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

Compare the achievements of Attlee’s government after WW2 with Lloyd George’s government after WW1

Both Attlee and George were charged with overseeing Britain through difficult times. Both world wars had significant effects on Britain’s economic and social life. The general public were anxious for social change following the wars in which they fought with the vision of a brighter future and it was up to the politicians to deliver. Both post war leaders had successes and failures but their overall achievements had significant effects on Britain.

In 1918 Lloyd George led a coalition government which over saw post war reconstruction. One aspect of reconstruction was the demobilisation of a million soldiers and their return to civilian life. Lloyd George was intent in delivering “a land fit for heroes” and his intention was to raise living standards. Thus under George’s government Health Minister Christopher Addison was made responsible for introducing the 1919 Housing and Town Planning act. The aim of the measure was to encourage local councils to clear slums and construct low rent homes, specifically for the working classes. Historian Michael Lynch argues that this was a major success of the George government as by 1922 200,000 such houses had been built. However other historians such as Derrick Murphy have argued that this was an insufficient number of homes built and didn’t meet the needs of the population as there was a shortage of 800,000 homes. This criticism makes it questionable as to how far the Housing and Planning act was a major achievement. However Michael Lynch further argues that it was an achievement in principle; the act had laid down that housing was now a necessary public service which local authorities were responsible for providing.

Another achievement credited to the George government was the extension of national insurance. By 1921 the George government succeeded in extending, between 1920-1 provisions to 8 million more workers, totalling in 12 million workers being covered. The aim was to protect workers against short term unemployment. Michael Lynch argues that this was significant achievement because at a time of high demand for labour, it seemed the only cover likely to be necessary.

Another major achievement of the Lloyd George government was the signing of the Anglo-Irish treaty. Lloyd George was successful in persuading the Nationalists to accept his proposals or else face other proposals even less in their favour. The significance of his persuasion was that he managed to get the nationalists to drop the demand that Ulster be part of an independent Ireland. Historian Andrew Marr argues this was significant because it was the closest anyone came to solving the Irish question. He argues that far from being the perfect solution, it was a major achievement considering the scale of the problem. However Mike Byrne argues it could be seen as a political failure, as the Unionists felt betrayed by George and Nationalists would not forget treatment from the Black and Tans. Neither side the treaty other than a concession. This significantly led to distrust between both sides of Georges government.

In 1945 Labour surprisingly took office and Attlee succeeded Churchill. Similar to George, he was charged with overseeing Britain through a tough economic period, reconstruction and similarly there was a public mood for change.

One of the main achievements of the Attlee government was the implementation of large scale nationalisation programme. Chief industries were nationalised under labour, including Britain’s most vital industry coal, the bank of England, electricity, gas, iron and steel as well as other institutions. Michael Lynch argues the nationalisation of coal, as a vital industry was significant. The industry had been subject to decades of disruption and underproduction. Nationalisation would mean greater safety, productivity and would have the wider impact as other industries would benefit from this. However Labour’s nationalisation program has been criticised. Historian Stuart Ball is critical of Labour’s nationalisation of the steel and iron industry. He argued the industry was not a public utility, was profit making and had good employer-employee relations. Ball argues there were thus no grounds for nationalisation and undermined growth in those industries. However other historians have argued that Labour did not go far enough in their nationalisation program and failed to deliver the social democracy they had promised.

Another key achievement of the Attlee government was the creation of the Welfare state. Labour followed the principle of collectivism laid down in the Beveridge report. The four main features of the welfare state were the national insurance act, the industrial injuries act, the National Health Service act and the national assistance act. Significantly Historian Andrew Marr argues that Labour had not introduced anything new, they collectivised and built on existing welfare schemes and services into the welfare state. Similarly Labour built on foundations George’s government had laid down after the first world war, for example Labours National insurance act further extended George’s own extension of national insurance.

Another key achievement of Attlee’s government was a major housing programme. George’s government had also implemented a housing problem, however because of mismanagement and lack of investment there was an 800,000 housing shortage. Significantly Labour’s housing program led to one million homes being built. Andrew Marr argues this was significant in social well being of the country as slums were cleared and there was major low rent council homes built serving the working class of Britain.

Another major achievement of the Attlee government was convincing the USA of the need of the Marshall program. Following the war the worlds trading nations suffered from balance of payments difficulties. Foreign secretary Ernest Bevin played an instrumental role in obtaining the aid. Historian AJP Taylor argues the Marshall aid was the most significant achievement of the Labour government, as without it he argues the international economy would be under threat of losing strength and further fall under the influence of the Soviet Union.

In conclusion, both the George and Attlee governments were able to obtain significant achievements during their time on office, similarly in social policies. Both governments were faced with struggling economies and were in societies in the mood for rapid social change. It’s argued that many of Labour’s reforms were not new, but were a continuation of Liberal reforms and principles, for example Labour continued the principle that housing was a government responsibility, a principle laid down by the Liberals. Both governments have faced heavy criticism, particularly under the theme of missed opportunity. Right wing historians such as Colerri Barret rue the missed opportunity of concentrating on industrial recovery rather than welfare, while left wing historians rue the missed opportunity to nationalise more central aspects of the economy and carry through a socialist agenda. However Andrew Marr argues the similar achievements of both governments was keeping the country united while other countries suffered greater.

