Britain's Conservative Movement - Essay Example

Britain's Conservative Movement: 1951-1964 Britain's conservative political party has, through most of the twentieth century, been the party in power or the obvious heir apparent as the opposition. While the government may have come under the control of labour for brief periods, the conservative party has always been perceived as Britain's natural party. The short post World War II period of 1945-1951 seen a restructuring of conservatism in Britain that reflected the new realities of economic globalisation and the competing ideologies of socialism and capitalism. Britain feared Soviet style communism and sought to move to a more free market system, while creating and maintaining a network of socialistic services. Tories, such as Woolton and Churchill, captured this new worldview and offered the people of Britain a mixed economy based on pragmatism and built upon the progressive programs that labour had failed to deliver in the post war period. In 1945 the Conservative party faced a British electorate that perceived them as elitist and the party of the wealthy, which resulted in a disappointing loss at the polls in 1945. The Labour Manifesto of 1951 stated that, "The Tories are against a more equal society. They stand, as they have always stood, for privilege. In parliament they proposed cuts in taxation on large incomes and fought the profits tax" (Dale 1999, p.78). During this period, Conservatives sought to widen the appeal of the party. According to Lynch (1999, p.22), "Conservative claim to be the patriotic party had lost resonance given their association with the pre-war depression, the emergence of a popular patriotic discourse on the Left and a new period of consensus politics". This disconnection with the voting public would hamper the Conservative efforts during the next five years as they restructured the party, both philosophically and pragmatically. During the period of 1951-1964, the Conservative party was able to reap the rewards of the British public seeking to maintain a coherent national identity. David Hume and Henry Bolingbroke had written, in the 18th century, about the character of the British and that image endured for two hundred years of multi-national imperialism (Lynch 1999, p.3-20). However, by 1950 this image had weakened due to de-colonization, decentralization, and the growing integration of Europe. The empire and the monarchy no longer served as models for the British identity. Lynch (1999, p.21) contends that "a renewal of substate nationalism, immigration from the New Commonwealth and a Keynesian welfare state political settlement in which the Conservatives had lost their distinctive patriotic voice and had not developed a coherent post-imperial idea of Britishness". This loss of a national identity created an environment where the Conservatives could build a new identity in the image of the new Social Conservatism. This would further hold voters in the Conservative camp as they identified the party with the nationalism and patriotism of nationhood. This required conservative platforms to appeal to left wing social ideals, while supporting right wing capitalistic economic freedoms. The issues of decentralization, housing, health, and education became the property of the Conservative party, and by 1949 Churchill would assert that the Conservative party was a "broad, tolerant, progressive and hopeful prospect to the British people" and had become "..an overwhelming repudiation of the taint that we are a class party seeking to defend abuses or willing to tolerate the exploitation of the mass of people by vested interests, by monopolies or by bygone ideas" (as cited in James 1974, p.7863). The Conservative's rebranding as a socially progressive party shed the perception of an economically exclusive organization and helped attract many former labour supporters. Conservative policy following the Second World War was built upon the philosophy of the social reform policies of former Conservatives such as, "Thomas Carlyle, the Earl of Shaftesbury, William Wilberforce, and Benjamin Disraeli, who stirred Britain's conscience on conditions in factory towns and in mines at home or on slavery abroad" (Brand 1950, p.117). The post war period witnessed Britain struggling to gain a national identity in the face of the new Europe and de-colonization. The new Conservatism was to be structured as social reform without the bureaucracy of a socialist government. It was meant to be fair, but not necessarily equal. Cragoe (2007, p.966) argues that there was an "urgent need to combat the centralising tendency of government under the Labour Party and, ultimately, to preserve 'the British way of life' from the threat of Communism". Whether from conscious or fear, the Conservative party was able to attract many middle-of-the-road social democrats that would become lifelong members as long as they were not given a reason to defect. One of the fears that ran through the electorate during the period of 1951-1964 was the anxiety of a planned state. In 1944, F. A. Hayek, an Austrian migr teaching at the London School of Economics, had warned that economic planning would inevitably lead to a totalitarian state. Bjerre-Poulsen (2002, p.25) writes that, "There was no middle ground between that and unconditional faith in the virtues of the free market. The latter was the only choice that in the long run was compatible with democracy". Fears of Soviet Communism and memories of Fascism easily swayed voters away from socialistic labour policies and into the Conservative voting bloc. The British public wanted to pursue the road of capitalism and free enterprise with its attendant opportunity for private property and free market economics. Housing was the issue that was most on the minds of the British immediately following the Second World War. Aneurin Bevan, Attlee's Minister of Health, took charge of a housing situation in which as many as one-third of all the available housing had been damaged or destroyed (Childs 2001, p.18). The government faced critical hardships and a shortage of resources in regards to rebuilding. Attlee's government was under constant attack from the left and right and Childs (2001, p.18) states that, "The government faced embarrassment over squatters and the wrath of the better-off who had money but still could not find a home of their own". This voter dissatisfaction opened the door for the Conservative reversion to a privatised housing market and by 1954 had marked the end of "an extended post-war transitional phase, and reversion to a market-led housing policy, with an implicitly residual role for the social rented sector" (Malpass 2004, p.210). Labour's failure to adequately address the housing issue fortified the Conservative move towards market driven housing, which would solidify their position for another ten years. At the centre of the popular Conservative policies on housing was the "property owning democracy" (Epstein 1954, p.34). Quintin Hogg contended that this policy advocated that the ownership and sharing of property rights be seen in the same framework as the