How Successful Was The 1945-51 Labour Government Essay, Research Paper
To judge success, we need to look at what we are comparing
their success or failure with. In this case, success is judged by how Labour
achieved their aims, and if the present situation in Britain improved. There
are also many different areas that success can be judged in. These are
economical, political and social. From studying these individual areas, an
overall judgment can be made. Also who is judging this success? Varying views
were seen depending on the political stance of the judge. However, Labour
success shall be judged from the point of view of an historian studying this
topic many years later. Clement Atlee came to power in 1945 with many hopes for
brightening Britain?s future. His most important aim was to radically reform
Britain?s economy and therefore improve social conditions. Labour being
socialist envisioned privatisation and aid to all, no matter what class. He
also dreamed of free healthcare for all and more jobs to help unemployment.
These had long since been Labours aims, but Atlee had reformed them for his
1945 manifesto. He believed that everything would fall into place, with a
government led economy, it would strengthen so producing jobs and improving
social conditions. However, to have been successful, he needed to have achieved
these aims. Labours first 18 moths of office appeared to run smoothly enough,
and they managed to nationalise the Bank of England and the coal industry. This
nationalisation didn?t effect operations within the bank, however it showed
Labours commitment to controlling the economy and not allowing private
investments to dominate and so therefore steady the economy. The
nationalisation of coal was also proving Labours determination to stick to
policy as during the war this industry was inefficient due to its private
enterprise. Nationalisation improved conditions for workers and showed how the
future would be under Labour. Coal was detrimental to Britain?s economy, and
the speed in which Labour brought it under public ownership shows Labours
commitment. It also reduced unemployment and so decreased the amount of
benefits needed. Another early success for Labour was the formation of the
National Health Service. Created by Aneurin Bevan, it came into operation in 1946.
This was paid for by taxes and gave all people access to health care without
cost. This was a major triumph for Labour as it had been a pipe dream for many
years and this government achieved it with little strain. This is a strong
indication of Labours determination and ability to deliver its promises.? It also gained respect and support from the
influential trade unions that were hostile towards the left. As all trade
unions feared communism, the Labour party had continuous support. Also in 1946, the National Insurance Act was passed, giving
social insurance. This gave benefits to all whom for whatever reason could not
work. This was set up using the Beveridge report as its inspiration. Unlike the
NHS, it was not free for all, the amount of money given to an individual,
depended upon his/her employment history and how much they had contributed to
social security. This however was only the beginning of a major plan, and in
1948, the Assistance Act aimed to help those who fell through the national insurance
net. However, there were problems with this scheme. Benefit
levels that had been agreed could not support people as much as they needed.
This was due to the flat rate contribution system which kept the benefit level
to that of the lowest paid. However, this was not instantly noticeable and
other plans did make up for this failing. Labour also promised the people of Britain a new housing
scheme to rebuild those cities that had been blitzed in the war. They set a
five-year target to build a million houses. This project was quickly started
but soon hit problems. The first one being that to build lots of houses, one
needs a large workforce. However Britain?s labour was being concentrated upon
the coal and textile industries. They also needed lots of wood, which at that
time was being exported and imports were not welcome. Unfortunately for the new
government, the building industry was uncooperative and they focused on more
profitable ventures and before the end of 1946 it was apparent that Labours target
would not be reached, this was not blamed on Labour as they had started to
resolve a situation that had been desperate for a long time. School and hospital building was cut back as the iron and
steel needed for such tasks, were desperately needed for exports and home
investment. The result being that little improvement was made in the physical
standards. Worse, no hospitals at all were built under the labour government. This first year in parliament was a great one for Labour,
promising a bright future. All early policies had been carried out and the
public felt that Labour were delivering their promises and were trustworthy.
Labour seemed strong as they capitalised on the conservative?s successes, which
were often forgotten. The conservatives offered Labour a coalition government
before the election, Labour turned this down and ran a successful campaign,
which made them appear strong and capable. They were also optimistic and looked
to the future creating a new society, which contrasted to the conservatives as
they were always looking in the past. Atlee also gained independence for Burma and India. This was
a success as it showed a reforming Britain moving away from traditional values
and warming towards freedom and independence. It also freed up a considerable
amount of money, as they no longer needed to support their economy and pay for
diplomats. It also freed up the military for use in Korea, although that may be
looked upon as a disaster! Independent historians, generally agree that Atlee?s
government was the most successful Labour government, and possibly one of
Britain?s most influential governments. At that point in time, even left and
right wing historians believed that Labour had been successful in this first
year. However, Labours success was short lived.? During the winter months of 1947, the newly
nationalised pits suffered a coal shortage. Many industries were shut down, as
generating stations were not receiving enough coal. This had detrimental
effects on morale and production. The government could do nothing about his and
it turned into a public relation fiasco and doubt was placed upon the
government?s economical abilities. This problem was eventually solved when the
spring a
taken from the USA, they promised to allow the pound to float on the stock
market and be able to be converted into international currencies. This however
was not as successful as it was thought it should be. Due to the weakness of
the British economy, people poured all their money into American dollars, this
caused the value of the pound to plummet. Labour realised this was due to their
balance of payments, and the supplies didn?t equal the production. To combat this, the government set up the Ministry of
Economic Affairs to be controlled by Cripps and also reshuffled the central
government. This however didn?t solve the problem, and later in that year,
Labour started to use the national budget stringently to reduce overall demand
in the economy. But the government was wary, and started to take more out of
the economy through taxation than put back in with public expenditure.?? Labour started to take the keynsian
approach, which meant total consumption, and the government tightly controlled
investment. The second of these methods slowly became dominant and faith was
lost in their planning skills.? From 1947, it was felt that a crisis was around the corner
and a massive campaign was designed to persuade the public that exports needed
to dramatically increase. The government also set up the Anglo-American
council, which brought on the adoption of American methods, which were seen as
superior in producing more from less.?
This method was effective, but many people wanted to concentrate on
their own business rather than national effort.? The government justified this as an improvement to the balance of
payments that had been set out incompletely in the economic survey for 1947. It
was an accurate portrayal of the problems, it just didn?t give relevant
details. The problems were not just a result of imports or necessities, other
factors such as military ambitions and overseas politics were also relevant.
These led to massive expenditures world over. Atlee was committed to Britain?s
world status, so he believed it was justified. He also determined that Britain needed to lose its
dependence on America to become economically strong on their own merit. He
wanted to raise investment so consumption fell in its priority. To keep
consumption low, wartime measures were still enforced. This was managed, as
consumption only rose as third as fast as the output of the British economy.
However, part of his crack down on consumption meant rationing, and this was
unpopular with the public. Many illegal responses were made, by the black
market and stealing. But more worrying was the political response made by the
women?s groups, especially the British Housewives League who held marches and
rallies which gained much public attention forcing the government to constantly
defend themselves, instead of concentrating on other issues. Also many
companies were hit by rationing of goods and raw materials as it affected their
profit margins. After the crisis of 1947, the government?s confidence and
reputation was never fully regained. The main reason another external crisis
didn?t occur was due to the Marshall aid received from America. But not all was
well, this measure was only temporary. The government still had the problem of
balance of payments. This caused a new and serious external crisis in 1949.
High levels of exports and controls on imports meant the balance of payments
had improved. Britain was able to compete in dollar markets as they could
devalue the currency, however uncertainty and quarrels within the party meant
this took longer than necessary and the devaluation was larger than it needed
to have been. However, improvements were seen in North America, but this was
created by cuts in government expenditure which affected public spending making
the government seem incompetent to deal with economic affairs.Labour achieved all of their 1945 manifesto aims by 1950,
such as nationalisation, NHS, welfare state and a rise in industrial
investment. Austerity was still in place, this made the government unpopular,
especially as the conservatives used it to their advantage and called it an
example of ?socialist mismanagement.? For the 1950 election no major changes
were made to their manifesto. Labour gained huge majorities in industrial and
urban heartlands and they retained their working class voters, only losses in
marginal seats occurred. The Korean War, which the government only entered to pacify
America, and internal squabbling about socialist directions overshadowed the
governments last year in power. Gaitskell made a point about limiting NHS
expenditure, especially due to the Korean crisis, this was not well received by
Bevan, who eventually lost the argument and resigned in a public fervour. Two
other members resigned and a split emerged in the cabinet, most wanted another
election so they didn?t have to deal with internal problems. Overall, these failures and successes need to be weighed up
to determine whether Labour were successful. It can e said that Labour was
generally successful, as they achieved the major aims that had been set out in
1945. Nationalisation was in place in major industries, the NHS, although not
hugely successful, was running and benefits had improved. Labour had not
achieved their goal for housing, although the project had been started and the
reason for its failure was the economic situation in Britain. They had just
finished a costly war that had nearly financially crippled them and they were
financially dependent upon America for loans. Which also caused the pound to
devalue significantly as they allowed it to float in 1947 and it crashed. This
was to have major repercussions as Labour struggled to rectify that mistake.
Labour was incompetent economically, they made many mistakes and had to reduce
benefits and public spending to try and improve the situation, which went
against their policies. However, it is possible that Labours failings were due
to a poor economic state when they came into office, and a weakened world
economy made it hard for a total recovery, however some ground was made. At a
time when the world was weak anyway, due to war costs, Britain would struggle
anyway to recover, and only the help from America made survival possible. Atlee
had not succeeded, in the sense that Britain was on its feet and economically
stable, however, the state of Britain had improved, and it can be said that had
Labour had another five years, they might have achieved their aims.