 

The Civil Rights Movement – The Role of Trade Unions

Whenever we think of the civil rights movement we instantly remind ourselves of individuals such as Martin Luther king, Malcolm X and Rosa Parks, and events such as the infamous “I have a dream speech” and the Montgomery bus boycott, along with other protests such as sit-ins and freedom rides.

However, these protests movements didn’t just come out of the blue, and black people didn’t suddenly just decide they had had enough and decided to protest. The civil rights movement had been developing decades before the famous events in the 1960s, and the role of the trade unions did fantastic jobs in organising and educating workers, allowing the platform that individuals such as king had to propel the movement forward.

Black workers in the old confederacy or “the south” were terribly oppressed back in the 1920s and 30s. It had been 60 years since black slaves were freed as a result of the civil war, yet they were at the bottom of society. They were always given the lowest paid jobs, their labour was exploited, and working conditions were horrendous. Many black workers in the south worked as sharecroppers on the farmland, where white employers provided land, seed and tool and black workers the labour. White landlords would then take most of the crop to sell, and black people would be left with barely enough to live on. Because of the rural nature of the south, it was difficult for black workers to organise, and it was easy for white supremacists to intimidate them, keeping them oppressed. Lynching also took place during this time, so it was almost impossible for black workers to revolt. As well as this, the south was operating under Jim Crow laws, which brought de jure segregation; this is where by law black and white people were segregated. This ensured that black people had the worst education, limiting economic opportunities. It made sure black workers were paid less than white workers, facilities such as water fountains were segregated and black people received the worst services. Police and law courts also discriminated against black people; there were no black police and jurors in courts were always white.

Circumstances in the north for black workers were better, however far from ideal. Although segregation wasn’t enshrined in the law like in the south, black northerners suffered from de facto segregation, where job discrimination took place, for example blacks were the last to be hired and first to be fired. Black workers were given the lowest paid jobs and had limited opportunities to better themselves; there were hardly any black higher education institutions.

Trade unions played a vital role in raising black awareness of potential black political and economic power. Under pressure from the economic depression, trade union memberships rocketed. New unions were set up such as the Food, Tobacco, agricultural and allied workers union. These unions were grassroots unions, and played a role in promoting mass meetings that discussed voter registration and citizenship. These discussions were fundamental; blacks in the north did have the vote, however because of apathy many blacks didn’t use their vote to try and better themselves. In the south, federal pressure forced the states to allow blacks to vote, however they didn’t stop states having literacy tests that determined whether people could vote. Black peoples poor education meant they inevitably failed these tests so couldn’t register to vote. For whites who failed the tests, there were grandfather clauses where if they could prove someone in their ancestry had voted before, then they could register. At this time, only 3% of black people could vote in the south.

Asa Phillip Randolph was an important figure in the black trade union movement. In his youth he had set up grassroots trade unions, such as the union of elevator operators and the National Brotherhood of Workers of America, a union which organised amongst African-American shipyard and dock workers in the Tidewater region of Virginia. The union dissolved in 1921, under pressure from the American Federation of Labour, to which white employers had complained to.

He then went on to set up the first all black labour unions, the brotherhood of sleeping car porters in 1925. At the unions peak in the 1940s the union had 15,000 members. Its head quarters in New York were described as “the political headquarters of black America, where young black leaders met.” The unionisation of black workers contributed to assertiveness, it boosted their morale and gave them a class consciousness. The brotherhood of sleeping car porters broke down barriers to worker exploitation where because of high union memberships and change to federal law the Pullman Company finally began to negotiate with the Brotherhood in 1935, and agreed to a contract with them in 1937. This gained employees $2,000,000 in pay increases, a shorter workweek, and overtime pay.

As a trade unionist A Phillip Randolph applied pressure to federal government to force through change for more equal opportunities for black workers. He threatened that if the then president Roosevelt that he would organise a march on Washington in protest. Because of the might of the union threat Randolph represented and Roosevelt’s failure to dissuade Randolph, Roosevelt set up The Fair Employment Practices Committee. This was an organisation that ensured fair job opportunities for federal employment. This shows how trade union membership can help achieve a better deal for workers.

Randolph also organised bus boycotts, and although they failed, they went on to inspire the famous Montgomery bus boycott in Alabama, which many people see as the start of the civil rights movement. The confronting but non violent actions of trade unions went on to inspire black leaders such as Martin Luther King.

