Conservative Domination 1951-1964 Flashcards
Political and Economic Situation of Britain, 1951
- Tories under WC, Labour under Attlee, Liberals under Clement Davies (only 73,000 votes in 1951 election)
- ‘consensus politics’: about need for Welfar State, Tories kept Labour nationalised industries & Labour did not support a fully state-run economy
- period of austerity to keep import bill down and export up; petrol rationing ended 1950, sugar 1953, food 1954
- concern with balance of payments deficit, housing shortage, loss of investment in peacetime industry, utilities, roads and railways
- determined to maintain full employment; influenced by john Maynard Keynes (boost demand to avoid depression)
- granted independence to India, Pakistan and Palestine (Israel), but still lost of imperial territory and involvement, relying on their products, defending Empire with national servicemen BUT attitudes remained & no law against racial discrimination
Conservative strengths in 1951 election
- Lord Woolton reformed party finances and local reorganisation = stronger
- Influx of young talented politicians (Reginald Maulding) = new ideas
- Promise of 300,000 houses a year & ‘more red meat’
- Promise not to reverse Labour achievements - commitment to Welfare State
- Winston Churchill still popular despite 1945 defeat
Labour weaknesses in the 1951election
- Exhausted Cabinet from post-war financial problems
- Negative association with austerity, rationing and high taxation
- Korean War 1950 added to financial strain
- Internal division about dental / prescription / glasses charges (seen to undermine free NHS)
BUT - The number of votes in 1951 was at that point, the highest polled by a party in British politics (<13.9 mill, increased by 2 mill since 1945)
Electoral System in the 1951 election
Labour over 200,000 more votes (0.8%) than Conservatives, but won 26 less seats:
- First-Past-The-Post System (Labour piled up safe seats while Tories won the marginals)
- Boundary changes under 1948 Representation of the People Act ( meant Labour had to win 2% more votes to win same number of seats)
- Liberal Decline = struggled financially so contested only 109 seats (Tories won ex-voters) & vote fell from 2.6 mill to 0.7 mill since 1945
Proof that the Conservative Government didn’t aid the economy 1951-64
- industrial growth was inevitable after low level of industrial output of war
- also stimulated by increased trade after Korean War’s end - less defence spending
- growth was LESS GOOD than other European countries: 1951-64, GROWTH = Italy 5.6%, Germany 5.1%, France 4.3%, Britain 2.3%
- Britain’s share of world trade - from 25% to 15% - while Germany - from 7% to 20% - perhaps because 10% GDP spent on defence, 34.5% funds for R&D spent on military bases & nuclear arms programme NOT industrial growth - government’s policies limited growth?
- critics about failure to modernise staple/traditional industries, instead prioritised strong sterling area / overseas investment - GOVT EXCUSE WAS consumerism / industrial disruption (unfounded, minimal striking)
- critics argue success was built on RISKY heavy govt borrowing and consumer credit
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
Wages & Living Standards, 1951-64
- wages rose faster than prices; weekly wage £8.30 - £18.35
- CREDIT & Chancellor cut income tax; by equivalent of 2.5p in 1955, 3.75p in 1959
- THUS purchasing power increase = 500% rise in car ownership, 4% - 91% to ownership
- housing boom; promised 300,000 a year, mostly reached (354,000 in 1954, 1.7 mill overall)
- 1957 Rent Act abolished rent controls: rents rose BUT waiting lists declined
- house ownership 25% to 44%
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
Conservative’s Economic Policy
- Chancellorship of RA Butler 1951-55 = similar to Labour policies LED TO concept of ‘Butskellism’ (merged name with Hugh Gaitskell) = increased borrowing allowed rise in govt expenditure on health,education, housing, Welfare State (GDP spent rose 16.1 % - 19.3 % 1951-64)
- STOP-GO = CRITICISM OF ECONOMIC POLICY, responding to change rather than strategy of consistent growth, to avoid high in/deflation: if spending / wages UP then taxes / interest rates / import controls UP
- Period described as stagflation = industrial output declined but inflation remained
- Failure to invest into textiles / shipbuilding / industrial R&D led to decline
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
Unemployment under Macmillan
- Conservative had continued Labour pledge of full unemployment
- HOWEVER…can it be argued that the economy was such a big factor given that there was an overall upward trend? Unemployment never below 250,000:
1951: 367k
1959: 621k
1964: 501k
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
Social Policy & Education
- Edward Boyle (Minister of Education) pushed for abolisition of 11+
- First purpose-built comprehensive schools constructed under Tories (grammar, technical & secondary modern seen to reinforce class divisions)
- More comprehensive schools opened after 1950 under tories than Labour = CONSENSUS
- 1963 Robbins Report (expand universities and provide after grants)
- 6000 new schools and 11 universities built
- Butler as Home Secretary (1957 Homicide Act - accelerated ending of death penalty)
- Limited Social Achievements compared to previous Labour governments
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
LEADERSHIP: Churchill
- Became PM 2nd time at 77, in power via reputation = a figurehead; stroke in 1953, barely missed
- Butler as leading force from 1951;
> 1947 ‘industrial charter’ in which Tories accepted the principle of a mixed economy of private and state (consensus politics!)
