View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UCL Discovery ‘From Birmingham to Bulawayo’: The Labour Government, Race and Decolonisation, 1964-1970 Thesis submitted for the degree of MPhil. Kieran O’Leary University College London 2016 1 I, Kieran O’Leary, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Abstract This thesis examines how Harold Wilson’s Labour government of 1964-1970 addressed the issues of race and decolonisation both internationally and domestically. Internationally, the thesis is primarily concerned with the Wilson government’s policies and attitudes towards the former non-settler empire. The early 1960s saw most of Britain’s remaining non-white colonies gain their independence, the so-called ‘winds of change’. Despite this loss of empire, many senior Labour figures believed that Britain still had a key role to play with regards to its former colonial subjects. This was evident in the Wilson government’s commitment to the Commonwealth and the creation of the new Ministry of Overseas Development. Although grounded in apparently noble intentions, these policies were laden with racist assumptions of Britain as a paternal figure responsible to the supposedly backward races, particularly in Africa, a legacy of the ‘civilising mission’. Domestically, the thesis will explore the Wilson government’s approach to another legacy of empire: the issue of Commonwealth immigration. The post-war period saw thousands of non-white migrants arrive into Britain from the Commonwealth, predominantly from the West Indies, India and Pakistan. These migrants were permitted unrestricted entry into Britain through the British Nationality Act of 1948. However, the 1960s saw the introduction of legislation to curtail this migration. Although the Labour Party initially opposed the inaugural Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962, the Wilson government upheld the Act and later introduced tougher controls. The thesis will examine the links between the Wilson government’s approach to these two issues, drawing on the recent scholarly trend which has argued for the synthesis of Britain’s domestic and imperial histories. Above all, the thesis will argue that the Wilson government’s approach to race, both internationally and domestically, was shaped by a lingering imperial ideology that cast non-white peoples as ‘uncivilised’ and ‘backward’. 3 Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................5 Chapter One: The Labour Party, Race and Empire: A Historical Background…………………………………………………………………………………19 Chapter Two: ‘Vipers Clutching to Britain’s Bosom’: The Labour Party and the Commonwealth, 1964-1967……………………………………………………………....56 Chapter Three: ‘From Equality to Integration’: The Labour Party’s Changing Approach towards Commonwealth Immigration, 1964-1968.……………....………...94 Conclusion………………………………………………………………...……………....140 Bibliography…………...…………………….…………………………………………….146 4 Introduction “The battle against racialism here in Britain knows no boundaries, no limits. Its boundaries are not the civic limits of Birmingham or Bradford; they extend to Africa, south as well as north of the Zambezi, to Asia, to all the continents of the world. I am not prepared to stand aside and see this country engulfed by the racial conflict which calculated orators or ignorant prejudice can create. Nor in the great world confrontation on race or colour, where this country must declare where it stands, am I prepared to be neutral, whether the confrontation is in Birmingham or Bulawayo”.1 (Harold Wilson, 5th May 1968) On 20th April 1968, Enoch Powell, a senior Conservative politician and writer, delivered a controversial speech on immigration to a meeting of the West Midlands Conservative Political Centre, the so-called ‘rivers of blood’ speech. Powell lamented the arrival of thousands of non-white Commonwealth immigrants, predominantly from the West Indies, India and Pakistan, to Britain since the end of the Second World War. These migrants were permitted unrestricted entry into Britain until the introduction of legislative restrictions in the 1960s. The speech provoked much criticism due to its racialist language and evocative symbolism—Powell described non-white immigrant children as ‘wide-grinning piccaninnies’ and warned that if the current rate of immigration continued, ‘in 15 or 20 years’ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man’. The speech has often been cited as a seminal example of racism as an issue in British politics.2 1 Harold Wilson’s speech in response to Enoch Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ speech. Published in Harold Wilson, The Labour Government, 1964-70: A Personal Record (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974), 524–528. 