The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007: 2013

Harold Wilson's failures and successes between 1964-1970

Failures:

Devaluation of the pound - high value of the pound as making exports more expensive but imports cheap. Also could have done it earlier to make it an economic success and save himself from all the drama behind it.
Deflationary methods made supporters distrustful towards Labour.
Tensions with the Unions.
Wilson always believed that people were plotting against him.
Department of Economic Affairs - clashed with the Treasury, National Plan was a failure, George Brown was also a drunk.
Row over "In Place of Strife"
Defence spending was high.
Position of economy was much worse than expected so a lot of promises were broken.
"No British government has disappointed their supporters so thoroughly".

Successes:

Got a majority vote in the 1966 general election.
Economy actually improved through Roy Jenkin's deflationary methods.
Establishment of Open University in 1969.
The Abortion act was passed.
Abolished the death penalty.
First Comprehensive school was established.
Wilson was a modern man - he captured the mood of the moment by the "white-heat of technology" slogan.
Successful companies were starting out at this time e.g International Computers LMT.

Harold Wilson's economic problems - 1964-1970

Economic Inheritance

Much worse than conservatives led on - £400 million balance of payments deficit.
Economic growth in the UK was much lower than Japan and other European countries.

Prices and Incomes Policy

Government intervention to set limits on prices rises and wage restraint.
Caused tensions with the trade unions.

Department of Economic Affairs

Drive for economic expansion.
Overlapped with the Treasury.
Civil servants found it difficult to know which boss they should be listening to.

George Brown

Was the head of the Department of Economic Affairs.
Impulsive and lacked consistency.
Had a drink problem.
Was virtually in competition with Callaghan (the Chancellor).
But was actually an able politician.

Devaluation

Reduced the exchanage of sterling from $2.80 to $2.40.
Damaged Labour's credibility.
It was theatrical - Wilson told people that the pound was not worth any less when it was.
It was basically an economic failure.

Trade Union relationship

Prices and Incomes policy angered the trade unions.
Strikes began, causing more tensions between government and unions.

Labour's difficulties in government - 1964-1970

Why did the Labour government find itself in economic difficulties?

Second half of the 20th century was undergoing a major shift in its economic and social structure.
Manufacturing in Britain was shrinking.
Service and finance industries were expanding.

Why was Britain performing so poorly?

Britain had failed to match the growth rates achieved by the industrial economies of western Europe, Japan and the USA.
Britain also spent too much on defence and therefore very little on industry.

What was the Department of Economic Affairs?

Led by George Brown.
Its aim was economic expansion.
They drew up the "National Plan" - it aimed to stimulate production and exports by encouraging co-operation between government, employers and trade unions.
Few targets were met so the Plan was quietly disbanded.

What did Wilson have to do in 1964 and 1967? Who did he blame and why was he worried?

Deficit had grown so much that he had to ask the IMF for a loan in 1967, which he already did in 1964.
He blamed the trade union "trouble makers."
The IMF loan was only a stopgap which was worrying as government was losing control over its own finances.

What was the "Prices and Incomes policy"?

Policy to keep down inflation.
It set limits on price rises and called for a wage restraint in negotiations between unions and employer.
This brought on tensions with the Trade Unions.

What was Wilson forced to do in 1967? Why did he want to avoid this?

Devaluation of the pound - from $2.80 to $2.40.
Wilson wanted to avoid doing this because he wanted to prove that Labour was not the "party of devaluation".
Instead, he wanted policies for economic growth and to catch up with Britain's international competitors.
His mistake was that he didn't devaluate the pound earlier, so it could have been passed off as a financial adjustment. Delaying it only made it looks like a political and economic failure.
The dramatic way he did this also did not help matters. In his speech, he said the "pound in your pocket was not worth any less" when in fact it was.

How did Roy Jenkins help Labour's position by 1969-1970?

He took over as Chancellor.
Used deflationary methods - raised taxes, tightened up government spending and made improving the balance of payments top priority.
He eventually managed a balance of payments surplus - a key factor for providing the Labour party confidence in winning the 1970 general election.

