On 3 November 1960, Hugh Gaitskell, the leader of the Labour Party, defeated Harold Wilson in a challenge for the leadership.

The ballot, which saw Gaitskell re-elected by 166 votes to Wilson’s 81, marked the first formal challenge to an incumbent Labour leader. The campaign reflected the Labour Party’s rift between its moderate social democratic wing (Gaitskellites) and its left-leaning, socialist wing (Bevanites).

***

The challenge was the culmination of nearly two years of turmoil following Labour’s defeat in the 1959 general election, which resulted in a landslide majority of 100 seats for the Conservative Party under Harold Macmillan.

Gaitskell, who blamed his party’s defeat on doubts over its economic credibility, responded with an offensive against what he viewed as outdated and superfluous socialist dogma.

He planned to revise Clause IV of the party constitution.

The original Clause IV, adopted by Labour in 1918, was seen as a symbolic expression of the party’s socialist identity.

It stated: “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”

The 1959 Labour election manifesto, meanwhile, had been mostly equivocal on nationalisation. It said that nationalised industries “have played a great part in Britain’s postwar development” and proposed to extend public ownership to steel. However, it added that Labour had “no other plans for further nationalisation” except where an industry was found “after thorough enquiry, to be failing the nation”.

Gaitskell addressed the issue at Labour’s annual conference in November 1959. Addressing delegates, he argued that Clause IV implied a “continual misrepresentation”.

The Labour leader declared: “It implies that we propose to nationalise everything, but do we? Everything? The whole of light industry, the whole of agriculture, all the shops – every little pub and garage? Of course not.

“We have long ago come to accept… a mixed economy … [the] view of 90% of the Labour Party – had we not better say so instead of going out of our way to court misrepresentation?”

Gaitskell maintained that revising Clause IV would show Labour regarded “public ownership not as an end in itself but as a means – and not necessarily the only or the most important one to certain ends – such as full employment, greater equality and higher productivity.”

He added: “We do not aim to nationalise every private firm or to create an endless series of state monopolies. While we shall certainly wish to extend social ownership, in particular directions, as circumstances warrant, our goal is not 100% state ownership.

“Our goal is a society in which socialist ideals are realised. Our job is to move towards this as fast as we can. The pace at which we can go depends on how quickly we can persuade our fellow citizens to back us.

“They will only do this if we pay proper attention to the kind of people they are and the kind of things they want.”

Gaitskell’s oratory did not convince Labour delegates. Rather, in the face of major opposition from the major trade unions and the left, Gaitskell was forced to row back on his plan to revise Clause IV in March 1960.

A contemporary report described the debate as the “bitterest quarrel in recent party history”. Wilson, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, was said to have expressed indirect criticism of Gaitskell’s position on Clause IV.

***

Gaitskell’s authority was further weakened at the October 1960 Labour Party Conference in Scarborough. Despite the Labour leader’s strong opposition, the conference delegates voted to adopt a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament, demanding that a future Labour government unconditionally give up its nuclear weapons.

Gaitskell responded with a defiant speech, signalling that his leadership would not support the decision of conference. He vowed to “fight and fight and fight again to save the party we love.”

Gaitskell told conference: “We may lose the vote today, and the result may deal this party a grave blow. It may not be possible to prevent it, but there are some of us, I think many of us, who will not accept that this blow need be mortal: who will not believe that such an end is inevitable.

“There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness.”

Gaitskell’s refusal to abide by the will of conference precipitated the resignation of Anthony Greenwood on 14 October. Greenwood said he could not serve under a leader who defied conference policy, and initially announced his own candidacy for the leadership.

At the beginning of each parliamentary session, the parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) held formal elections for its leader and deputy leader. Greenwood’s challenge meant the 1960 contest would not be a simple formality.

Greenwood soon withdrew in favour of Wilson.

Wilson, although not a unilateralist himself, feared losing his position as the standard-bearer of the left should he not stand, and remained privately furious with Gaitskell over a failed attempt to move him from the shadow chancellorship.

Some years previously, Wilson resigned from Clement Attlee’s cabinet in 1951 as the president of the Board of Trade in protest at the decision – taken by Gaitskell as chancellor – to impose prescription charges on glasses and false teeth. Wilson resigned alongside Aneurin Bevan, who subsequently stood as the candidate of the left in the 1955 Labour Party leadership election.

Wilson declared his candidacy on 20 October 1960, accusing Gaitskell of “fighting and fighting” with his party at the expense of the Conservative government.

***

In 1960, Gaitskell’s critics argued that, in refusing to accept the will of conference, he was the cause of Labour’s division.

Wilson framed his campaign not on policy but on party management, claiming the issue was one of “unity versus civil war.”

The result of the ballot among the PLP demonstrated that Gaitskell still commanded the confidence of the vast majority of Labour MPs. His victory by a margin of 166 votes to 81 effectively secured his mandate among MPs to continue the fight against the unilateralist policy.

Wilson, however, had outperformed expectations in securing around one third of the vote. He thus consolidated his position as a leader on the left of the party.

The contest coincided with a contest for the vacant deputy leadership following the death of the incumbent, Bevan, in July. George Brown, another standard-bearer for the party’s social democratic wing, won with 146 votes on the second ballot. Brown bested Frederick Lee (83) and Jim Callaghan, who won 55 votes in the first ballot.

Brown and Callaghan both endorsed Gaitskell in the main leadership contest.

Gaitskell set about reversing his party’s unilateralist policy, culminating in a vote at the 1961 Labour conference. Delegates endorsed the policy of multilateral disarmament.

Gaitskell defeated another challenge from Anthony Greenwood in 1961 by an even larger margin of 171 votes to 69.

Wilson was moved to the position of shadow foreign secretary in November 1961. The following year, he challenged George Brown for the deputy leadership from the left – again unsuccessfully.

***

By 1962, Gaitskell had consolidated his authority within the Labour Party. His position was strengthened by his powerful speech opposing Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) at the Brighton conference. He warned that joining the EEC would mean “the end of a thousand years of history”.

It was tragedy that prevented Gaitskell from succeeding Macmillan as prime minister.

With Labour looking increasingly united and the Conservative government in considerable political turmoil, Gaitskell died suddenly on 18 January 1963. Wilson won the leadership contest that followed, defeating Gaitskellite candidates Brown and Callaghan.

Wilson’s success in the 1963 leadership contest is attributed to splits on the social democratic right of the party, and Brown’s own divisive campaign. The latter factor allowed Wilson to assume the mantle of unity candidate – a surprising development given his reputation going into the race. He had challenged for the leadership and deputy leadership in the space of two years, after all.

Wilson subsequently led Labour to victory in the 1964 general election. As prime minister, he did not decisively break with Gaitskellite economic policies.

Wilson led the Labour Party for 13 years. Upon his resignation as prime minister in 1976, he was succeeded by Callaghan.

The tensions that characterised Labour’s Gaitskellite-Bevanite divide did not entirely dissipate in the 1970s and 80s.

Michael Foot, a prominent Bevanite figure, served as Labour leader from 1979 to 1983. And many of the MPs and activists that formed the Social Democratic Party (SDP) during Foot’s tenure as Labour leader (notably Roy Jenkins) were previously proud Gaitskellites.

Gaitskell’s proposal to revise Clause IV was not realised until 1995 during Tony Blair’s tenure as Labour leader.