Labour and Conservative governments 1964-79 Flashcards
Why did the Labour Party win in the 1964 election?
In October 1963, Labour party had opinion poll lead of 12% over the Tories, and Wilson enjoyed a 60% approval rating
BUT victory was only small in 1964 (12 mil votes vs 12.2 votes) : Conservatives (365 seats 1959 - 304 seats 1964) & Labour (258 seats 1959 - 317 seats 1964)
WHY?
- Wilson’s leadership of the Labour Party.
- How the electorate regarded the conservatives.
- The revival of the Liberal party.
- Changes in British society during the 1950s.
Why did the Labour Party win in the 1964 election?
Conservative Weaknesses
- Voters blame them for growing economic problems ( apparent in early 1960s)
- Didn’t have the answer to rising unemployment, inflation, industrial unrest, and growing disparity in wealth between the regions of Britain = idea of ‘thirteen wasted years’
- Seemed out of touch with a modern democratic society = Scottish aristocrat Douglas-Home as PM was 60yo
- (PREVIOUS CHAPTER) The Economy, ECC Rejection, Night of the Long Knives, Scandals, Social Problems & Riots
Why did the Labour Party win in the 1964 election?
The Liberal Party
- middle-class voters, who wanted to protest against the Conservative government were not prepared to vote for Labour = revival of Liberals (SHOWN BY Conservative majority of 14,7000 overturned in Orpington 1962 by-election by Liberal candidate, winning with a majority of 7,850)
- Increased funding, talented, new recruits, more publicity = able to contest more seats
HOWEVER only gained 3 more seats… BUT more than doubled their vote THUS taking from Conservatives to help Labour… EVEN THO overall Labour vote decreased…
Why did the Labour Party win in the 1964 election?
Changes in British Society
- PREVIOUS CHAPTER (Youth Sub-Culture) = Improved living standards = people, especially the young, more independent and less, willing to accept additional authority
- Grammar schools gave bright pupils from under privileged, backgrounds, unprecedented opportunities = climate, in which people aspire to create a new, Martin, classless Britain = benefited labour, which was significantly more popular with voters under the age of 44, in opinion polls (LESS SO with older and female voters)
- Culture: plays/novels/TV examined class structure / satirised politicians / challenged attitudes to sex
Why did the Labour Party win in the 1964 election?
Labour Strengths
- Much more united (there are divisions over nuclear weapons, Europe, and nationalisation, had not disappeared - GLOSSED OVER by Wilson by presenting Labour as modern, dynamic & progressive)
- Manifesto promised policy is to promote faster economic growth and full employment and improve welfare and health services and better housing and program of comprehensive education.
- Pledge to “harness science to our economic planning” = Britain “forged in the white heat of this [technological and scientific] revolution”
- Wilson personified new progressive Britain: talented person from humble background (stressed his difference from ‘Etonians’) man-of-the-people (Yorkshire-born, grammar-school boy, football fan) - image of a classless professional
Why was the result of the 1964 election so close?
If 900 voters in eight crucial constituencies had voted Tory, or not even voted, Labour wouldn’t have won.
- Labour votes decreased from 1959, suggesting the election was more of a rejection of the Conservatives than endorsement of Labour.
- Home’s Leadership: More effective PM than expected, appeared modest and decent and trustworthy, while Wilson had a reputation of political cunning
- Tory Tax Cuts: Chancellor of the Exchequer, Maudling, cut taxes in 1963 budget = earnings rose & number of unemployed dropped from almost 900,000 (Feb 1963) to 300,000 (July 1964) = helped narrow the gap between the parties
- Attitudes towards Labour:
> People still distrusted Labour links to trade unions (strikes against government pay policy reduced support)
> Middle-class voters disliked its commitment to nationalisation.
> Voters doubted ability to handle crisis (especially international / defense) as few leaders had held office.
> Immigration as sensitive issue - racist Tory campaigns grabbed some Midlands constituencies like Smethwick
Harold Wilson
Admirable Qualities vs Problems he faced
POSITIVES (admirable qualities)
- Highly intelligent, hard-working, excellent memory for detail.
- Perpetually, optimistic, resilient, patient, cool in a crisis.
- Personally kind, charming, generous.
- Distrustful of party ideology, preferring practical solutions.
- Sought compromise over conflict.
- Acceptable to both wings of the party.
NEGATIVES (problems he faced)
- Labour had a majority of only four seats.
- Party promises about modernising needed to be fulfilled.
- Pressing foreign and colonial problems.
- Senior figures disliked one another.
- Serious economic situation.
Divisions within the Labour Party
LEFT:
- Believed the task of a labour government was to make Britain fully socialist.
- Bringing more sectors of the economy understate control.
- Remaining outside the EEC.
- Abandoning the countries nuclear weapons.
- Speeding up the process of decolonisation.
- Distancing Britain from US foreign policy.
- Abolishing or reforming institutions that appear to protect privilege, such as independent schools or the House of Lords.
RIGHT:
- Believed that the very left-wing policies will vote, losers and impractical/irresponsible. Government should promote economic growth and a fairer distribution of wealth by economic planning on taxation policy.