Why did Labour win the 1964 general election?

Wilson's skilful election campaign.
Lack of spirit for the Conservatives since they were in power for 13 years.
Scandals tainted conservative integrity and competence.
Antiquated system of the Conservative party damaged the attempt at modernisation.
Unemployment reached 800,000 under the Conservative government.
Rejection from the EEC.
Labour party presented a more modern image.
Harold Wilson was more impressive in the public eye.
Satire influence.

Britain and the European Economic Community (EEC) 1950-1960

The EEC:

Set up in 1957 by the treaty of Rome.
Six members originally - France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg.
Main motive was to get a Common Market - a trading system between the countries with very few regulations.
Protectionist against non members - making non-common market goods uncompetitive by denying them entry or placing tariffs on them.
Promoted the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - poorer areas in the Community were subsidised by a transfer of money from the rich areas.

Motives behind the six countries in joining the EEC

Germany's desire was to re-establish itself as a respectable and acceptable nation after the Nazi's.
France wanted to control Germany.
Benelux countries and Italy saw the opportunity of economic concessions.

Britain at first had no interest in joining the EEC. Both the Conservatives and Labour parties agreed that they didn't want a foreign group to have power over Britain. So why did attitudes change?

Compared to all the other countries in the EEC, Britain's economy was doing badly.
The success of EFTA (European Free Trade Association - countries included Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Portugal and Denmark) never matched the success of the EEC.
The Suez Crisis questioned Britain's status in Europe
More Conservative politicians were young and pro-European. They thought it was a good idea to join the EEC.

Why was Britain rejected?

Macmillan had the view that Britain would only join the EEC if the privileges of the Commonwealth and EFTA was satisfied - Britain still wanted to trade with them but being part of the EEC meant that the countries in the Commonwealth and EFTA had to pay premiums.
Some EEC members, such as the French President Charles DeGaulle, believed Britain would not fully commit themselves to Europe because of the Commonwealth. However he had other motives too. He wanted to keep France completely independent to the UK and so thought that Britain in the EEC would take some power over the EEC away from France. He also felt that the US may try to influence the EEC through Britain.

Aftermath:

Britain were humiliated - the rejection showed just how weak Britain had become politically as well as economically.

"Wind of Change" - Britain and decolonization 1950-1960

British Politicians originally wanted to manage the transition from Empire to Commonwealth slowly and gradually so that countries learned to govern themselves without help from Britain. However, decolonization was sped up for a number of reasons:

Growth of independence movements in colonies
Britain could not send the army to put down rebellions because of economic decline - two world wars had taken its toll so Britain was relying heavily on the US for money.
This meant that Britain no longer had military or financial strength to dominate other countries.
This links to more people rebelling in the colonies because Britain was now seen as weak, especially after the Suez Crisis.
Investing money in colonies meant that less money was being spent at home.
The USSR and China had began to offer assistance to the colonies - Britain did not want to begin a fight against Russia and China to keep the colonies.
Communism influence.
British Immigration restrictions (1962)
Change in political focus - Attlee's government was more focused on homes and society rather than foreign investments.
Giving colonies independence meant that goodwill between them and Britain remained.

The impact of Suez - was it a major turning point?

Yes

Britain faced an economic crisis through their actions - the pound became worth much less on international money markets.
Britain's relationship with other countries was hindered, especially among the Arabs.
Showed for the first time the importance of using nuclear weapons on another country as a threat.
Proved that the UK could not intervene militarily without the support of the United States.
Britain was seen as an unreliable ally in the eyes of the US.
Colonies were given confidence to rebel against British rule - decolonization was speeded up as people realised that Britain was no longer backed up by a strong military force.
Showed that the Commonwealth would not always support Britain.
Suez brought home to the public the extent in which their nation has declined - Britain's self image as an imperial superpower would never be the same again.
Eden lying to parliament (he claimed he did not know about Israel's involvement in Suez) even had an impact as it exacerbated the collapse in deference in Britain.
French support in Britain was harmed by UK withdrawal.