sharing of political power, and the only reasonable alternative to State owned property (cited in Epstein 1954, p.34: Cragoe 2007, p.967). While Labour favoured the building of rental units, the Conservatives were pressing for the private sale of new and existing housing. Conservatives during this period believed that the policies that facilitated private home ownership were responsible for significant numbers of conservative votes (Epstein 1954, p.34-35). The Conservative housing policies of the early 1950s set the stage for additional anti-socialist attitudes and programs. Free market housing, along with other capitalistic programs, were reinforced during the period of 1951-1964 by the Cold War. The ideological split from the Soviet Union carried with it a departure from Marxist socialistic policies and when the Grand Alliance dissolved, the United Kingdom assumed a more capitalistic stance in response to their alliance with the United States. In a 1947 pamphlet titled The Industrial Charter, R.A. Butler laid out the future of the conservative party and said that, "Conservatives would avoid any detailed interference in private business and would seek to encourage individual enterprise consistent with overall economic control" (Epstein 1954, p.33). This veiled opposition to Socialism was further reiterated when the conservatives vowed to remove rations and controls more quickly than the opposition (Epstein 1954, p.34). Fortunately for the conservatives, better economic conditions in 1953 and 1954 allowed them to de-ration at a much quicker rate than had been anticipated. This helped shore up the support for the Conservatives as they were able to sharply define the difference between free-market and socialism. Giving rise to the Conservatives attaining power in 1951 were the failed economic policies of Labour and the string of financial crises in the post war period. Krozewski (2001, p.63) notes that, "The problems were particularly grave during the sterling convertibility crises of 1947, the crisis of 1949, when sterling was devalued, and in 1951-2, and were heightened by the constraints of the massive rearmament programme in 1950". The British economy was in a fragile state and the public was faced with a decision about how much welfare they could afford and how much austerity they were able to tolerate. Along with the ability to hasten the de-rationing of goods and services and encouraging private home ownership, economic growth helped the Conservatives stay in power during the next decade. While the reasons behind the good economy were complex and varied, the Conservatives were able to take credit for it. According to Lee (1996, p.196), "What mattered was that a sufficient proportion of the electorate believed that they were and therefore returned them to power in 1955 and 1959. The 1950s were a period of affluence and increasing consumption, certainly by contrast with the austerity of the late 1940s. Macmillan captured the essence of this when he said in 1957 that the British people had 'never had it so good'". There was no looming economic crisis to encourage voters to defect and in fact the Conservative government was able to reduce income taxes before the elections of 1955 and 1959 (Lee 1996, p.196). Within the context of the post war rebuilding phase, voters were likely to maintain the status quo as long as they continued to see positive results, without regards to who was responsible for the success. After 1951, the Conservatives were viewed as the party that could best stimulate the growing economy. Several factors worked together during the Conservative decade of 1951-1964 to spur economic growth and hold inflation at a minimum. Through the first half of the 1950s there was "a surge in private investment, buoyant international trade, and full employment" (Booth 2000, p.831). This phenomena was experienced throughout Western Europe and provided greater political stability, which further benefited the Conservative party that was in power. While many academics credit the $9.4 billion dollar Marshall Plan aid for the rapid growth, Halperin (2003, p.237-238) discounts this theory and argues that it was more attributable to free trade zones and regional trading blocs. Halperin (2003, p.239) concludes that, "Europe's postwar growth was a product of the trade liberalization that was undertaken with the encouragement of international bodies". Britain's integration into European affairs and trade policies continued to fuel the economy throughout the 1950s. In conclusion, Britain's search for a national identity after World War II benefited the Conservatives as they created a new image in the face of declining imperialism and failing Labour policies. Conservatives were able to create a mixed economy of capitalist ideals and socially progressive programs. A public that was fearful of a totalitarian state, or Soviet style communism, readily joined the ranks of the Conservatives. The housing crisis opened up an opportunity to increase private home ownership. Free enterprise and minimal intervention combined with regional and international trade groups to maintain the economy for over a decade. Once the Conservatives took power in 1951, there was no need for the public to vote them out of office. Economic times were good and were highlighted by regular income tax cuts. Through this period, the Conservative identity became the British identity, and further served to perpetuate their rule. References Bjerre-Poulsen, N 2002, Right Face : Organizing the American Conservative Movement 1945-65, Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen DNK Booth, A 2000, 'Inflation, expectations, and the political economy of conservative Britain, 1951-1964', The Historical Journal, vol.43, no.3, pp.827-847 Brand, C F 1950, 'Democracy in Great Britain', The Pacific Historical Review, vol.19, no.2, pp.113-126 Childs, D 2001, Britain since 1945: A political history, Routledge, London Cragoe, M 2007, 'We like local patriotism: The Conservative party and the discourse of decentralisation, 1947 - 51', English Historical Review, vol.122, no.498, pp.965-985 Dale, L 1999, British political party manifestos 1900-1997, Routledge, London Epstein, L.D. 1954, 'Politics of British conservatism', The American Political Science Review, vol.48, no.1, pp.27-48 Halperin S 2003, War and social change in modern Europe : The great transformation revisited, Cambridge University Press, West Nyack, NY. James, R R (ed.) 1974, Winston S. Churchill, His complete speeches, 1897-1963,Vol. VII, 1943-1949, Chelsea House Publishers, New York, NY. Krozewski, G 2001, Money and the end of empire : British economic policy and the colonies, 1947-1958, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. Lee, S J 1996, Aspects of British political history 1914-1995, Routledge, New York, NY. Lynch, P 1999, Politics of nationhood : Sovereignty, Britishness, & conservative politics, Palgrave Publishers, New York, NY. Malpass P 2004, 'Fifty years of British housing policy: Leaving or leading the welfare state', European Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 4, no.2, pp.209-227 Read More