Britain mock q Flashcards
1
Q
2
CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE 1951-64
A
The Conservatives won 3 successive general elections in 1951, 1955 & 1959:
- Their number of seats rose from 321 to 355.
- Their majority was 16 in 1951, 59 in 1955 & 99 in 1959.
- Their share of the vote reached 48-49 % in all 3 elections.
The Prime Ministers were as follows:
- Winston Churchill 1951-5
- Anthony Eden 1955-7
- Harold MacMillan 1957-63
- Alec Douglas Home 1963-4
13 years of Conservative rule ended with Labour’s narrow election victory in 1964.
2
Q
6
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES WIN THE 1951 ELECTION? - Conservative Strengths
A
- The Labour vote actually rose by 2 million but the Tory vote rose by more: 4 million, so in that sense it was more of a Tory victory than a Labour defeat. Labour lost the election despite actually getting more votes than the Tories.
- The Liberals only contested 109 seats & in the seats they didn’t contest (roughly 80%) more of their votes went to the Tories than Labour.
- Between 1945, learning from their defeat, the Tories rethought both their policies & their organisation far more effectively than Labour did. Lord Woolton reformed party finances & local organisation.
- They accepted the popular Labour policies like full employment, the Welfare State & housebuilding (in fact they promised to build 300,000 houses a year compared with 200,000 under Labour) but to ditch unpopular ones like rationing & high taxation.
- The Tories had an influx of talented young politicians like Reginald Maudling.
- Despite his defeat in 1945, Churchill was still popular & hugely respected.
3
Q
4
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES WIN THE 1951 ELECTION? - Labour weaknesses
A
- In some ways 1945 had been a bad election to win: it meant that Labour were in government at a time when austerity was necessary b/c the war had crippled the British economy. Taxes had to be raised & rationing to be not merely continued but even added to (bread wasn’t rationed until after the war). The NHS was set up but unpopular charges had to be introduced for dental treatment, prescriptions & glasses b/c money was so tight.
- Labour could be accused of going too far in nationalising iron & steel, which the Tories promised to reverse. By 1951 nationalisation & state control were less popular than in 1945.
- 6 years in opposition had united the Tories whereas Labour were divided: charismatic Health Minister Aneurin Bevan resigned over health charges & there was criticism of Labour’s strongly anti-Soviet foreign policy, especially in the Korean War.
- Labour had been re-elected in 1950 but with their majority slashed to 5, giving the impression that they were tired & running out of steam.
4
Q
3
WHY DID THE CONSERVATIVES WIN THE 1951 ELECTION? - Electoral system
A
- Labour lost the election b/c they got fewer seats than the Tories but more votes. This was possible b/c GB has a “first past the post” system in which you win a seat if you get more votes than any other party (a plurality) but not necessarily a majority & regardless of how many more votes you get than the opposition. It makes no difference whether you get 1 more vote or 30,000. The problem for Labour in 1951 was that they piled up unnecessarily large majorities in safe seats in Wales & the North while losing vital marginal seats in the South & Midlands.
- Boundary changes designed to equalise the population in each constituency had the effect of favouring the Tories: on average it took 47,000 votes to elect a Labour MP but less than 43,000 to elect a Tory.
- The Tories benefited more from the decline of the Liberal vote (they only stood in about 20% of seats) than Labour b/c the Liberals were a middle class party strongest in the South.
5
Q
7
How successful were Conservative economic policies during the period from 1951 to 1964? - successes
A
- They were able to use economic policy to help win elections, Macmillan won the 1959 election with his logan, “you’ve never had it so good”.
- Economic growth allowed the Tories to increased spending on the NHS & housing while also cutting taxes at the same time, especially before the 1955 & 1959 elections.
- They could also afford to increase the old age pension by 50% 1951-64. They achieved their target of building 300,000 more houses per year ahead of schedule.
- Policies around credit and housing improved the standard of living; home ownership rose from 25% to 44% 1951-64, achieving the Tory dream of a “property owning democracy”.
- More people had consumer goods like fridges, TVs & washing machines. 5 times as many people owned a car in 1964 as in 1951 & TV ownership rose from 4% to 91%.
- They gained from the recovery following the Korean War and the ending of austerity, including the abolition of rationing in 1954. People contrasted prosperity under the Tories with austerity under Labour.
- Unemployment remained low in the 1950s, not reaching 500,000 until 1959.
6
Q
6
How successful were Conservative economic policies during the period from 1951 to 1964? - failures
A
- Tory economic policy had been very short term, focused on manufacturing booms in election years (e.g. 1959) & in correcting short term fluctuations in the economy, raising taxes & interest rates if it was growing too fast & causing inflation, or cutting them to stimulate growth if it stagnated. This “stop-go” cycle resulted from the absence of a long-term strategy.
