their concerns, and why they voted the way they did. Without sticking to the evidence in this way, I am afraid that an election post mortem risks becoming little more than speculation mirroring the personal policy preferences each of us carries around with himself or herself. One place to start, I'd imagine, would be the volume (one in a long series of such election books) co-authored by David Butler for that year. Nandt1 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Nandt1. I've read some of David Butler's books in the past: they are fairly interesting.Zictor23 24 July 2011

Regarding Wilson's resignation from Attlee's cabinet in 1951

I recently deleted the information about Wilson resigning from Attlee's cabinet over prescription medicine charges being introduced in 1951. Wilson actually resigned over charges being introduced for spectacles and dentures. Prescription charges for medicines were introduced by the Churchill Government in 1953.Zictor23 24 July 2011

It was actually 1952, sorry.Zictor23 24 July 2011

Well caught: my mistake. Nandt1 (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wilson did not win the February 1974 election

Per WP:DENY, please do not interact with socks of banned user HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He only ended up returning as Prime Minister in March 1974 after Heath's talks with the Liberals broke down. Saying Wilson won the February 1974 election would be like saying the Conservatives won the May 2010 election. The Conservatives won the election in England, it was only because of Labour votes in Scotland that Heath could not remain in office. (92.7.19.210 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)) Even if Heath had won only one seat he would have the right in the constitution to be the first to attempt to form a government, like Brown in 2010. The facts are these: Wilson's Labour won four more seats than Heath's Conservatives. Wilson became PM because of this. Number of votes are immaterial. If we were to judge elections on the share of the vote, then nobody has come close to 'winning' an election since Clement Attlee.--Paul011089 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC) The England/Scotland point is completely irrelevant for February 1974 as this was before the enactment of devolution; even in the devolution era general elections are for the parliament for the whole United Kingdom. "Wilson didn't win in Feb 1974" seems to be a relatively modern phenomenon largely made by people trying to make the equal point that "Cameron didn't win in 2010". Prior to May 2010 it was much rarer to hear the point being made beyond specialist arguments. Wilson would likely have become Prime Minister regardless even though Heath took time to throw in the towel. @Paul011089 - Assuming you mean Attlee's 49.71% in 1945 (which is complicated by a number of uncontested seats), it was beaten by Anthony Eden with 49.74% in 1955 (despite the Conservatives not standing against five sitting Liberal MPs). But 1955 is probably the most overlooked of all the post-war elections. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC) @Timrollpickering - Haha, I should have checked on that last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul011089 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Actually Cameron was the first to try to form a government after the last election's hung parliament because he had far more MPs and far more votes than Brown. Under the system in the UK you have to have a parliamentary majority in order to win a General Election. (92.7.19.210 (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)) That is not how the term win has been applied in the past. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) The Prime Minster has the constitutional right to make the first attempt at forming a goverment. In the case of Heath in 1974 and Brown in 2010 this was unsuccesful, being both without a majority or even the party with the most seats. The number of votes is irrelevant.Paul011089 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Cameron made the first attempt to form a government last year. (92.7.19.210 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)) The confusion is because there's a difference between how the monarch umpires this and negotiations between parties. In general it's hoped that the politicians will sort things out amongst themselves rather than relying on the monarch to dismiss or not dismiss PMs according to interpretations of the constitution, popular will and "right" outcomes. Most of the time this works out and so the monarch doesn't have to exercise the reserved powers. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Brown did not make an attempt to form a government after the 2010 election, as the Conservatives had far more MPs and had received well over a million more votes than Labour. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

Harold Wilson's time in Opposition and his memoirs

I am surprised that little mention is made of Harold Wilson's time spent in Opposition between 1970 and 1974, and in particular, his difference with the BBC over the production of the television documentary 'Yesterday's Men'.

