How Conservative Brits Tried to Use the Beatles to Win Elections

The Beatles arrive at John F. Kennedy International Airport on February 7, 1964.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Beatles_in_America.JPG">United Press International</a>/Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

February 9 marks the 50th anniversary of The Beatles‘ historic performance on The Ed Sullivan Show on CBS. It was one of the opening salvos of the British Invasion of the mid-1960s, and the broadcast drew 73 million viewers. It is consistently hailed as one of the most influential and biggest (if not the biggest ever) televised moments for rock n’ roll and popular music.

“The Beatles are delightful,” Sullivan said shortly after the performance. “They are the nicest boys I’ve ever met.”

You can watch their 1964 Ed Sullivan performance of “I Want to Hold Your Hand” (along with some other gigs) below, via Rolling Stone:

Many tributes and commemorative packages have been prepared for the anniversary. On Sunday, CBS will air a special all-star salute, featuring Stevie WonderGary Clark, Jr., Katy Perry, and ex-Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, among others. The Ed Sullivan appearance was just one of many indicators of The Beatles’ immense popularity and influence. Concert promoters, cultural observers, and screaming teenage girls weren’t the only ones who understood this—British politicians did, too, and they weren’t shy about trying to exploit Beatlemania for electoral gain.

In March 1964, the United Kingdom was gearing up for a general election, to be held in mid-October—and the campaign trail was littered with references to the Beatles. “Paul McCartney, George Harrison, John Lennon, and Ringo Starr…have become valuable election property,” read the photo caption on a “Window in London” column in The Age titled, “The Beatles Enter U.K. Politics.” Here’s an excerpt from the article:

You don’t need to be the Delphic Oracle to foretell that a generation election is in the offing in this part of the world…Nor has the prevailing hysteria of Beatlism escaped being drawn into the political controversy.

As one acute observer remarked while the Beatles were just another show business team, no one in authority bothered about them, but…[after they] had been approved by America, they became an electorally valuable property.

[Conservative Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home] claimed credit for them and was promptly accused by [Labour Party leader Harold Wilson] of clothes stealing.

Conservative candidates were officially advised to mention them whenever possible in their speeches.

The Communist party declared the Beatles were working class boys from a working class environment, admired by a mass audience of working class status.

Not to be outdone, the Minister in charge of the Government’s information services…told a meeting of young Conservatives that the Beatles heralded a cultural movement among the young which might become part of the history of our time, and a lot more to the same effect.

As for the Beatles themselves, they couldn’t have cared less about British politics at the time. Two days before the general election, while the band was on tour in northern England, they announced that they would not vote. “We don’t care a lot about politics, so we never bothered to fix a postal vote,” McCartney said.

“We’ve been away from Liverpool so long that we’ve forgotten which constituency we’re in,” Lennon added. “It’s a lot of rubbish, anyway.”

Anyway, Wilson won and became prime minister—and decided to nominate the Beatles to become members of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, which the four members were later awarded by the queen in 1965 (the honor was controversial, as the honor was typically given to, say, war heroes):

Whatever their political apathy in 1964 and 1965, members of The Beatles indeed became more political in subsequent years. And, for what it’s worth, their music inspired young dissidents and rebels in the Soviet Union, contributing to a cultural revolution that undermined totalitarianism and gave birth to a whole generation of Beatles-wannabe rock bands in the USSR.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate