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.