There is -surprisingly - no mention either of Wilson's three volumes of memoirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.66.62 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Glaring errors / lack of citations

This is an awful article all round, and its neglect speaks volumes of the lack of historical interest in Great Britain. In particular however there are some real stinkers, such as

" Cecil King himself was an inveterate schemer but an inept actor on the political stage. "

With no citations

Can an editor please do whatever is appropriate, because some of this stuff is really quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.186.130 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

==

Preceded by Edward Heath but also preceded Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Sir Alec Douglas-Home not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.45.69 (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wilson won three general elections

Per WP:DENY, please do not interact with socks of banned user HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He did not win the February 1974 election which was a hung parliament. Heath actually got far more votes. In any case Labour only had more MPs because of Scotland. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)) It's seats not votes that count in a parliamentary system and the point about Scotland is irrelevant - at nearly all elections the winner has extra strength in one part of the country or other. The hung parliament point is dealt with further up. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Scotland is not irrelevant - it's the only reason Cameron did not win the 2010 election outright, despite receiving well over a million more votes than Labour in 2005. Labour lost the February 1974 election, and only returned as a minority government because Heath's talks with the Liberals broke down. It would be inappropriate for this article to pretend Wilson won the February 1974 elction, when Cameron's article does not say he won the last election. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)) The point is irrelevant. All elections are won with more support in one part of the country than in others. Cameron's article should probably say differently but gets sucked into partisan points. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC) The fact is that Wilson lost the February 1974 election, just as Cameron lost the 2010 election. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)) "The fact is". Wikipedia works on sources not the opinion or analysis of editors which is irrelevant. Here's a source [1]. The same view is in List of United Kingdom general elections. Please provide your sources for comparison. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Maybe the fact Heath remained Prime Minister after the election, just as Brown remained PM after the 2010 election? (92.7.26.73 (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)) No, that's not how Wikipedia works. That's called original research and is irrelevant. Come back with a reliable source supporting your point. Otherwise, this thread has no point in Wikipedia terms. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC) If Wilson had won the February 1974 election then he would have become Prime Minister on the very next day. He didn't, so he didn't until March. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)) Your own analysis is irrelevant in Wikipedia, as is any other editor's. See WP:OR. Please also indent your posts per WP:INDENT. DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC) If this site is going to claim that Wilson won the February 1974 election, then David Cameron's article must say that he won the 2010 election. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)) This site isn't going to claim anything. It reflects what reliable sources say, in accordance with its policies. Opinions and analysis of individual editors are of no interest. I have asked you three times to identify sources to support your view and you have ignored my requests. If you continue in this vein you are simply being disruptive. What the David Cameron article says is a matter for that article's talk page, not this one. I note also you have ignored normal indenting practice on Wikipedia talk pages, despite me linking to a guide to it, which adds to my view that you are being disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Wilson wrote in his autobiography that Labour did not win the February 1974 election. (Gershwin19 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

'I am a Bolshevik in a Tsarist Cabinet' ? How true Harolds comment to Crossman and Castle,, Chequers 64, apology accepting tight budget

My issue with this wiki article is there were significant differences in class, regional origin and social objectives in Wilson's cabinet. Wilson's defines his Cabinet and policy strategy as an Intelligent left Socialist. James Callaghan as Chancellor, Home Sec and PM was. derided rightly and wrongly as an idiot had a different philosophy, essentially that of working class loyalist to Britain and the US alliance like, Attlee's Foreign Sec and a fanatical believer in the RN, who he had clerked for in the war and who his father also served. Callaghan also a MP for the greatest of the naval ports,and his closest MP the young doctor MP, David Owen for the other. Like Robert Blake MP for Bridgewater or St John Fancourt, MP for Barnstable. Callaghan's view would have had significant support among the minor unreported members of Cabinet. Callaghan as Home Secretary also was a significant law and order, pro police enthusiast with the radically different views, of a believer rather than a populist and considerable power ( if often skillfully mislead and misguided by Denis Healey). Callaghans strong support for working class unionism in part reflected, a genuine belief in working class democracy not shared by the more centrist Oxford view of Wilson and Castle. Also I think their are radical differences in the attitudes to society and lifestyle between say Wilson and Healey with their working class Yorkshire roots and the more bohemian and 'middle class' Tony Crossland and Jenkins who if the son of a miner MP was really middle class. The beautiful American wives of Crosland and Crossman, if possibly not Benn also reflect a very different politics at least till 1977. The young doctor MP David Owen must be viewed as a significant ally of the more right wing Callaghan And Jenkins in the later period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.106.47 (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Won four elections?

Why does it say Wilson won four General Elections? The first election in 1974 was a hung parliament. (MichaelMeredith1967 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC))

The largest number of seats and the premiership are winning by most standards. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wilson did not win the February 1974 election because he did not have a majority. He only became Prime Minister again after Heath's talks with the Liberals broke down. (MichaelMeredith1967 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC))