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

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.