- Their policies slowed down recovery and growth and increased the deficit. Too much was spent on defence as opposed to investment in industrial development.
- This led to a decline in major industries such as textiles, shipbuilding, coal & engineering, partly b/c both management & trade unions were resistant to change. They did not invest sufficiently in industrial research, resulting in a growing trade deficit (imports exceeded exports) b/c the British economy was not competitive enough.
- Growth was less than elsewhere in Europe, especially West Germany which enabled them to have old age pensions twice as generous as GB’s.
- Unemployment rose from 500,000 to 800,000 1959-63 & inflation rose to, creating “stagflation”..
- Success was based on borrowing and consumer credit. There was no overall policy and the government simply responded to events with stop-go policies.
7
Q
6
REASONS FOR CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE - Social Change & Prosperity
A
- The combination of social change, population movement & changes in constituency boundary changes favoured the Tories b/c the number of working class voters (who mainly voted Labour)fell while the number of middle class voters (who mainly voted Tory) rose. There was also a shift in population from the (mainly Labour voting) big cities to suburban & rural areas which mainly voted Tory, e.g. from London to Surrey. The boundary changes reflected this, so there were fewer urban (mainly Labour voting) urban seats & more suburban & rural ones which were much more likely to vote Tory.
- The Tory idea of a “property owning democracy” appealed to those who aspired to rise from working to middle class status. The % of people who owned their home rose from 25% in 1951 to 44% in 1964.
- Economic circumstances favoured the Tories: they came to power in 1951 just when the world economy started to grow & the need for austerity was much reduced: rationing could be ended & taxes cut while still increasing public spending on housing & health. In fact they were able to keep their promise of building 300,000 houses a year ahead of schedule.
- There was virtually full employment throughout the 50s. There were some economic problems in 1958 but by 1959 when the election was held the economy was booming again.
- Elections were fought mainly on economic issues, like the promise to build 300,000 houses a year in 1951 & MacMillan’s “you’ve never had it so good” slogan in 1959. Income tax was cut just before the elections in both 1955 & 1959. Wages more than doubled 1951-64 & rose much faster than prices so people were better off as well as working shorter hours.
- More people had consumer goods like fridges & TV washing machines. 5 times as many people owned a car in 1964 as in 1951 & TV membership rose from 4% to 91%.
8
Q
5
REASONS FOR CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE - Conservative Leadership
A
- Tory ministers like Butler, Maudling, Powell & MacLeod deserve credit for devising popular policies to take advantage of this situation.
- MacMillan timed elections skilfully to ensure victory: he delayed the election under his premiership until 1959 when the economy was booming & memories of Suez had faded.
- Churchill’s popularity stemming from his war record was an asset to the Tories in 1951. Eden’s glamour & popularity (especially with female voters) was an asset in 1955, before Suez.
- MacMillan’s presentational skills, earning the press nickname “Supermac”, contributed to a landslide victory in 1959.
- In 1964, when the Tories had in Home a much less popular leader than his Labour opponent, they lost.
9
Q
3
REASONS FOR CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE - NOT Conservative leadership
A
- Churchill during his 2nd premiership (1951-5) was little more than a figurehead, focusing mainly on foreign policy & leaving domestic policy largely to others. When he suffered a serious stroke in 1953 & was incapacitated for several weeks, no one seemed to notice!
- Eden proved to be an incompetent PM: like Churchill he was preoccupied with foreign affairs & neglected domestic policy. His disastrous error of judgement in sending British troops to seize control of the Suez Canal in 1956 without US support led to his resignation after only 2 years as PM, using ill health as an excuse.
- Even Macmillan, undoubtedly the ablest of the 4 Tory PMs 1951-64, severely misjudged the “Night of the Long Knives” in 1962 when he gave the impression of panic by sacking 16 govt. ministers. He was also criticised by the Denning Report for being too slow to respond to the Profumo scandal in 1963, reinforcing the public perception that he had grown tired & out of touch. This forced him to resign, again using the excuse of ill health.
10
Q
6
REASONS FOR CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE - Labour Weaknesses
A
- B/c of their experience under the 1945-51 Labour govt. the public associated the Party with austerity, rationing, high taxation & excessive govt. interference in their lives.
- It could be argued that Labour failed to adapt its policies to the changing economic & political climate, remaining too wedded to nationalisation (the nationalisation of iron & steel was especially controversial) & high taxation.
- Their share of the vote fell from 49% in 1951 to 44% in 1959.