Promises had already been made to the Colonies concerning their independence before Suez.
African independence movements had far more impact in decolonization than the Suez crisis.
The Conservatives won the next general election - showed that the Crisis did not have a major impact on the British people.
The "Special Relationship" between the USA and Britain was repaired by JFK and Macmillan.
Pride of the British Empire still remained among politicians and the public.

The Suez Crisis of 1956

What was it all about?

The President of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nassar wanted to build the Aswan dam, a project which would supply the Egyptian people with electricity.
He was in need of money so he asked the US and British government who in turn agreed to give him a loan.
However, Nasser also approached Russia. The US and Britain heard about this and ended up withdrawing their offer.
This is where the Suez Canal comes in. The canal was the main trading for ships from the Mediterranean to Asia. 80% of the western world's oil also went through the here. In the past, the canal was owned by a number of private investors, British and American alike. This changed in 1956.
Desperate for money, Nasser decided to Nationalise the canal, making it part of the Egypt and therefore all the profits will be sent straight to the Egyptian government.
The British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, was livid. The nationalisation of the canal meant Nasser could control Britain's oil supply and charge the ships how much he wanted.
As a result, Eden began to think of ways to bring Nasser down.

What happened?

Britain allied itself with Israel and France. The US did not want to get involved since a presidential election was imminent so the invasion would be unpopular with the American people. The US also warned Britain not to get involved, but Britain went ahead anyway.
The plan was to get Israel to attack Egypt, then France and Britain would come in as peacemakers. Britain would then claim the canal. (It was much more complicated than this, but that was the basically what they intended to do.)
Everything was going smoothly until the US found out what was happening - they were furious that they were not consulted.
The USSR also got involved by sending a formal note to Britain which condemned the invasion and described it as bullying. They even threatened to use rockets (nuclear weapons) against them.

Why did Eden have to pull out of the Suez campaign?

The strength of the opposition - Gaitskell and Bevan made attacks on Eden's "mad venture."
Pressure from the United Nations and from the US to withdraw.
Britain's failure at international backing.
Reluctance of most Commonwealth countries to support Britain.
Run on the pound - less people investing on the sterling.
Arab threat of imposing a total oil embargo on Britain and France.
Russia's threat (though it was unlikely that they would have gone through with it; they only wanted to shake up the relationship between Britain and America.)

Aftermath

Eden resigned as Prime Minister.
The crisis made a fundamental impact on British Politics (explained in the next post).

Immigration in the 1960's.

Where were the Immigrants mainly coming from?

West Indies
India and Pakistan
West Africa
Cyprus
Others

Push factors

Restrictions imposed on the US in 1952 led many to come to Britain.
Economic problems at home such as high unemployment.

Pull factors

There was a romantic and glamorised image of Britain from the people of the colonies.
Britain was seen as their "mother country."
Jobs were readily available in Britain.
The arrival of the ship "Empire Windrush" brought a new wave of afro-carribbean immigration into Britain.

Arguments to restrict Immigration:

Overcrowding - Britain already had the highest population density in the world.
There would be trouble if the economy went back into recession due to the lack of jobs available - Voucher system (proposed by the Immigration Act of 1962) could regulate the inflow of people to match job vacancies.
There were growing tensions between the white and black immigrants, so restricting immigration could prevent the situation from growing worse. (Riots did actually start between young white males and black residents in places such as Notting Hill, Nottingham and poorer areas of London.The Salmon report gave a few reasons for the underlying reasons for the break out such as: the anger that the blacks were working for low wages, bitterness at the rise of rents - which was blamed on the blacks - and the “teddy boys” playing local heroes by using violence to reduce the number of black residents.)
Immigrants would only settle in certain towns and large cities as a group which caused even more overcrowding - government had to move them but then the Immigrants were accused of being "queue jumping" council house waiting lists, creating more tension. This also did not help the immigrants to mingle with the white people.
Immigrants claimed to be making unreasonable demands on the welfare state and made no contribution to the welfare funds.
People argued that there was no need to introduce racial problems to Britain as people were already and always will be prejudiced, so Immigration should be restricted.
Commonwealth was part of Britain's past therefore Britain should be concentrating on building a relationship between the US and countries around Europe instead of pleasing the people of the Commonwealth.

Arguments in favour of Immigration:

Free entry had not produced the problem of overcrowding in the past, so will not pose a problem now.
Relationship between jobs and availability of jobs was self regulating - if the number of jobs available falls, then the number of immigrants coming to Britain will fall too and vice versa.
Social tensions were not excessive - the government should punish the wrongdoers individually.
There was no evidence that the immigrants were making no contributions to the welfare state or making unreasonable demands - in fact they were helping to run the national services and even made a massive contribution to the Second World War, which some people were quick to forget.
The immigrants scarcely complained about where they lived - the solution to overcrowding was to build more and better housing.
People would grow out of being prejudiced in time - they should be encouraged to be friendly with the Immigrants and allow multi-cultural societies to be welcomed in Britain.
Should not hinder the relationship with the Commonwealth as they were clearly still loyal to Britain.

Education in the 1960's - Grammar school vs Comprehensive

Arguments against Comprehensive education

Comprehensive meant that the tripartite system was under one roof.

Comprehensives arranged pupils into sets therefore the social divide between groups of children will still exist.

Mixed ability classes would be taught at a pace for slower learners - slower learners will be demoralised by frequent comparisons to their faster learning peers.

Comprehensives will undermine the higher standards of behaviour and attitude to learning.

Denied able children the chance to benefit from a specialist school.

Grammar benefits children by encouraging them to be ambitious and competitive.

Quality of schools depended on the area - bad areas had no alternatives as Grammar schools would be abolished.

Wealthy parents had the choice to move to better areas where there are better Comprehensives - poorer families could not do this.

Pupil's individuality will be lost because Comprehensive schools are bigger, so more classes and more pupils per class.

Overall examination results were worse with mixed ability classes.

Arguments in favour of Comprehensive education

There would no longer be the need for additional exams.

Money will be saved since the 11+ exams no longer need to be produced.

11+ was psychologically dubious and unreliable.

Secondary Modern pupils were classed as being "failures."

Comprehensive education will encourage children and give them a wider range of opportunities to match their academic ability.

Most talented children are undermined because they fail their 11+, but begin to improve at the age of thirteen or fourteen.

Comprehensives are better in this way because it is easier to reallocate children between sets than between schools.

Greater share of public funds went to Grammar schools - Comprehensive schools will now provide economically for all children and have sixth form facilities. This will create a level playing field.

Pupils performed just as good at Comprehensives.

Grammar schools discriminated in favour of upper and middle class pupils who could afford private tuition, therefore Grammar school pupils will have higher social status and job prospects than pupils who attended Secondary Modern.

More regular social interaction between different groups of children.

The Comprehensive education system was simply fairer.

Changing social attitudes and the growth of a "Youth Subculture" in the 1960's

Growing affluence of society enabled some young people on good wages to feel independent and ready to ignore traditional ways.

Pockets of poverty did not share in the general prosperity - felt bitter and alienated.

Teenagers of the 1960's were the first generation to not have lived through the hardships and depression of WWII.

Advertisers targeted teenagers - sold them clothes, pop records and encouraged them to regard themselves as special and different.

Psychologically, the young were throwing off traditional restraints and act out their feelings and desires.

Britain was seen as "grey" and "backwards" - teenagers wanted more excitement in their lives.

Scandals from the Establishment (e.g. the Profumo affair) hardly set an example of responsible behaviour.

Boom time for satire - regular mocking on TV and theatre of politicians, deference was crumbling as a result.

Population boom - more young people around than before.

Affluent society - teenagers had more money and time (as working hours declined) to spend in café's and jazz clubs.