2 There are several texts concerning the life of Enoch Powell and the significance of his ‘rivers of blood’ speech. See Simon Heffer, Like the Roman: the Life of Enoch Powell (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998); Roy Lewis, Enoch Powell: Principle in Politics (London: Cassell, 1979); Robert Shepherd, Enoch Powell (London: Hutchinson, 1996) and Camilla Schofield, Enoch Powell and the Making of Postcolonial Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 5 On 5th May 1968, Harold Wilson, the Labour Prime Minister, gave a speech in response to Powell. Significantly, this speech also took place in Birmingham, thus reflecting Wilson’s determination to meet the issue head-on. Wilson criticised the racist rhetoric used by ‘calculated orators’ such as Powell. While Wilson’s strong condemnation of Powell was itself noteworthy, the speech was even more intriguing given Wilson’s declaration of a ‘battle against racialism’ that stretched from ‘Birmingham to Bulawayo’, thereby offering the ‘rivers of blood’ affair an international as well as domestic setting.3 Wilson referred to Birmingham as this was an area where the issue of race often reared its ugly head during this period. Birmingham had the second largest population of non-white immigrants after London; it was where the Birmingham Immigration Control Association, one of the main supporters of immigration controls, formed in 1961 and it was in neighbouring Smethwick where Patrick Gordon Walker, a senior Labour figure, lost his seat at the 1964 election following a controversial campaign by the Conservative candidate, Peter Griffiths, which focused almost exclusively on non-white immigration.4 Wilson’s reference to Bulawayo—the second largest city in Rhodesia— alluded to the colonial crisis that faced the Labour government when Ian Smith’s government announced its Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in 1965.5 The late 1950s and early 1960s saw several African colonies gain independence from Britain under majority rule. However, Rhodesia, which was governed by a white minority regime, rejected independence under such terms.6 While the Wilson government insisted there could be no independence before majority rule (NIBMAR), 3 Wilson, The Labour Government, 1964-70: A Personal Record, 524-528. 4 Phillip Jones, “Some Aspects of the Changing Distribution of Coloured Immigrants in Birmingham, 1961-66,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 50 (1970): 199–219. For the Smethwick campaign see Paul Foot, Immigration and Race in British Politics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965); Dhani R. Prem, The Parliamentary Leper: A History of Colour Prejudice in Britain (Aligarh, India: Metric Publications, 1965); Michael Hartley-Brewer, ‘Smethwick’ in Nicholas Deakin, Colour and the British Electorate, 1964: Six Case Studies (London: Pall Mall Press, 1965). For Griffiths’ personal account of the campaign, see Peter Griffiths, A Question of Colour? (London: Leslie Frewin, 1966). 5 See Carl Peter Watts, Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence: An International History, 1st ed (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); Robert Blake, A History of Rhodesia (New York: Knopf, 1978); Elaine Windrich, Britain and the Politics of Rhodesian Independence (London: Croom Helm, 1978). For Smith’s personal account of the crisis, see Ian Douglas Smith, The Great Betrayal: the Memoirs of Ian Douglas Smith (London: Blake Pub, 1997). For the Wilson government’s policy, see Richard Coggins, ‘Wilson and Rhodesia: UDI and British Policy towards Africa’, Contemporary British History, 20, no. 3 (2006): 363-381. 6 The white population of Rhodesia at its peak was 270,000, which represented about 5 per cent of the total population. Barry Schutz, “European Population Patterns, Cultural Persistence, and Political Change in Rhodesia,” Canadian Journal of African Studies, 7, no. 1 (1973): 5–6. 6 the Smith regime sought to retain white rule in perpetuity. Although Wilson was personally repulsed by the Smith regime—according to Wilson’s private secretary, Oliver Wright, the only time Wilson really lost his temper was over the settler regime’s treatment of imprisoned black political leaders—the Labour government found itself in a difficult position on this issue.7 To bring down the rebellion by force carried economic costs, especially at a time when Britain faced a huge deficit on its Balance of Payments. Also, the government was faced with the uncomfortable question of whether it could fight against its white ‘kith and kin’, a common term used to describe the Rhodesian settlers.8 Denis Healey, the Defence Secretary, described the prospect of fighting