- Apply to join the common market (EEC).
- Retain Britain’s nuclear weapons.
- Maintain a close alliance with the USA to guarantee national security.
- Resist the demand for further nationalisation.
How effective was Harold Wilson as prime minister?
The Labour government’s small majority
- INITIALLY, majority of four.
- March 1966 General Election, government was returned with a majority of 96 (253 vs 363 seats) = major achievement and showed Wilson’s leadership style had paid off.
- This happened because:
> Wilson avoided splits in the party.
> Labour manage to appear purposeful and resolute.
> Wilson exuded self-confidence and authority, making Heath, Conservative leader since August 1965, seem dogged.
How effective was Harold Wilson as prime minister?
The transformation of British Society
The Labour govt’s radicalism lay in its major programme of social change (not nationalising industry): traditionalists were outraged (thought laws on homosexuality, contraception, abortion encouraged promiscuous sex) - believed this would create a ‘permissive’ society, opinion polls said death penalty was popular, Mary Whitehouse led a campaign of 400,000 people against excessive sex, violence & bad language in BBC Programmes
NOV 1965 = Murder (abolition of death penalty) & Race Relations (illegal to discriminate in public facilities) Acts
1967 = Family Planning (free contraception to all), Sexual Offenses (legal gay acts in private) & Abortion (legalised under certain conditions) Acts
1968 = Race Relations (illegal racial discrimination in housing/employment) & Theatres (censorship of plays ended) Acts
1969 = Voting (lowered from 21 to 18) & Divorce (more simply and cheaper) Acts
1970 = Equal Pay (men & women) Act
How effective was Harold Wilson as prime minister?
Race Relations
More commonwealth arrivals = found only low paid jobs = settled in working class areas = PROBLEM FOR GOVT because immigration was unpopular with Labour voters in inner-city areas BECAUSE
- racial prejudice
- fear that competition would mean lower wages
SO govt tightened rules of immigration in 1965 & 68 WHILE Race Relations Acts attempted to tackle discrimination BUT enforcement was weak = difficult to secure convictions
How effective was Harold Wilson as prime minister?
Eduction Policy
Labour supporters opposed existing system that divided children by 11+ into grammar schools & secondary modern schools.
1965 Anthony Crosland (education secretary) began replacing with comprehensive system = BITTER CONTROVERSIES because grammar schools seen as offering the sort of opportunity usually open only to those at independent schools
Home’s govt had begun to implement recommendations of 1963 Robbins Report = major expansion of university education to produce sufficiently educated workforce = Open University
1951 - 1970, number of people attending university increased: 79,422 - 176,169 (men) & 22,590 - 66,842 (women)
How effective was Harold Wilson as prime minister?
The Vietnam War
Wilson believed that economic recovery and security depended on US Alliance, although the left regarded US Policies as aggressive & imperialist!
April 1965: few weeks after Johnson competed troops to Vietnam, Wilson declared ‘plain support of the American stand against the communist infiltration in South Vietnam’ BUT to appease the left didn’t send troops when asked by Johnson
June 1966: Wilson publicly criticised heavy US bombing of North Vietnam & in 1967 attempted to broker a peace deal
FAILURE: Wilson annoyed Johnson BUT didn’t go far enough to appease the left
How effective was Harold Wilson as prime minister?
Southern Rhodesia
Illegal deceleration of independence in NOV 1965 by white majority govt of Ian Smith in the British colony of Southern Rhodesia.
Labour left & Commonwealth countries of black Africa wanted govt to send troops toc rush rebellion INSTEAD govt used economic sanctions = didn’t work = nonetheless Wilson believed he old find a workable compromise = twice tried personal diplomacy
Wilson proposed settlement that would have left Smith in power PROVIDED that majority rule was introduced = this offer risked inflaming left-wing opinions / unity of party / future of multi-racial Commonwealth BUT Smith refused, allowing him to maintain stance of opponent to rebellion
EXTREMELY RISKY TACTICS but there was no easy solution (wasn’t settled until 1980)
How effective was Harold Wilson as prime minister?
The Common Market
Wilson believed he could persuade Charles de Gaulle to change mind about ECC after Britain’s application in 1963. FAILURE = NOV 1967 de Gaulle repeated veto
BUT Wilson succeeded in maintains cabinet & party unity over Europe (pro were pleased by application, anti pleased by its failure)
How effective was Harold Wilson as prime minister?
Management of the Labour Cabinet
- showed considerable political skill in avoiding splits on foreign issues & used cabinet effectively pass major modernising social policy
- anxious to avoid internal squabbling that had weakened party in 1950s = hoped to achieve this by giving ministerial jobs to senior party figures from all shades of opinion (not just supporters) = BITTER QUARRELS = cabinet in-fighting reached peak 1969 when govt tried to reform industrial relations
- Barbara Castle observed in daisy Jan 1968 ‘we spent 3/4 of out time in these personal pro and anti intrigues instead of getting down to real job’
BUT (as Denis Healey, defence minister admitted) such disputes were ‘all too common in governments of all parties’ AND there were only 4 cabinet resignations during the life of the Labour govt (record similar to Macmillan)
How effective was Harold Wilson as prime minister?