Music became a massive influence on teenagers - pop and rock and roll was first introduced.

Sexual liberation - legalisation of homosexuality, availability of the pill, explicit books were accepted.

Was there a Social Revolution in the 1960's?

Yes

Subcultures opposed to established society were developing e.g.: Mods, Rockers, Teddy Boys.

Emergence of youth culture.

An outburst of individualism.

Greater freedoms in fashion and self-expression.

Technological advances - TVs, Cars, Air travel etc.

Growth of "world news" and international media images.

Greater affluence and availability of credit.

Improvements in material life and the "consumer society."

Upheavals in immigration and class.

Sexual liberation - the pill was available for the first time, homosexuality was legalised, first explicit book was published.

There was changes in where people lived and transport systems.

Major changes in education and secondary school development.

"Conservative backlash" from the older generation.

Social change ebbs and flows - society is always changing.

Social change in the 1960's didn't effect everyone - depended on age, class and region of living.

The changes didn't last.

Middle classes instigated a backlash at the changes made - "class system was dented, but not broken."

Most people resisted a lot of the changes.

British Society in 1951

Britain was still visibly damaged from WWII.

Rationing had just ended.

Young men still had to do 2 years in National Service.

Class loyalties were still strong.

Population boom.

Increasing social tensions.

Start of mass immigration.

Increasing social mobility.

There was powerful debate about the organisation of education.

Birth rates was consistently ahead of death rates - NHS and welfare state only increased that gap.

There was inward migration from the Republic or Ireland, West Indies and countries that had just gained independence from Britain.

Also a lot of migration outward (mainly to Australia and America).

People were moving away from town centres and city centres to new towns ("green field sites").

Invention of cars - people could live further away from where they work.

Was there a "Golden Age" between 1951-1964 or "thirteen wasted years"?

Golden Age

Economy was growing.
Increase in wages and real wages - people can buy more for their money.
More people were buying TVs, washing machines, refrigerators etc. which people could not afford in the past.
Unemployment was low compared to present day.
Credit was given more freely - more people began to borrow money from banks etc.
More people were going on holiday abroad.
Inflation never rose above 5%.
Living standards were rising.
Industry was still growing (even though it was slow).
Britain recovered quickly to the financial problem after the Suez Crisis.

"Thirteen wasted years"

Budget politics - political parties declare tax cuts before the General Election, they get elected, consumer spending rises resulting in the increase of inflation.
Economic growth was poor compared to other countries (relative decline).
Conservative party did not have a economic strategy - "stop-go" economics was failing.
Unemployment was rising.
World trade was declining.
Shipbuilding and car companies had collapsed.
Companies were reluctant to invest.
Productivity in British industry was declining.
Devaluation of the pound.
Inflation growth.
In industry: poor management (poorly trained workers and managers), managers paid themselves a lot, frequent strikes among the workers slowed down productivity, machinery was inferior compared to other countries therefore produced less.
Britain tended to spend more money abroad and in defence - meant that cutbacks in domestic investment was necessary.
NHS cost more than expected.
Lack of technical and scientific education - British culture taught children to be gentlemanly instead of entrepreneurs.
People's attitude towards work was complacent and generally negative.

Why did the Conservative political dominance come to an end? 1961-1964

Economic growth in western Europe was leaving Britain behind.

Macmillan tried to get Britain into the EEC, which was rejected.

Cycle of "stop-go" economics continued.

Britain had a big balance of payment deficit - had to ask for a loan at the IMF.

In 1962, Macmillan did the Night of the Long Knives - he sacked seven senior ministers.

Beaching report: recommended cuts in Britain's railway network - caused public outrage.

Profumo affair: Macmillan's defence minister, John Profumo, had an affair with a prostitute who had links to a man in the Russian military. He talked about Britain's defence to her who would, in turn, tell her Russian friend. Profumo ended up lying to Parliament to cover it up but they found out anyway. This made the Conservatives look bad in the eyes of the public.

Macmillian fell ill and had to resign in 1963.