- Labour was bitterly divided, especially after Hugh Gaitskell succeeded Attlee as leader in 1955. The Left, led by Aneurin Bevan, called for more nationalisation & strongly opposed Gaitskell’s plan to ditch Clause 4 of the Labour Party Constitution which committed them to nationalisation. This enabled the Tories to get away with mistakes like Suez.
- Labour were also divided over the Cold War & nuclear weapons. Bevan agreed that GB should have nuclear weapons but like other left wingers opposed allowing West Germany to rearm & join NATO in 1955. So bitter was the internal controversy that year that Bevan was temporarily expelled from the parliamentary party.
- The Labour left undermined Gaitskell’s leadership by defeating his plan to ditch Clause 4 & persuading the Party Conference in 1960 to adopt a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament (meaning GB should get rid of its nuclear weapons even if other countries didn’t). This was reversed a year later, showing how confused Labour’s policy was.
11
Q
5
REASONS FOR THE DECLINE IN CONSERVATIVE SUPPORT 1959-64 & THEIR ELECTION DEFEAT IN 1964 - The Economy
A
- British economic growth had lagged behind most other countries (especially West Germany but also France) throughout the 1951-64 period, but stagnated still further 1951-64.
- There was a growing trade deficit (imports exceeded exports) b/c the British economy was not competitive enough. Stagflation (stagnant economic growth combined with inflation) was an increasing problem. Unemployment reached 800,000 by 1963 & was especially bad in Scotland & northern England.
- There was a failure to modernise traditional industries like coal & engineering, partly b/c both management & trade unions were resistant to change.
- More days were lost in the early 60s due to strikes, especially involving dock workers.
- Tory economic policy had been very short term, focused on manufacturing booms in election years (e.g. 1959) & in correcting short term fluctuations in the economy, raising taxes & interest rates if it was growing too fast & causing inflation, or cutting them to stimulate growth if it stagnated. This “stop-go” cycle resulted from the absence of a long-term strategy.
12
Q
6
REASONS FOR THE DECLINE IN CONSERVATIVE SUPPORT 1959-64 & THEIR ELECTION DEFEAT IN 1964 - OTHER ISSUES
A
- Scandals like Vassall, Profumo & the Duchess of Argyll case discredited the Party & made it seem hypocritical.
- MacMillan was forced to resign in 1963 b/c he seemed increasingly tired & out of touch; the “Night of the Long Knives” in 1962 gave the impression that he was panicking & undermined the remaining ministers’ confidence in him. The Denning Report criticised him for responding too slowly to the Profumo scandal.
- Nevertheless Home was a disastrous choice to succeed him: choosing a titled aristocrat through a secretive process of “taking soundings” as opposed to an open democratic election reinforcd the increasingly widespread impression that they were a class ridden party out of touch with the modern world.
- This contrasted with the new Labour leader Harold Wilson (right), who came from a working class background, was witty & intelligent & gave the Labour Party a much more modern image with his “white heat of technology” speech. Wilson performed much better than Home on TV during the 1964 election campaign.
- Wilson promised faster economic growth, improved public services & more equality of opportunity for talented people from a working class background like himself.
- The Tories seemed increasingly out of touch with young people (this was the era of “Teddy boys” followed by “mods & rockers”) & with public concerns about immigration, despite the 1962 Immigration Act. There was a decline in deference & respect for authority, reflected in the “satire boom” of the early 60s with Private Eye magazine & the “That was the week that was” TV programme
13
Q
6
DID MACMILLAN DESERVE THE NICKNAME “SUPERMAC”? - Successes
A
- M had the sense to keep Labour’s popular policies, like full employment, building more houses (which he pioneered as Housing Minister 1951-4, building 300,000 houses a year compared with Labour’s 200,000) & spending more on the NHS & education while at the same time cutting taxes. This was possible b/c of the economic prosperity which marked most of his premiership, justifying his famous boast to the voters that they “had never had it so good”.
- This economic success plus his strong presentational skills enabled the Tories to win a landslide election victory in 1959, their 3rd in succession, enabling them to stay in power for 13 years. His slogan, “Life is better under the Conservatives; don’t let Labour ruin it” struck a chord with voters.
- He understood so well how to appeal to Labour voters that the former Labour PM Clement Attlee once said he could have led the Labour Party. He certainly outsmarted Hugh Gaitskell, who led the Labour opposition 1955-63.
- His biographer DR Thorpe argues that he could appeal to all sections of the electorate: he understood the educational aspirations of the lower middle class, had a good war record, was a successful businessman, appealed to intellectuals with his intellectual & literary interests & had the presentational skills to look & sound like a PM & to adapt to the TV era despite being 63 when he became PM.
- Realising the damage Eden’s Suez adventure had done to relations with the USA, M prioritised restoring the relationship by supporting the USA during the Berlin crisis in 1961 (when the Wall was built) & the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The United States supplied Polaris (a submarine launched nuclear missile), ensuring Britain a place at the nuclear top table.
- M’s “Winds of Change” speech in 1960, recognising the need for GB to give up her African colonies, showed courage & vision in the face of criticism from hardliners in his own party (including Churchill).
14
Q
6
DID MACMILLAN DESERVE THE NICKNAME “SUPERMAC”? - Failures
A
- As Chancellor of the Exchequer before he became PM he lacked the courage to introduce a Capital Gains Tax to tax unearned income, knowing it would be unpopular with his party. This forced him to cut govt. spending, slowing economic growth.
- Although the economy grew during most of his premiership, it grew less quickly than other major economies (especially West Germany), partly b/c of the “stop go” policies of his govt.
- The economic stagnation of the early 1960s led to a decline in Tory popularity, shown by the loss of the Orpington byelection in 1962.
- His “Night of the Long Knives” in 1962 was a serious misjudgement, conveying a sense of panic which undermined his carefully cultivated relaxed image.
- He was the first British PM to attempt to join the European Economic Community (EEC), as the EU was then known, but failed in this b/c the French president De Gaulle vetoed it.
- His public image as the relaxed “Edwardian gentleman” became a disadvantage as his slow reaction to the Vassall & Profumo scandals made him look out of touch, especially when Gaitskell was replaced by Wilson with his modern, “man of the people” image. This all contributed to M having to resign as PM in 1963.
15
Q
7
“NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD” OR “13 WASTED YEARS”? - “13 Wasted Years”
A
- Tory “stop-go” policies led to economic stagnation, causing to a recession in 1958.
- The Tories were more concerned with creating temporary economic booms to enable them to win elections in 1955 & 1959 than with tackling GB’s fundamental economic problems.
- This & excessive defence spending (resulting from an exaggerated view of GB’s status as a great power) led to the British economy growing much more slowly than West Germany’s or France’s.
- This & persistent balance of trade deficits reflected the basic uncompetitiveness of the British economy which the Tories failed to tackle.
- Churchill & Eden were preoccupied with foreign rather than domestic policy & Eden’s handling of Suez showed catastrophic misjudgement.
- By the early 60s, with the economy stagnating & Macmillan’s mishandling of the Night of the Long Knives & the 1963 scandals, there was a growing perception that the Tories were out of touch with the modern world & running out of steam.
- It could be argued that Tory dominance was due more to having a divided Labour opposition than to their own strengths; when Labour finally got their act together in 1964 the Tories were defeated.
16
Q
5
“NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD” OR “13 WASTED YEARS”? - “Never had it so good”
A
- Living standards rose continuously 1951-64 with wages rising faster than prices; as Sked & Cook put it, “everyone from the middle-aged mum with her domestic appliances to teenagers with transistor radios” benefited.
- By 1959 most families had a washing machine & the % with a TV rose 40-70% 1955-9.
- This was much better than the austerity years (with high taxes & increased rationing) during WW2 & under Labour 1945-51 & the high unemployment & poverty of the 1930s.
- The Tories managed to cut taxes while still improving public services: Churchill boasted in 1954 that they had “improved all the social services & are spending more this year on them than any Government at any time”.
- GB had virtually full employment.
17
Q
6
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - Social reform
A
They passed a number of progressive social reforms including:
- The Race Relations Acts in 1968 & 1976 to ban racial discrimination
- The Equal Pay & Sex Discrimination Acts in 1970 & 1975.
- The virtual abolition of the death penalty in 1965. Making contraception available on the NHS in 1967.
- The legalisation of abortion & homosexuality in 1967.
- Ending of censorship of the theatre by the Lord Chamberlain in 1968
- Lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969.
18
Q
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - NOT social reform
A
BUT social conservatives claimed that the changes regarding abortion, homosexuality, contraception & censorship encouraged sexual promiscuity & undermined family values. The abolition of the death penalty was opposed by most of the public.
19
Q
2
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - Economy
A
- The IMF loan, controversial as it was, averted economic crisis & enabled Labour to reduce inflation from 26% to only 10% in 2 years 1975-7.
- Labour improved GB’s transport infrastructure by building motorways, especially in the North.
20
Q
4
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - NOT economy
A
- Labour’s National Plan, introduced in 1965, failed b/c the Treasury’s deflationary policy made it impossible to expand the economy as Labour hoped & the unions refused to accept that wage rises must be linked to higher productivity (production per worker).