> 1944 Education Act showed his interest in social issues
> Policies as Chancellor were little different to Labour (appealed to centre ground)
THUS it can be seen as Butler, rather than Churchill, who was responsible for modernising and helping Eden win in 1955
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
LEADERSHIP: Eden
- 1955 election resulted in increased Tory majority = personal appeal (WOMEN) and Butler’s work
- Suez Crisis 1956:
> 3 x foreign secretary = determined to succeed abroad
> Britain, France & Israel against Egypt after Nasser nationalised the Suez, Russian support meant no action by UN
> misjudged public mood, critiqued by Labour for “mad venture”
> withdrawal 3 months later seen as lack of political will, officially ‘ill-health’
> condemnation by foreign nations
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
LEADERSHIP: Macmillan
- 1957 to 1963, won the 1959 election and increased Tory majority to 100
- Lucky to preside over period of prosperity & affluence, and had much personal appeal
- Appearances on TV grew support as did work of Butler (Tories seemed modern)
- Satirists mocked him as “SUPERMAC” = turned on its head successfully with his “never had it better” comment
- After 1959 Election things turned (1961 balance of trade deficit, import more than export, 1962 unemployment and strike days lost rising)
- JULY 1962 ‘The Night of the Long Knives’: sacked 7 cabinet ministers & 9 other ministers, became ‘Mac the knife’, failed to ‘breathe new life into a tired govt’
- 1960 ‘Winds of Change’ speech, one of the first to realise empire had to be dismantled
- FOREIGN AFFAIRS damaged his image: Cold War 1960s proved Britain was no longer a major power, ECC rejection by French veto, THEN scandals… stepped down, unwell
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
LEADERSHIP: Douglas-Home
- MacMillan advised Queen against Butler, initially backing Hailsham then Home
- Process of his choosing was disliked; ‘customary processes’ requested by MacMillan meant aristocrat chosen by old Etonians without much democracy - OUTDATED
- Enoch Powell stated he wouldn’t serve under him, though Home was generally popular with the party
- Labour unsurprisingly won the election (although surpassingly small margin), revitalised, under a youthful, dynamic Wilson (emphasis on modernisation of economy & ‘the white heat of technology’)
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
Labour Party Weakness 1951-60: Divisons Over Socialism
Attlee’s successor, Hugh Gaitskell was talented & good public speaker (EVEN THOUGH Gaitskell opposed Britain joining ECC like Attlee THUS NOT giving Labour the appearance of progressive!) BUT failed to unite party:
> Supporters of Gaitskell (Revisionists, wanting to modernise, more right wing), believed policy decided by parliamentary party NOT unions, Anthony Crosland wanted emphasis on social equality rather than economic change > Supporters of Aneurin Bevan (Fundamentalists, more left wing) believed welfare measures 1945-51 were the first few steps towards socialism, disagreed with moderate Attlee 1935-55, far more state control, 1952 ‘*In Place of Fear*’ by Bevan talked about socialism (‘substation of public for private ownership’). They also believed that unions should have say in policy, they wanted greater commitment to CLAUSE IV (nationalisation) and to ensure state had greater control over industry, the economy & society
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE?
Labour Party Weakness 1951-60: Divisions over Nuclear Policy
- LEFT wanted unilateral nuclear disarmament = more money for social reform / so USSR didn’t fall too far behind west in arms race
- RIGHT wanted Britain to maintain its independent nuclear deterrent
BUT Bevan was less radical on this & rejected unilateralism at Party Conference 1957
HOWEVER Bevan was expelled from parliamentary party for challenging officials Labour policy (opposed party’s approval of rearmament of Germany / inclusion in NATO which he believed would alienate USSR)
BIGGEST DIVISION SEEN AT 1960 PARTY CONFERENCE = left forced unilateralist policy using block votes of union after Gaitskell argued left had weakened Labour through unpopular views and that was the reason for third successive election loss BUT policy abandoned after a year
