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.

 

How far was Churchill personably responsible for maintaining national morale?

When Churchill took over from Neville Chamberlin it was at a time when national morale was low, particularly because of the Norway campaign, where although the British sent a task force to prevent invasion in Norway they were swiftly defeated by the Germans. This significantly cut national morale as the public became aware of the well disciplined and advanced nature of the German forces.

Churchill’s appointment in itself was a morale boosting act. Churchill was in political wilderness previously and had not held office in the previous national government, thus he was not associated with their failures. Throughout the 1930s Churchill had criticised appeasement and called for rearmament, this was significant to boost morale at the time of his appointment as the nation recognised he had the right ideas all along. MPs also felt a morale boost at the appointment of Churchill because most agreed that his bullish qualities and self belief meant he had the character for the job.

Churchill’s popularity with the public was a key factor in maintaining national morale. Historian Michael Lynch had found that his popularity with the public at times was as high as eighty eight percent, and even in his darkest moments never dropped below seventy eight percent. This is significant because it shows that the public were happy with Churchill as prime minister and they thought he was doing an adequate job, thus maintaining morale.

Churchill also had the ability to maintain morale by his skills in speeches. While his cabinet saw his speeches as emotional bravado, Churchill’s self confidence meant he convinced most of his cabinet and the population that it was better to fight on and hope America would be persuaded to join the war to support Britain. This was significant as rather than being a weak leader and putting doubts in people’s minds, Churchill was able to unite the country towards the war effort thus maintaining national morale.

However despite his ability to unify the nation Churchill also had his faults. Churchill has been described to be dictatorial and interfering in other governmental departments. This could be seen as morale damaging because Churchill’s nature could have led to alienation within government, leading to wider public doubts about his effectiveness as leader. This was similar with Churchill’s liaisons with army generals as he thought he knew more about tactics and strategy then the generals did. Similarly this could have alienated generals causing divisions in the army and working to damage national morale with the army such divided.

Churchill was also lucky in the composition of his cabinet in maintaining national morale. Deputy prime minister Clement Attlee was an effective organiser serving to organise the cabinet to make government efficient. Thus worked in Churchill’s favour to boost morale because it appeared Churchill had government in order, but this meant Churchill himself was not personally responsible for boosting morale.

Similarly Labour politician Ernest Bevin was responsible for maintain morale in the underlying structures of government. He fought against communist infiltration in the party and in unions. This served to keep the labour forces of the nation united and maintained national morale by keeping labour directed to the war. Historian Michael Lynch found Bevin had the enormous task of British industry to meet the demands of the war. This involved him negotiating with bosses, managers and trade unions to reach compromises that adequately rewarded workers. This served to maintain morale because as the workers felt better rewarded and paid it maintained morale.

In conclusion, on the face of government Churchill’s skill in self sufficiency, charisma and self belief served to maintain morale by providing a leadership that united and gave the nation a sense of hope and unity against foreign enemies. However it can be argued that in the underlying structures of government Churchill’s dictatorial nature threatened to tear parts of the country apart. It was also the underlying structures in Churchill’s colleagues that meant he appeared a more effective leader. Thus while Churchill appeared to maintain morale, his personable responsibility only stretched as far as his personality traits of charisma and self belief.