Why Did the Labour Party Win Power in 1945 and Lose It in 1951 - Essay Example

?Why did the Labor Party win power in 1945 and lose it in 1951? The Labour Party is one of the oldest political parties in the United Kingdom. Historians trace its origins back in the 19th century, at around 1865 when the party was first established. The party was formed in order to represent the working class English people, who due to the industrial revolution and availability of jobs, had increased in number and wanted o be represented in leadership roles in the kingdom (Rowe 1-15, 2004). The Labour Party was formed by the agreement of several labour unions to come together to form a political party. Back then, trade unions were powerful organizations and had the solid following of their members in order to push for their interests in one common and solid voice. The Labour Party has had its shares of success and failures since it was first established. The last prime minister representing the Labour Party was Gordon Brown, who took over from Tony Blair, also from the Labour Party in 2007 (Lynch 25-65, 2008). However, one of the most successful victories for the Labour Party in the history of UK elections was in 1945, when the party won its biggest majority, led by Clement Attlee, who was deputy prime minister under the coalition government headed by Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill was the conservative party head, and Prime Minister of Britain, and he was the one who led Britain to victory in the second world war that ended in 1942. Under these circumstances, it was expected that he would win another term as prime minister in the 1945 elections. However, this was not the case as was dictated by many factors. First, there was the intergenerational difference between the masses and the leaders in power. While the former was made of younger people, many of whom had served in the war, the latter was made up of a minority few of the older generation (Butler and Stokes 1-35, 1974). The older generation was outnumbered due to deaths, emigrations to other countries and resignations. In these circumstances, the masses felt that they were not well represented. The conservative party had a majority of this older generation, while the Labour Party’s leadership was made up of fairly younger people, whom the masses could identify with. This increased the Labour Party’s popularity leading to their landslide victory in 1945. Issues of class also had a hand in aiding the Labour Party win the 1945 elections. The post-second world war environment in Britain was such that majority of the people were trying to rebuild their lives by working in different places to make ends meet. Many of these people were labourers and had to work long hours in order to earn their living. The general feeling was that the then current government was not doing enough to expedite changes that could improve their lives (Heath, Jowell, and Curtice 12-58, 1985). Within this atmosphere, the Labour Party came up with a manifesto that promised to do all these and more for the people. Their campaigns were effective and the people decided to give them a chance, hence a majority voted for the Labour Party. Attlee is considered one of the Labour Party’s most significant figures, because he managed to steer England from more problems during the Second World War by stopping Churchill from carrying out some schemes considered wild and dangerous, both to the United Kingdom and its allies, as well as to its enemies. Attlee was prime minister of UK for 6 years, until 1951, when he lost in the general elections of 1951. However, in his time in office, Attlee affected a lot of changes in the social and economical environment in the UK. For instance, he nationalized many industries that had been privatized, making them out of reach for many regular citizens. These included the steel, electricity, gas, coal, wireless and cable services, aviation, and road and railway industries. Attlee was also the one responsible for nationalizing the Bank of England which still stands to date. Attlee introduced a national health scheme by the passing of the National Health Scheme Act of 1948 which benefited many citizens of the UK (Martin 13-57, 1997). Under this act, Britons could receive free medical care inclusive of diagnosis and treatment free of charge. Furthermore, doctors could attend to patients whether the latter were in hospital or in their homes free of charge. Ophthalmic and dental services to patients who needed them were also provided for free under the National Health Scheme Act. Attlee’s government also introduced welfare under the National Insurance Act, where poor, sick, unemployed and other disabled people, as well as the aged received some kind of support in terms of finance so they could pay for their basic needs. Attlee’s government also made reforms outside UK’s borders and reached out to other countries, beginning with the taking apart of the British Empire mostly made up of colonies in other continents. For instance, during Attlee’s rule, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Burma were granted independence from the UK between 1947 and 1948. In addition, Britain ended its violent mandate over Palestine, freeing the Palestinians from its forced rule and restoring peace and calm in the wounded country (Marr 16-70, 2008). Instead, Attlee’s government pushed to form a community of countries with a history of colonization with Britain, and this was called The Commonwealth. The commonwealth went on to become an economic, social and political group sorting out matters among members and other social events like the Commonwealth games held in one of the countries under the commonwealth umbrella every four years. Britain also makes a large stride in becoming a multi racial country under Attlee’s government. After most of the countries were granted independence from Britain, the British government sent invitations to many of its former colonies and mandates to immigrate to England to be offered better opportunities and lives by paying a small fee in order to be accepted as citizens of Britain. Because Britain was in a period of post-war after the Second World War, a lot of reconstruction was required to rebuild the country and move it forward economically. However, labour to do so was not available, hence the call by the British government to call in for immigrants. These immigrants found employment easily and their wages were better than what they would have earned in their home countries. More immigrations continued to happen as people from the British Caribbeans like Jamaica are invited to work, live and settle in Britain. Furthermore, the Jewish community, which had been in Britain since the 17th century continue to grow as more Jews resettle in the country after