The era of consensus 1951-79 exam q Flashcards
Why did the Conservatives win the 1951 election? - Conservative strengths (3)
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.
Image result for uk general election 1951. 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.
Why did the Conservatives win the 1951 election? - Labour weaknesses (3)
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.
Why did the Conservatives win the 1951 election? - Electoral system (3)
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.
Reasons for Conservative dominance - Social change and prosperity
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) 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, TVs & washing machines. 5 times as many people owned a car in 1964 as in 1951 & TV ownership rose from 4% to 91%.
The economic stagnation in the early 60s led to the Tory defeat in 1964 so they only prospered for as long as the economy did.
Reasons for Conservative dominance - Conservative leadership (3)
Tory ministers like Butler, Maudling, Powell & MacLeod deserve credit for devising popular policies to take advantage of this situation. In 1964, when the Tories had in Home a much less popular leader than his Labour opponent, they lost
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. Image result for you’ve never had it so goodMacMillan’s presentational skills, earning the press nickname “Supermac”, contributed to a landslide victory in 1959
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. .
Reasons for Conservative dominance - Labour weaknesses
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.
Neither Attlee nor Gaitskell were able to provide effective opposition to the Tories. The 1955 election was a personal triumph for Eden over Attlee, who seemed ill & tired. Gaitskell was easily outsmarted by MacMillan during the 1959 campaign & led Labour to an unexpectedly heavy defeat.
Reasons for the decline in Conservative support 1959-64 and their election defeat in 1964 - The Economy
British economic growth had lagged behind most other countries (especially West Germany but also France) throughout the 1951-64 period, but stagnated still further 1959-64. 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. Too much was spent on defence as opposed to investment in industrial development. Chancellor of the Exchequer Selwyn Lloyd’s deflationary policies in 1961 were unpopular. The New Approach to revive the economy was undermined by the French refusal in 1963 to let GB join the European Economic Community (EEC).
Reasons for the decline in Conservative support 1959-64 and their election defeat in 1964 - Other issues
Scandals like Vassall, Profumo & the Duchess of Argyll case discredited the Party & made it seem hypocritical.
Image result for 1964 general election. 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 reinforced 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.
Did Macmillan deserve the nickname ‘SuperMac’? - YES
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.
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).
Did Macmillan deserve the nickname ‘SuperMac’? - NO
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.
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.
‘Never had it so good’
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.
‘13 wasted years’
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.
How effectively did the Labour governments 1964-70 - 1974-9 tackle the problems they faced? - Social reform
They passed a number of progressive social reforms including:
The legalisation of abortion & homosexuality in 1967.
The virtual abolition of the death penalty in 1965.
Making contraception available on the NHS in 1967.
Lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969.
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.
How effectively did the Labour governments 1964-70 - 1974-9 tackle the problems they faced? - The Economy
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.
BUT:
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 & 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”.
How effectively did the Labour governments 1964-70 - 1974-9 tackle the problems they faced? - Political survival
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.
BUT:
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.