- Both govts. failed to tackle GB’s fundamental economic problems, with unemployment rising under both govts. (it reached 2.3 million by 1967) & major inflation in the 1970s fuelled by rising oil prices & excessively generous pay rises (like the 29% for the miners in 1974). In fact inflation reached nearly 26% in 1975. British economic performance, especially in the 1970s, was increasingly characterised by stagflation. By 1979 the Tories were able to claim that GB had become “the sick man of Europe”.
- They failed to grasp the nettle of reforming & slimming down declining industries like coal, steel & shipbuilding. These industries & textiles continued to decline.
- The need to devalue the £ in 1967 & take a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1976 showed the incompetence of Labour’s overall economic management. The terms of the IMF forced the Labour govt. to cut NHS spending more drastically than Thatcher ever did.
21
Q
2
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - NOT Political Survival
A
- Wilson led a talented but divided Cabinet which, according to Barbara Castle, devoted ¾ of its time to personal arguments rather than governing the country.
- Labour needed the support of other parties to survive 1977-9 but lost the support of the Scottish National Party (SNP) by allowing the “40% rule” in the 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution which led to the defeat of devolution although more Scots voted for it than against b/c at least 40% of the electorate (not just those who actually voted) had to vote for it. AS a result the SNP proposed the “vote of no confidence” which brought the Labour govt. down in 1979.
22
Q
2
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - Political Survival
A
- Labour governments were able to survive despite having small or no majorities: they survived 1964-6 (impressing the voters sufficiently to win a clear majority of 96 in 1966) & 1974-9, the last 2 years without a majority at all.
- Wilson was a highly skilled political “fixer”, keeping a Cabinet which contained bitter rivalries (both personal & over issues like the EEC) together with only 4 resignations in 6 years 1964-70.
23
Q
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - Trade Union
A
In February 1974 the new Labour govt. settled the coal miners’ strike with a 29% pay rise which ended the 3 Day Week & got the economy moving again.
24
Q
3
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - Public Services
A
- Wilson set up the Open University in 1969 (so students could study or degrees through distance learning) to give working class people more access to university education. This contributed to a rapid expansion of higher education 1964-7.
- Comprehensive education arguably improved access to good schools for all children, not just the top 20% who passed the 11 plus exam for grammar school entry.
- Labour improved GB’s transport infrastructure by building motorways, especially in the North.
24
# 3
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - NOT trade union
BUT They were too close to the unions & therefore unable to reform them effectively as Thatcher later:
- The seamen’s strike in 1966 damaged British trade.
- The unions defeated “In Place of Strife” (a plan to reform the trade unions & reduce the number of strikes) in 1969, contributing to Labour’s defeat in the 1970 election.
- Despite the Social Contract (an agreement between the Labour Govt. & the unions) in 1975 the number of strikes increased, there were inflationary wage rises & the failure this policy led to the Winter of Discontent (above right) & Labour’s defeat in the 1979 election.
25
# 3
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - NOT Public Services
- Economic failure forced Labour to reintroduce prescription charges.
- Labour spent too much on defence despite withdrawing from east of Suez from 1968 onwards. This plus the deflationary policies often pursued limited industrial investment & therefore slowed growth.
- The promotion of comprehensive education was controversial, many arguing that grammar schools provided an excellent opportunity for intelligent people from working class origins to progress, as Wilson himself had.
26
# 3
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - NOT immigration
It could be argued that the Immigration Act 1968 was successful in reducing racial tension.
BUT:
- It could be argued that Labour’s Immigration Act (responding to large scale immigration by ethnic Asians from Kenya) was pandering to racism & that their legislation against racial & sexual discrimination wasn’t strong enough.
- On the other hand, many working class voters (especially in parts of London & the West Midlands) thought Labour wasn’t doing enough to limit immigration, especially as they feared immigrants would take away their jobs (b/c they were willing to work for lower pay) or enable employers to reduce wages.
27
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - EEC
Wilson’s attempt to enter the EEC in 1967 failed but Wilson managed to keep his party reasonably united on this issue & the 1975 referendum which confirmed GB’s membership resolved the issue until the BREXIT referendum in 2016.
28
# 8
WHY DID HEATH WIN THE 1970 ELECTION? - Labour Failures
- Labour economic policies failed, as highlighted by the devaluation of the £ in 1967 & the rise in unemployment, especially in declining industries like coal, steel, shipbuilding & textiles. Economic failure forced Labour to reintroduce prescription charges.
- The number of strikes rose as Labour’s “In Place of Strife” plan in 1969 failed. This undermined Labour’s claim that only they could get on with the unions.
- Wilson was widely seen as a politician rather than a statesman, i.e. as a cynical & devious political “fixer” who lacked vision & was content simply to survive in power.