Alec Douglas-Home replaced Macmillan - was a "compromise candidate". He was old and very old fashioned.

In contrast, Labour had chosen a new leader - Harold Wilson - who was younger, a better leader and a good campaigner.

Labour party split had healed with the new leader.

Labour's slogan was catchy - "13 years of Tory misrule, 13 wasted years."

General atmosphere of the public - people believed it was time for change.

Satire (mocking comedy) became popular - Conservatives became targets.

1964 election saw the rebirth of the Liberal party - took votes away from the Conservatives.

Conservative Political Elites 1951-1964

Winston Churchill

Reputation gained during WWII.
Was not a great Prime Minister between 1951-1955
Named an "absentee" PM - was either abroad or ill.
Concentrated more on international politics, so left the day-to-day running of the country to Eden, Macmillan and Butler.

Anthony Eden

Rising political star from the 1930's.
Key role in Churchill's wartime government.
Eden was acting PM when Churchill was absent between 1951-1955.
He felt annoyed that Churchill hadn't already stepped down.
Churchill may have had doubts about Eden - they had a strained relationship.
Became PM in 1955 after Churchill resigned.
Eden was forced to resign after the Suez Crisis - his career ended in failure.

Harold Macmillan

Star politician
He was Churchill's military liaison officer.
He gained his reputation in 1951 when he became the housing minister - he built 300,000 houses per year.
Became foreign secretary when Eden became PM.
Macmillan took over the Conservative party when Eden resigned.
He was clever with the media who tended to be on his side.
Was the first PM to utilise TV.
Newspapers called him "Supermac."
He had a theatrical style and was in touch with public opinion.
Labour party was a mess during his time.
Famous for saying that Britain "had never had it so good."

Why were there internal divisions in the Labour Party leading up to the 1959 election?

Attlee had continued as leader until 1955, but the wartime generation of labour leaders were ageing and splits started to grow in the party over ideology and between personalities.

The key personality clash was between the leader after 1955 (Hugh Gaiskell) and Aneurin Bevan. Gaitskell was on the Right wing of the Labour party whereas Bevan was on the Left. The party became split into the "Gaitskellites" and the "Bevanites."

The 1959 election proved to be a crushing defeat. The splits in the party widened further over two key issues - the Trade Unions and Nuclear disarmament.

Britain had developed a nuclear bomb in the 1950's. CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) was formed as a result in 1958. CND became the most powerful pressure group in Britain and organised big demonstrations. Many left wingers in the Labour party joined them which may have turned some voters away from Labour in 1959. Hugh Gaitskell suffered defeats at party conferences over the issue.

At the same time, trade unions (who were always supporters of the Labour party) started to challenge the Labour leadership. Frank Collins became leader of the Transport and General Workers Union and was the most vocal critic of Gaitskell (particularly over the Nuclear Weapons issue). Bevanites were of the opinion that Trade Unions should be the major voice in shaping party policy. Gaitskell felt the need to resist this.

The Labour party was also divided over its commitment to Socialism/Nationalism. At the 1959 conference, Gaitskell put forward the idea of abolishing Clause Four of the party constitution that committed the party to nationalisation. Gaitskell was impressed by the way the moderate socialist party (the SPD) has done this in Germany. However there was fierce opposition from the left wing of the party and Gaitskell backed down without forcing a vote.

Conservative Political Dominance 1951-1964

How did the Conservatives dominate this period?

The Conservative party themselves:

Reorganisation of the Conservative party.
Internal disputes within the Labour party - infighting between the Bevanites and the Gaitskellites weakened the Labour party.
1951 marked the end of "austerity" and the start of the long post-war boom.
The Conservatives recognised the extent of public approval for the legacy of the Attlee government.
They didn't outright reject the welfare state or totally reverse nationalisation.
New attitudes towards the trade unions.
Recovered very quickly after the Suez crisis - managed to change leaders after Eden's downfall without a power struggle.