world war 2 creating a multicultural and multiracial society with people from different parts of the world. Apart from the Jews, most of the immigrants practice Christianity hence blended in well with the rest of the British people and religious conflicts are avoided by this blending of people professing to the same faith. The result of the immigrations is that people’s welfare and standards of living are upgraded and Britain’s economy starts to pick up as the labour needs are met by the immigrants and Caucasian Britons themselves. During the period Clement Attlee was prime minister, the social aspects of life for the British was both good and bad. The goodness was brought about by the free medical scheme and the introduction of welfare to people who could not earn an income for one reason or another. Furthermore, employment was abundant as Britain set on the path of rebuilding the country after the Second World War. However, the war had also brought with it hardships. After the war, there were shortages of even the most basic of commodities like bread, sugar and salt. The result was that there was rationing of these commodities, leading to long queues in stores in order to purchase these products. Winters during this period were even worse as the rationing was tightened even further and people had to go without these items for long periods of time. On the cultural front, the new immigrants did not make it easy for the British. This made it even harder for the immigrants who had left their homes in search of better lives, only to receive hostility. In the end, both these groups learnt to tolerate each other with the differences in their colours, culture, race, beliefs and practices. On the political front, things were not very rosy either. The Cold War had just started, splitting Europe into western and Eastern Europe, with former allies in the cold war uniting against the other bloc. The eastern bloc was mostly made up of countries making up the Soviet Union and other regions like Eastern Germany. The western bloc was made up of the UK, France and other countries situated in Western Europe. Attlee’s government pursued the development of nuclear weapons, albeit secretly, owing to the tension created by the cold war. This constrained domestic budgets for other services provided by the government, making the rationing situation in Britain worse than it was during the Second World War. This was one of the reasons the Attlee government lost popularity and lost in elections held in 1951. Various historians have tried to analyze the events leading up to the fall of the Labour Party government in 1951, after being in power for six years. They all take different stands on whether the period Attlee was in power was a productive one or not. Most of these historians, however, review all activities during that period and present it to readers to judge for themselves. One such historian is Professor David Edgerton of Imperial College London. Professor David views the period 1945-51 in Britain as one with both positive effects and negativities whose afterwaves are still being felt to date. He points out that that greatest achievement he believes the Labour Party made was the reforming of social welfare and the healthcare system (Beckett 12-34, 1997). Over the years, many Britons appreciated these gestures by the governments of the day, all thanks to Attlee and his ministers. However, he points out that the British people were not entirely happy during this period, especially since it was also a time when the government started manufacturing mass weapons and advocated for more powers to be given to the government and trade unions, hence leaving the general masses at the mercy of power-hungry people (Foote 61-70, 1997). This did not please the regular Britons at all. Some historians, however, analyze these two great achievements made by the Labour Party, not as a revolution, but as a continuation of policies and negotiations that had started with the Conservative Party from much earlier. One of these historians is Professor John Stewart of Oxford Brookes University who believes that the Labour Party under Attlee basically picked up from where earlier governments had left off. He is of the opinion that the only achievement made there was the fact that the Attlee government got the projects, that is the social welfare and health care systems, off the ground (Davies 2-15, 1996). He however lauds the effort, pointing that the reforms were necessary then because the national health care system had deteriorated and, apart from London, most other places in England lacked proper medical care. Other historians look at the effect of nationalization of major industries by the government led by Clement Attlee. Though it was easy for the general population to believe that the move was a positive one meant to revive some industries that had slowed down and become unprofitable over the years, for instance, the coal mining industry, these historians believe that there were ulterior and possibly ideological reasons behind the nationalization of these industries. They argue that nationalization policies were more designed to give more control of these industries to the government and less control to the workers and the private sector (Hauss 10-36, 2011). The result, that is still being felt, is, as argued by the historians proposing this line of thought, that it became more difficult for these industries to grow under the government, than they would have had they not been nationalized. This meant that more revenue would have been generated from these industries if the private sector, rather than the government, had been running these industries. Professor John Stewart of Oxford Brookes University is one of the historians with this opinion. Works Cited Beckett, Francis. Clement Attlee; A biography by F. Beckett. London; Richard Cohen Books, 1997. Butler, D. and Stokes, D. Political Change in Britain. (2nd. Ed.). London: Macmillan, 1974. Print. Davies, A. J. To Build A New Jerusalem: The British Labour Party from Keir Hardie to Tony Blair. London; Abacus, 1996. Print. Foote, Geoffrey. The Labour Party's Political Thought: A History. London: Macmillan, 1997. Print. Hauss, Charles. Comparative politics: domestic responses to global challenges. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Heath, A., Jowell, R. and Curtice, J. How Britain Votes. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1985. Print. Lynch, Michael. “The Labour Party in Power 1945-51". Britain 1945-2007. London: Routlegde, 2008. Print. Marr, A. A History of Modern Britain. Oxford: Pan Macmillan Ltd., 2008. Print. Martin, Francis. Ideas and Policies under Labour 1945–51. Manchester University Press, 1997. Print. Rowe, Chris. Britain 1929-98. Oxford: Heinemann, 2004. Print. Read More