- Devaluation 1967 showed the failure of Labour’s economic management & Wilson was accused of lying when he said that it wouldn’t affect “the £ in your pocket” when in fact it did cause inflation.
- He was also complacent, relying too much on the assumption that the voters preferred him to Heath b/c of his superior presentational skills.
- Labour’s policy of deflation, raising tax revenue by £923 million in 1968, was unpopular with voters. It also failed to achieve a lasting improvement to GB’s trade deficit; the announcement of bad trade figures just before the election was a major factor in the Labour defeat.
- Social changes (the decline in the number of working class compared with middle class voters plus the fall in trade union membership, e.g. the membership of the National Union of Mineworkers halved in the 1960s) hurt Labour.
- Labour party membership fell 1964-70 b/c members were disappointed with their party’s record in govt. compared with the promises made in 1964. They felt that Labour had favoured big business at the expense of the workers & had spent too much on defence as opposed to welfare.
28
# 2
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1964-70 & 1974-9 TACKLE THE PROBLEMS THEY FACED? - Foreign Policy
- Wilson’s policy towards the Vietnam War was well balanced: he publicly supported the USA in its fight against Communism but criticised excessive bombing & refused to send British troops there.
- BUT his policy of imposing economic sanctions against the racist govt. of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) failed b/c companies ignored them or found ways round them. This soured relations with the Commonwealth & the left of the Labour Party.
29
# 4
WHY DID HEATH WIN THE 1970 ELECTION? - Tory strengths
- As a former grammar school boy & the first Tory leader to be democratically elected, Heath seemed to represent meritocracy & to offer something new.
- He promised to stimulate growth & end “stop go” economics by cutting taxes & generally reducing govt. interference in the economy, especially price & wage controls.
- He promised to enter the EEC which he said would make GB more prosperous.
- He promised to reform industrial relations to reduce the number of strikes & inflationary pay settlements.
30
# 3
HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS HEATH AS LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY 1965-75? - Leader of the Opposition 1965-70 & 1974-5
- As a grammar school boy of lower middle class origins & the first Tory leader to be democratically elected Heath showed that the Tories had moved on from Macmillan & Home & now had a more modern, classless & meritocratic image,
- He won the 1970 election against the odds by promising to stimulate growth & end “stop go” economics by cutting taxes & generally reducing govt. interference in the economy, especially price & wage controls. He also promised to enter the EEC which he said would make GB more prosperous & to reform industrial relations to reduce the number of strikes & inflationary pay settlements.
- He showed courage & leadership by sacking Enoch Powell from the Shadow Cabinet b/c of his notorious “rivers of blood” speech in 1968. He refused to pander to racism.
31
# 3
HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS HEATH AS LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY 1965-75? - NOT Leader of the Opposition 1965-70 & 1974-5
- He lost 2 of the 3 elections he contested as Leader of the Opposition, in 1966 & October 1974.
- His victory in 1970 owed much more to Labour weaknesses than his strengths, especially their failures in economic policy & industrial relations which produced widespread disillusionment with Wilson.
- His replacement by Thatcher in 1975 (despite distrust of her b/c of her gender & stridently right wing views) shows his party had become fed up with his constant failures & lack of presentational skills compared with Wilson.
32
# 3
HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS HEATH AS LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY 1965-75? - Successes as Prime Minister 1970-4
- Unlike Macmillan & Wilson he succeeded in getting GB into the EEC in 1973.
- He cut taxes & improved old age pensions.
- He raised the minimum school leaving age to 16 & increased spending on school buildings.
32
# 5
HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS HEATH AS LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY 1965-75? - Failures as Prime Minister 1970-4
- Unlike Thatcher he failed to follow through the policies on which he was elected of reducing govt. interference in the economy: his bailouts of Rolls Royce in 1971 & Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in 1972 plus his introduction of statutory wage controls, also in 1972, flatly contradicted his election promises.
- He also failed to fulfil his promise to reform industrial relations effectively: his Industrial Relations Act 1971 was a failure, introduced too quickly without proper consultation. It caused so much bitterness that there were twice as many days lost due to strikes in Heath’s 4 years as PM than in Wilson’s 6 1964-70.
- Far from making British industry more competitive as Heath promised, GB’s trade balance deteriorated from surplus to deficit.
- He failed to defeat the coal miners’ strike 1973-4, whereas Thatcher defeated the miners 1984-5. His mismanagement of the miners’ strike was so disastrous that he had to introduce the 3 day week & then when he went to the country on a “who governs Britain?” ticket he lost.
- Unemployment rose & inflation doubled 1970-4, so “stagflation” continued.