1964-70
POSITIVES:
- Transformation of Labour’s small majority
- Transformation of British society / social reforms (BUT controversies)
NEGATIVES:
- Race Relations
- Foreign Policy; Vietnam War, Southern Rhodesia, Common Market (BUT managed to maintain party unity)
- Cabinet Management (BUT quite usual / avoided split of party over foreign issues)
Labour & Britain’s Economic Difficulties in the 1960s
Inherited £800 million balance of payments deficit from Conservatives & believed this to be symptomatic of Britain’s lack of competitiveness = must produce better goods, cheaper than foreign products, SO…
- British firms had to improve efficiency by investing in new tech & grant wage increase only if workers were more productive
- Govt had to maintain investment in nationalised industries, ensure Britain had well-trained workforce & use revenue from taxation to develop transport network
Britain’s problems with Trade Unions 1960s
- Union leaders used threat of strike action to demand wage increases in times of inflation.
- Strongly resisted government trying to apply pay increase restrictions / making wage increases dependent on improved productivity (wages that rose not from this increased inflation / made industry labour cost higher).
- High labour costs reduced amount of profit that employers could invest & made goods more expensive (= balance of payments deficit)
- the labour government had to take account of the demands of the trade union because the party was allied to them and they provided most of its money, and in the 1960s, almost half of the British workforce belong to a trade union.
Economic Policies of Wilson Government 1964-70
- Had to take immediate steps to tackle the balance of payments, deficit, or government would gain a reputation abroad for economic incompetence = discourage foreign investment and damage earnings of the City of London.
- Two choices;
> deflation through tax rises or cuts in government expenditure = money out of consumers pockets and reduce spending power of industries and businesses = decrease import bill = decrease gap between imports.
> devaluation = reducing the exchange value of the pound, which had been fixed since WWII (1949 £1:$2.80) = make British products, cheaper = boosting exports = however, cost of living would rise as Britain relied on imports
Deflationary Measures & Why Wilson didn’t want Devaluation
Autumn 1964, Chancellor of the exchequer Jim Callaghan, negotiated foreign loans to prevent a run on the pound = in return for US financial assistance, he had to agree to maintain British far Eastern bases = British forces already fighting in Borneo to defend Commonwealth state of Malaysia against Indonesia, and Americans, already embroiled in Vietnam, wanted continued British support in the region.
- Over the next nine months he introduced a series of deflationary measures = higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol, and a temporary import surcharge = Wilson didn’t want devaluation because:
> believed it would reduce savings of working-class families
> it had destroyed on Labour government in 1931 and in 1949 had severely damaged Attlee govt ( which Wilson had served in )
> did it want voters to associate Labour with ‘the easy way out’ of economic difficulties
> tiny Commons majority so another election inevitable and devaluation would be unpopular
> didn’t want to upset US who also had balance of payments deficit = US Treasury fear that if Britain devalued, currency traders would assume US would to = run on the dollar
The National Plan
Published in by Wilson’s new department - the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) - in SEPTEMBER 1965 with two aims:
- annual growth rate of 3.8% over 6 years
- increase in exports of 5.25% each year to wipe out BoP deficit
Required Government to:
- Create new National Board for Price & Incomes (NBPI) to ensure that wage increases would only be granted for increase in productivity
- Provide investment funds for modernising industry & improvement of workers’ skills
Reasons for Inevitable Failure:
- Treasury jealously guarded role as government’s economic ministers = no cooperation with DEA
- National Plan recommendations undermined by Treasury’s deflationary measures
- NBPI had no power to enforce decisions = relied on trade union cooperation (didn’t support wage restraint)
- In-fighting = DEA closed 1969
BUT National Plan contributed to March 1966 victory (coherent vision for the future), deflationary measures reduced BoP deficit & prevented run of the pound
Wilson & Devaluation
16 May 1966 = seamen strike over pay to exceed govt guidelines = damaged British exports = poor trade figures threatened run on pound = govt chose deflation over devaluation when strike ended July
BUT Autumn 1967 = unemployment high ( 1964 - 67, 1.7 mill to 2.5 mill ) = another BoP deficit put pound under pressure gain = DEVALUATION
Labour Majority after 1966 BUT NOVEMBER 1967 had to devalue the pound = seemed no other way out of economic difficulties = humiliating = 18 November from $2.80 - $2.40
How succesful was Wilsons’ devaluation?
- trade figures stubbornly slow to improve / BoP deficit remained / cuts in spending stayed
- Roy Jenkins replaced Callaghan = concluded that severe deflationary measures STILL NEEDED, for example
> prescription charges, abolished in 1964, were introduced.
> Raising of the school leaving age from 15 to 16 was deferred from 1971 to 73 = undermine educational reforms.
> January 1968, government announced all British forces east of Suez to be withdrawn by end of 1971.
> budget of March 1968, Jenkins and increased taxation by £923 million to achieve deflation and overcome balance of payments deficit = 1969, signs of improvement = finally a BoP surplus, value of sterling rose and interest rates reduced