How far was the Labour party responsible for its own downfall in 1951?

Labours post war term in government came to an end in 1951. There were many reasons why Labour was unable to be re-elected in the election, and it has been debated how far labour themselves were responsible for their own downfall, and how far external reasons contributed to Labours demise.

One of the key reasons for Labour being responsible for its own downfall in 1951 was because of the Bevanite revolt over the NHS. Described by historian Michael Lynch as Labours proudest creation, there was concern that the NHS benefited the privileged more than the disadvantaged working class. The privileged had the ability to call on the best GP’s, partly because of social mobility and mostly because better GP’s tended to live in middle class areas. However the working class still lacked access to the best treatment. This is significant and instrumental in the Bevanite revolt as the Labour government backtracked on its promise to maintain free healthcare and introduced prescription charges. Labour was forced in 1951 by financial difficulties to make savings in spending, thus imposed charges on dental and optical treatment. This lead to leading ministers Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson and other ministers to resign in protest. This was significant because it represented a huge split within the Labour party. It showed clearly the divisions in Labour between right and left. It hurt Labour electorally as Labour were unable to present themselves as a united front, historian Stuart Ball argue this is where the conservatives were able to gain.

Another reason for Labour being responsible for its own downfall in 1951 was the resentment among trade unions at labour’s policies. Trade unions were critical of Labours nationalisation program. While Labour nationalised key industries such as coal, they didn’t replace managers. This was significant because it caused resentment among workers who had previously clashed with the same managers. The trade unions also felt that labours nationalisation didn’t go far enough and they didn’t nationalise more industry. Historian Andrew Marr argues that some Trade unions felt that Labour were funded and largely voted by trade union members, thus Labour should have been subject to do the bidding of the trade unions. They further felt labour didn’t go far enough to appease the working class, whilst putting too much effort in appeasing the upper classes. This was significant because it led trade unions to feel as if Labour was out of touch with the workers and thus was less likely to openly tell members to support labour.

Labour suffered from further internal divisions because of their entry into the Korean War. The entry to the war was significant because it made Labour’s left wing unhappy. They argued that although Britain fought as part of a United Nations body, the labour government was in fact sheepishly following the USA into a cold war engagement. The split furthered tensions already festering in the Labour party; historian Michael Lynch argued this resulted in disunity which contributed to their downfall.

However there were external reasons explaining the downfall of Labour. One of them was the conservative recovery of morale. Conservatives campaigned more rigorously during this election compared to the last. This was significant as during the last election the conservatives were complacent expecting a victory. However this time round they were better organised. AJP Taylor found that the 1950 election saw an influx of bright new conservative mps; this was significant as they were ready to battle an old and tiring labour, thus appearing more attractive to the electorate.

Another external reason contributing to Labours downfall was the government being worn down by serious economic and financial difficulties. Labour had inherited massive debts from the war and exports were struggling including a huge shrinking in invisible exports; commodities such as sale of financial services. Labour was also weighted down with the cost of military, development of a nuclear program and dollar gap. These spending issues affected labour’s electoral support. A reason for this was because labour came to be seen as the party for high taxation, thus they lost electoral support.

In conclusion, the internal divisions in labour carried the theme of traditional divisions between the right and left in the party. Labour’s failure to establish a consistent identify caused them to appear in disunity. This disunity lost them trade union support, the backbone of the labour party while the moderate supporters became disillusioned with such high taxation. However Labours performance in the 1951 election showed that they had gained votes. Thus while Labours disunity obstructed them from fully fulfilling their potential in gaining votes, Labour were victims to a resurgent conservative party, and as Andrew Marr argues victims to Britain’s electoral system