33
# 6
HOW FAR WAS WILSON MORE SUCCESSFUL AS LABOUR PRIME MINISTER THAN CALLAGHAN? - YES
- Wilson won 2 of the 3 elections he fought as PM (in 1966 & October 1974, losing only in 1970) whereas Callaghan suffered a decisive defeat in 1979.
- Wilson managed to increase the size of his majority in 1966, whereas Callaghan lost his majority (inherited from Wilson) within a year of taking office & then lost a vote of confidence in 1979 which led to the election defeat.
- Wilson had a more progressive record of social reform, including the legalisation of abortion & homosexuality (both in 1967), the virtual abolition of the death penalty in 1965 & the Equal Pay & Sex Discrimination Acts (1970 & 1975) than Callaghan.
- Wilson did more to reform education with university expansion, the introduction of comprehensive schools & the Open University.
- The “Winter of Discontent” which brought down the Callaghan govt. showed a more complete & more disastrous breakdown of Labour’s relations with the unions than did Wilson’s “In Place of Strife”.
- Wilson never had to cut public spending as drastically as Callaghan did after the IMF loan.
34
# 6
Assess the reasons why government relations with the unions were so poor in the period from 1964 to 1979 - Government policy
- Wilson & Heath both believed there were too many strikes (unofficial as well as official) & these were holding back the economic growth they were trying to achieve, reducing production & making British exports more expensive.
- Both believed that reform was needed to to curb strikes which were unofficial or damaged the national interest, hence In Place of Strife 1969 & Heath’s Industrial Relations Act 1971.
- Heath’s belief that most British people thought the unions had too much power & that his election victory was partly due to this made him determined to take them on through his 1971 Industrial Relations Act.
- Faced with another NUM strike, infuriated by the unions wrecking his policies & (wrongly) confident he had public support, Heath raised the stakes by calling a general election in February 1974 on the slogan, “who rules the country?”
- Both Conservative & Labour govts in the 1970s tried to restrain inflation by limiting pay rises: Callaghan’s attempt to impose a 5% limit provoked the “Winter of Discontent” 1978-9.
- The £2 billion spending cuts imposed by the Callaghan govt as a condition for getting the IMF loan in 1976 inflamed union discontent, especially among low paid public employees.
34
# 6
HOW FAR WAS WILSON MORE SUCCESSFUL AS LABOUR PRIME MINISTER THAN CALLAGHAN? - NO
- Callaghan had a better grip on inflation, which rose to 26% under Wilson in 1975 but fell to only 10% under Callaghan in 1977.
- Neither was able to resolve GB’s underlying economic problems, such as “stagflation”, “stop go”, a balance of trade deficit & low productivity, reflecting GB’s lack of competitiveness compared with other countries.
- Neither could reverse the decline of traditional industries like coal, steel, shipbuilding & textiles.
- Both had to cut welfare spending b/c of economic failure; Wilson had to reintroduce prescription charges & Callaghan to cut NHS spending generally.
- Any success either achieved was short term; both were perceived as failures both by the Tories & the Labour Left (who saw them both as having betrayed Socialism).
- Both were accused of being short-term “fixers” with no long term vision who were content just to survive in power.
35
# 3
Assess the reasons why government relations with the unions were so poor in the period from 1964 to 1979 - Inflation
- The number of days lost through strikes more than doubled 1970-2 b/c of inflation, which rose from 6% to 16% 1970-4, b/c workers were determined that their wages should at least keep pace with it.
- The new incomes policy (trying to limit pay increases) introduced by Heath in 1972 was wrecked by the massive rise in oil prices in 1973 which led to even bigger pay claims & more strikes.
- The fact that inflation reached 30% in the middle of 1975 led to even bigger pay demands.
36
# 6
Assess the reasons why government relations with the unions were so poor in the period from 1964 to 1979 - Trade Union Militancy
- The trade unions refused to accept responsibility for GB’s economic failures, insisting on their right to “free collective bargaining” with employers & arguing that curbs on union power would be socially unjust, hurting the low paid.
- A sense of injustice fuelled militancy: the miners knew that they received low pages despite doing a dirty, physically demanding job. They also knew had public sympathy. Low paid local govt employees like gravediggers & dustbin men had their pay limited by govt spending cuts & saw other, better paid workers getting big pay increases; this prompted them to demand a 40% pay increase in 1978.
- Knowing they had support of over 50 Labour MPs including Cabinet ministers like Callaghan made the union leaders more confident in resisting In Place of Strife in 1969.
- The fact that the 1971 Industrial Relations Act came from a Tory govt made the unions all the more determined to resist it & their success in defeating In Place of Strife made them more confident in doing so.
