19 November 1967: Harold Wilson’s ‘pound in your pocket’ little white lie

In 1967, Britain suffered a balance of payments crisis, spending (importing) more than it was earning (exporting). That made it crucial to keep the pound strong. The hitch was that supporting the pound was fast becoming unaffordable: the Bank of England burned through £200m in gold and foreign currency reserves in just one day alone. And so in November, sterling was devalued by14.3% against the dollar.

It was a personal defeat for Prime Minister Harold Wilson. But on 19 November, he went on radio and television to reassure consumers that devaluation "does not mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse, or in your bank, has been devalued". It didn't take an economist, however, to tell you that that was nonsense.

"That broadcast will long be remembered for that sentence", crowed Conservative MP and future prime minister Ted Heath in Parliament. "It will be remembered as the most dishonest statement ever made." Wilson had fibbed. The pound in your pocket is, of course, the same pound that is used to import food and other things from abroad. Prices were going to have to rise.

Try 6 free issues of MoneyWeek today

Get unparalleled financial insight, analysis and expert opinion you can profit from.

Start your trial

Sign up for MoneyWeek’s free twice-daily newsletter.

Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.

Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.

Sign up

But while it was hoped that British farming and manufacturing would get a boost, not everything could be made or grown here. "Devaluation means moving resources from consumption to the balance of payments", wrote The Times. "It means an initial reduction in this country's living standards."

So, who was to blame for Britain's distress? "Candidates abound", said The Times' economic editor, Peter Jay. "Was it the fault of the gnomes, the moaning minnies, the selling-Britain-short brigade'? Or was it the wild-cat strikers, the tightly knit groups of politically motivated wreckers?" Perhaps the culprits were to be found abroad