Empire to Welfare: The Labor Victory of 1945 - Essay Example

Empire to Welfare The Labor victory of 1945 was one of the most significant moments in the history of Britainin the twentieth century because for the first time, a wartime leader failed to win an election that took place immediately after the war. Winston Churchill’s defeat was a brutal blow to the Conservative Party because it had expected to have a fairly easy win over its opponents. However, the expected victory did not take place as a result of a new sense of social purpose that had developed in Britain during the Second World War. This paper seeks to show that the need for social reform in Britain during the Second World War created the conditions that led to the Labor victory in the general elections of 1945. The Second World War had led to a situation where millions of British men and women had become involved in the war effort; with many servicemen being scattered all over the world. These individuals had for the most part sacrificed their lives for the sake of making sure that Britain won the war and by 1945, there was a sense of war weariness not only among them, but also within the British public (Fielding 1992, p.623). The result was that while Churchill was an extremely popular leader during the war, his continued calls to intensify British efforts in the Pacific against Japan did not sit well with a significant part of the public. Moreover, there were concerns among these servicemen about the conditions in which they were going to live once they got back home and were demobilized from the army. Many of them realized that the ongoing Conservative policies would not be able to guarantee them the employment that they needed to make sure that they made ends meet. Therefore, the Labour calls for reforms in the social system of the country in such a way that would make sure all people benefitted from the economy was extremely attractive to the British pubic. Furthermore, its proposal for the nationalization of the most significant sectors of the economy went well with the people because it guaranteed that there would be full employment when the war came to an end. The war weariness coupled with the promise of full employment led to the overwhelming vote for Labor that took place in the general elections. The lack of flexibility that was displayed by Winston Churchill over social reforms at home led to the loss of confidence in him as a postwar prime minister. This feeling came about in the public during the War when, despite the numerous proposals for social reform that had been made, he was unwilling to attempt implementing them and instead chose to concentrate on marshalling all resources towards the war (Lynch 2008, p.4). During the war against Germany and its allies, Churchill’s single-minded efforts proved to be a boon for him because he was able to unite all the major parties in Britain behind him as he made the difficult decisions that would ensure victory. However, in the postwar period, his lack of focus on domestic matters and his concentration on the war effort had led the public to believe that he would not be the best leader to institute domestic reforms. Furthermore, when he was still new in politics, Churchill had been a staunch liberal with radical ideas for social reform that he wanted implemented in Britain. However, in later years, he had moved towards the right, eventually gaining leadership of the Conservative party; resulting in a change of views as he came to settle for the retention of the status quo. This move may have eventually cost him the 1945 elections because it seems that he no longer has public confidence as a peace time leader. Not only were his delays in initiating reforms detrimental to him, but his continued focus on the war and neglect for a strong domestic policy led to his downfall. The wartime coalition that brought together the Conservative, Labor, and Liberal parties was one which was formed for the sake of convenience. This coalition was formed because of the need to ensure national unity during the Second World War in such a way that domestic politics was put aside for the sake of concentrating on the war effort. While this coalition was convenient for the war, it also led to several problems for Churchill because he had to make numerous concessions to his coalition partners in order to ensure that they remained united (Kandiah 1995, p.22). Churchill had to be careful not to make any radical changes that would lead to his coalition breaking apart because he believed that it was the key for Britain winning the war. Therefore, despite significant proposals for social reform that were brought up during the war, the most important of which was the Beveridge Report, Churchill did not take immediate action to implement it. Instead, he let this opportunity slide because he felt that it would bring about unnecessary conflict within the coalition to such an extent that its existence would be threatened. The result of his shying away from the social reforms that were needed by the British public was that the latter lost confidence in Churchill as a leader who could steer the country from the massive levels of social inequality that had developed. Therefore, when the 1945 general elections came, despite Churchill’s popularity as a wartime leader, his credentials as a social reformer was ruined, leading to the Labor victory. Despite Churchill’s reluctance to attempt implementing the proposals made in the Beveridge Report, it was extremely popular among the British public. Its popularity was based on its emphasis on the need for comprehensive social reforms that would help the society to have substantial benefits from the economy (Abel‐Smith 1992, p.5). Therefore, during the war period, the Labor ministers in government were hampered by their need to display unity within the coalition