- The NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) became increasingly militant, demanding a 47% pay increase in 1972. Communist NUM militant Arthur Scargill called Heath a “class enemy” & a militant miner told Heath in 1973 he was trying to bring down the govt. The NUM’s use of 1,000s of “flying pickets” (strikers who travelled to work places like the coke depot in Saltley, Birmingham to persuade or force workers to support the NUM strike by not going to work), led to much publicised violence which raised the stakes. The success of the NUM in securing a 27% increase in the 1972 strike & the increasingly clear failure of the Industrial Relations Act made other unions more confident in challenging the govt.
- The perception that the miners had brought down the Heath govt (b/c he lost the Feb 1974 election) made the unions even more confident & militant than before in demanding huge pay rises well above inflation.
37
# 5
ASSESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEMS FACING THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1974-9 - Party Politics
- Labour govts had to survive despite having small minorities or none at all: they governed without a majority Feb – Oct 1974 b/c of the indecisive Feb 1974 election, only got a majority of 3 in Oct & lost even that through byelection defeats in 1977 & then had to govern for 2 years without a majority.
- Wilson’s intellectual powers were declining by the time he became PM for the 2nd time in 1974 & he had to retire in 1976 b/c (we now know) he had Alzheimer’s Disease.
- Labour needed the support of other parties to survive 1977-9, forcing them to rely on minority deals with other parties like the Liberals (there was a “Lib / Lab Pact” 1977-8), the SNP (Scottish National Party) & the Ulster Unionists.
- They lost the support of the SNP by allowing the “40% rule” in the 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution which led to the defeat of devolution although more Scots voted for it than against b/c at least 40% of the electorate (not just those who actually voted) had to vote for it. As a result the SNP proposed the “vote of no confidence” which brought the Labour govt. down in 1979.
- The election of Thatcher as Conservative leader in 1975 meant that the Conservative opposition now had a much more formidable leader than Heath, who had lost 3 elections out of 4 to Labour.
38
ASSESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEMS FACING THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1974-9 - NOT Party Politics
BUT: Wilson & Callaghan were both highly skilled political “fixers” who had remarkable success both in keeping their party united & in doing deals with other parties, e.g. keeping the SNP onside until March 1979 by promising devolution.
39
# 5
ASSESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEMS FACING THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1974-9 - The Economy & Trade Unions
- When Labour came to power in 1974 the British economy was facing stagflation with rapid inflation fuelled by rising world oil prices (inflation reached 26% in 1975) coupled with rising unemployment, which topped 1 million for the first time since WW2, also in 1975.
- Labour’s failure to get a grip on these problems led to a crisis in the value of the £ in 1976 which forced Callaghan into the humiliation of having to secure a loan from the IMF (International Monetary Fund). This in turn forced Labour to cut the NHS more than Thatcher ever did which was deeply unpopular with the Party.
- What also fuelled inflation was Labour’s failure to get a grip on the unions. The only way they could end the 1973-4 coal strike was to concede a 29% pay rise which in turn led to inflation reaching 26% in 1975.
- Callaghan’s unsuccessful attempt to restrict annual pay rises to 5% was destroyed by the Winter of Discontent 1978-9 which brought down the govt.
- All this economic failure enabled the Tories to claim that Labour had made GB “the sick man of Europe”.
40
ASSESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEMS FACING THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1974-9 - NOT The Economy & Trade Unions
BUT: The IMF loan, controversial as it was, averted economic crisis & enabled Labour to reduce inflation from 26% to only 10% in 2 years 1975-7.
40
# 2
ASSESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEMS FACING THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1974-9 - NOT the EEC
- Wilson cleverly agreed to Benn’s proposal to put the issue to a referendum which Wilson thought he could win with the Liberals solidly & the Tories predominantly in favour; all 3 party leaders (including Thatcher) & most of the press & the business community were in favour. This enabled Wilson to turn a 2:1 majority against the EEC before the referendum into a 2:1 majority for it.
- West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt agreed to a deal which enabled Wilson to claim that he had renegotiated the terms of GB’s membership (though little had really changed).
41
# 3
ASSESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEMS FACING THE LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1974-9 - The EEC
- In 1974 Wilson had a formidable task to keep his party united over Europe: most of the party (not just left wingers like Tony Benn & Michael Foot but also moderates like Peter Shore) were against it but a powerful minority (led by Roy Jenkins & Shirley Williams) were equally strongly in favour.
- Wilson was personally in favour of staying in but had to pretend to be neutral to keep his party united; he also knew that in 1974 most of the public were against.
- The EEC was not prepared to change the terms (by which British taxpayers had to subsidise inefficient French farmers) significantly in GB’s favour.
