IT is the anniversary of the Labour election win on October 15 1964, and also the anniversary of the victory on October 10 1974. In both cases, Harold Wilson became Labour prime minister.

The election victories and the context in which they took place are fast moving from living memory into labour history.

In both cases, the Labour majority was slim — an overall majority in single figures in both 1964 and in October 1974. Indeed, so small was the margin in 1974 that Labour spent some of the time up to the 1979 election in a pact with the Liberal Party (now the Lib Dems), which itself may seem rather odd to those more familiar with the events from 2010-15.

In 1964, Labour was expected to win well. After their 1959 election victory, the Tories had suffered several crises, not least the Profumo sex scandal that, in effect, saw Tory premier Harold Macmillan bow out of politics. His replacement, Alec Douglas Home, an old Etonian who looked and sounded as if he was from a bygone age and very probably was, was widely satirised.

Labour stood on the need to “modernise” Britain and move firmly into the 1960s based on scientific and technological advances. Part of that was aimed at restrictive practices in industry, but there was also criticism of trade union protections. That is worth remembering as, in recent times, there has been a trend to see “old Labour” as fundamentally different from what came afterwards.

The narrowness of the election victory was a surprise, not least to some of the left.

The then-new left urged Wilson to push on with change as the only way to keep Labour in office. It also pondered why Labour’s margin of victory in 1964 was so small. It reflected that a mood for change, which was to be found in the media and public discourse, was not yet fully in tune with the feelings at the grassroots of society.

Historically, sections of the working class voted Tory and did not automatically support Labour. In 1964, seats in cities like Sunderland and Liverpool were won by the Tories.

October 1974 was very different. Britain faced an energy crisis, and Labour had been returned to office in February 1974 on the back of a miners’ strike. Tory premier Edward Heath had called a “who governs Britain” election — and the voters had determined it wasn’t him.

It was a period of significant class struggle in Britain, which was at best only partly reflected within the Labour Party itself. Moreover, 1974 was also the year of the Portuguese revolution, and much of the left was taken up, quite rightly, with events in that country.

Tony Benn’s diary records the October 1974 election as one where “red scare” tactics were used against the left. Harold Wilson, on the advice of the security services, determined not to appoint the leftwinger Judith Hart as a minister because she had communist connections.

She did indeed. She had telephoned a meeting organiser to say she could not speak at a meeting because a communist was on the platform. Wilson backed down.

Perhaps the wider historical point to ponder here is that while Labour was in office for 11 of the 15 years from 1964 to 1979 and again for 13 years from 1997 to 2010, and while some changes for the better were made, the chance to reshape the system in the way that Thatcher did, let alone to bring about any fundamental change, was passed by.

It all seems a long time ago now, but there is context for Starmerism here.

Keith Flett is a socialist historian. Follow him on X @kmflett.