Unfortunately, in the 1930s most black workers were not unionised. Reasons for this include the rural nature of the south meant isolated black communities didn’t have a broad large scale union to join. The violent actions of the white supremacists and hostility of the white population intimidated blacks into accomodationism, where black people just conformed and didn’t do anything to try and better themselves such as join of union because they feared a hostile reaction. The low economic and educational status of black people was low, so unions were poorly funded and leaders struggled to make their voices heard. I believe that if the majority of black workers were unionised, then because of high organisation solidarity a lot of the barriers that were broken down during the 60s would have been broken down quicker and more effectively.

In summary, the trade union movement helped to increase solidarity, which was vital during the struggles in the 60s where workers faced many hardships. Trade unions increased activism and encouraged protest actions, which contributed to the mass movements in the 60s. Trade unions also raised black awareness of potential black political and economic power. For example unions organised economic boycotts, where black people would boycott buying from shops that refused to employ black workers. They promoted meetings to discuss equality where workers were educated on how to successfully and effectively initiate protests.

Overall, trade union movements gave the platform for the civil rights movement, and we can learn lessons from it today in our fight against the inequalities of capitalism.

To what extent was American foreign policy more imperialist then isolationist from 1896 to 1918?

Traditionally, American foreign policy aimed to be isolationist. This is the policy by which the USA dethatches itself from the affairs of other countries. There were many reasons for the USA wanting to be isolationist. One of the reasons was due to the fact that the majority of the population of USA were the descendants, or were themselves migrants. One of the reasons the migrated to the USA was to escape European conflicts. Thus they didn’t want the USA to become involved in such things as that was what they were trying to escape from. Another reason was that they didn’t want to be involved in foreign wars. Wars would be expensive and damage the US economy. USA also profited out of foreign wars as they profited from being able to sell to both conflicting nations. Thus by isolating themselves from foreign affairs they wouldn’t be accused of taking sides and were able to profit.

However, from 1896 to 1918 the policy of isolationism became difficult to maintain, and it was argued that USA became more imperialist then isolationist.

One of the arguments that USA was becoming imperialist was an argument by historian Paul Johnson (1966). He argued that USA’s sugar interests in Cuba and Hawaii in 1896 were the roots of future conflicts. He argues that by the USA developing interests there they inevitably put themselves in a position of risking imperialism; this is because if business interests were threatened then USA would be forced into intervention and extend their influence through military force. This is significant because it shows by developing foreign interests, USA was risking isolationism with intervention.

Another argument giving evidence of USA’s growing imperialism was given by Paul Keith Conkin in 1982. He argued that USA was in the need for a growth of an empire. One of the reasons there was a need for an empire was because the industrial sector had surplus goods to export. This is significant because if USA had influence abroad it could export its goods and make a bigger profit, as they could manipulate taxes. Alfred Mahan argued that USA needed a powerful navy to protect trade. This is significant because it meant that USA had to acquire naval bases abroad; this shows how the nature of American big business meant that USA couldn’t be isolationist in order to make profits, thus extending influence was needed. However Howard Webber would argue that USA was protecting its isolationist policy by monitoring trade, because otherwise it would be forced into bigger intervention if business interests that weren’t protected were attacked.

Historian William Langer (1999) argues that the annexation of Hawaii was a great blow to the policy of isolationism.  First was the acquisition of pearl harbour as a naval base. This is significant because it meant USA had a naval base outside of mainland USA in the Pacific Ocean. It could be seen as an imperialist move because the base could be used as a base for warships then trade ships. The queen of Hawaii was ousted by native sugar growers; however they were assisted by US marines. This is significant because it meant USA had intervened in a foreign conflict, and by doing so they had extended their influence there. This is because the sugar growers asked for Hawaii to be annexed to the USA and in 1898 they were annexed. This is significant as it shows how the USA used its military might with their marines to extend their influence in another country.

Another instance in which American policy was more imperialist then isolationist was in the Spanish American war. USA though Spain ruled Cuba too harshly, and USA was worried their sugar interests there would be threatened. Thus USA felt it needed more influence there. This significantly can be seen as an imperialist policy because it meant USA was getting involved in foreign conflicts, rather then detaching itself from conflicts of other countries. USA went on to win the war, however as a result of the war they were left with the dilemma of the situation of the Philippines. USA purchased the Philippines on the basis of preclusive imperialism. This is the taking of colonies to prevent other countries from doing so. This is significantly imperialist because it meant USA stretched its power and influence to a foreign country. Thus foreign policy was more imperialist then isolationist.

World war one was another demonstration of the imperialist policy of the USA. Because of various reasons such as unrestricted German submarine warfare and the limitations of trade, USA entered the war. This is the biggest indication that isolationism was not on the agenda of the USA, as it fully committed itself to involvement in the war, extending its influence to Europe and other areas.

In conclusion, although the USA traditionally favoured isolationism, it was because of the growth of big business and foreign trade that meant imperialism became inevitable. Historian Peter Taffe argues that the forces of big business and desire for profits meant the USA would have adopted imperialist strategy, especially in entry to world war one. However historian Howard Webber argued the USA only engaged in foreign policy when it was vital, and he points to the fact that USA was neutral for so long in world war one, and only entered when it felt seriously threatened.