and despite their support for the report, they were not able to actively campaign for its implementation. This was not the case with other Labor politicians and their sympathizers who pushed for the adoption of the Beveridge Report through championing it to the public. The British public must have become convinced that this report held the key towards the implementation of the necessary domestic policies to improve their lives because a majority came to follow the Labor line. Moreover, it is possible that as a result of Labor activities on behalf of this report, the public came to develop weariness towards the Conservatives led by Churchill because the latter came to be accused of not doing enough to ensure that the Beveridge Report was adopted. The lack of dedication towards making sure that the Beveridge Report was adopted led to a situation where it became difficult for the Conservative Party to sell its agenda to the public during the election campaigns. Instead, the public might have already developed an image of the Conservative government as that of being a force behind delaying and obstructing the much needed social reforms in Britain. The Second World War had led to the development of a new social purpose in Britain that instead of focusing on external matters instead sought to focus on domestic ones. The Beveridge Report can be considered to have been the embodiment of the hopes of the British people for social reforms in their country. This report was an opportunity for Churchill to reinvent his political image to that of an all round statesman who not only sought to protect British interests outside the country, but also its domestic ones. Its adoption would have ensured his long term political survival because he would have had an opportunity to make sure that even though he did not adopt the Beveridge Report in its entirety, he would have developed alternatives that would have achieved the same purpose. However, Churchill misread the public’s need for reform, and did not take up the opportunity to address serious social reforms, instead focusing on the war (Toye 2010, p.655). As a popular wartime leader, Churchill, through the Beveridge Report, was presented with a chance to achieve social reform because unlike his less imposing opponents, he had the ability to sway the public towards taking a direction that he found desirable. While this may have been the case, Churchill was instead resentful of the report believing that it was a distraction that would make his coalition lose its focus on the war effort. His failure to consider the needs of the British public would end up costing his party a victory in the postwar elections as Labor achieved a majority in a landslide. Before the Second World War, increased government control over the economy through nationalization was a subject that was not considered seriously by the British public. The highly capitalistic economic system that had developed in the country over centuries had provided its people with the belief that the economy worked best in private hands and that the government was there to facilitate Britain’s economic ventures. However, with the coming of the war and the economic hardships that followed as a result of most resources being diverted to the war effort, the British public for the first time came to be faced with a situation where government had an increased control over the economy. The ability of government to focus almost all economic resources towards a single purpose must have been impressed on the minds of the British people because it provided them with a perspective of the benefits that could be derived from such a process. Therefore, while the Conservatives scoffed at the Labor campaigns for a nationalized economy that would ensure full employment as well as greater social benefits for the people, the latter, as a result of the war experience, were more receptive of the Labor proposals (Marr 2008, p.5). The lack of consideration for public opinion as well as the belief that Churchill’s popularity as a national hero would lead them to victory cost the Conservatives the 1945 elections. In conclusion, the decision by the Churchill government to focus solely on the war effort rather than providing equal time to domestic reform led to the Conservative defeat in the 1945 general elections. Churchill failed to read public feeling correctly despite the fact that the Beveridge Report had proven to be extremely popular with the public. Therefore, while he was focused on the war, the Labor Party chose to enhance its popularity through advocating for the social reforms proposed in the report amid the difficult economic conditions in the war. The result was that the Labor Party was able to trounce a highly popular wartime leader while at the same time securing a platform for the reforms that it intended to implement. References Abel‐Smith, B., 1992. "The Beveridge report: Its origins and outcomes." International Social Security Review, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5-16. Fielding, S. 1992, "What did the people want?: the meaning of the 1945 general election." Historical Journal, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 623-639. Kandiah, M.D., 1995, "The conservative party and the 1945 general election", Contemporary Record, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 22-47. Lynch, M. 2008. "The Labour Party in Power 1945-51". Britain 1945-2007. Access to History. Marr, A. 2008. A History of Modern Britain. London, Pan Macmillan Ltd. McCulloch, G., 1985, "Labour, the Left, and the British General Election of 1945." Journal of British Studies, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 465-489. Toye, R., 2010, "Winston Churchills "Crazy Broadcast": Party, Nation, and the 1945 Gestapo Speech," Journal of British Studies, vol. 49, no.3, pp. 655–680. Read More