Economy:

Conservatives came to power just as the economy was recovering.
Men's weekly wages were rising, there was a massive increase in private savings and a boom in car ownership.
Harold Macmillan managed to build 300,000 houses per year as promised by the Conservative government.
Farmers did well financially.
Food rationing had ended.
Conservatives declared more tax cuts before the elections.

Social:

Butler was able to boost conservative election prospects through TV.
The national press where in favour of the Conservatives.
Voters were content and happy with their rising living standards.
"Feel good factor."

Individuals - Harold Macmillan :

Macmillan had great political success as the housing minister.
Was seen as a showman.
Had full control of political affairs.
Was very popular with the media - became known as "supermac."
Had a theatrical style.
Had a very good team around him.

Was there a post-war consensus between 1951-1964?

Yes

Attlee's legacy - Labour's welfare policies were too successful eradicate so many Conservatives changed their minds and were less hostile towards the welfare state.

Popularity of the NHS - Conservatives would commit social suicide if they revoked the NHS.

Feeling of national unity after the war - wartime coalition ministers from all the major parties were more willing to cooperate with each other.

"Big government" - many Conservatives were now convinced of the government intervention in social and economic policies. As a result, they were more in tune with public opinion and so accepted Labour's welfare policies, Nationalisation and Keynesian economics.

Wanted to maintain full employment - Conservatives wanted to avoid being seen once again as the "party of mass unemployment", a key issue that led to their loss in the General Election in 1945.

The Conservatives recognised the importance of the trade unions who had become very powerful and influential after Labour had nationalised key industries like the coal and railways.

Conservative leaders didn't feel that they were in a strong enough position to dismantle the Attlee legacy and even if they did, there was the fear that the electorate would swing in Labour's favour.

Labour proved that they did not want all-out socialism and accepted capitalism. Conservatives in turn saw the positives in nationalisation.

The Conservatives were quick to denationalise the steel industry and road transport in 1951.

Right wing Conservatives frequently challenged Labour's policies such as Nationalisation.

Left wing Labour Politicians disagreed with the fact that Attlee decided to side with the US instead of the Soviet Union - they believed that it was a wasted opportunity for Britain which could have became a communist state like the Soviet Union.

Labour Party in power between 1945-1951

Why did the Labour Party perform so well in the 1945 General Election?

Conservative Party did not understand the needs of ordinary people.
Churchill was unable to persuade people that he could be relied upon as a domestic politician.
People still remembered that the Conservatives were unable to manage the economy in the 1930s.
Conservatives's failed appeasement of Hitler.
The Labour party were seen as being better at post-war social and economic reconstruction.
The leading figures of the Labour Party had alot of experience from the war.
British electoral system was in Labour's favour.
Voters overlooked Labour's own failings.

Main features of the social security measures under Attlee's government:

National Insurance Act - everyone had to give a certain amount of money to cover unemployment, sickness, maternity expenses, retirement and widowhood.
Industrial Injury Act - Provided cover for work place accidents.
Free medical treatment - National Health Service (NHS)
Education Act
Family Allowance Act - 25p for every child given to the mother.

Problems with the NHS:

Many of the jobs created were managerial and administrative positions.
The dandruff syndrome - free medical care meant that more people were wasting time and resources on trivial complaints.

The Nationalisation Programme:

Was the common ownership by the means of production, distribution and exchange - basically government control.
Government began to take control over fuel and power industries, iron and steel and transport systems such as railways.
The government did this because they believed it would bring safety, productivity and efficiency to the nation.

Keynesianism:

Was the belief that economic depression can be avoided if certain steps were done.
John Keynes who first thought of it - he believed that it was the fall in demand of manufactured products that caused industrial economies to fall into recession, therefore the demands need to be kept high.
To do this, the theory requires the government to be willing to run deficit budgets, even if that means borrowing money.

Why was Labour experiencing internal disputes over foreign policy?

Some party members believed that Britain should follow the Soviet Union, Attlee disagreed.
Left wing Labour members were very socialist, so alliances with USA would reduce the chance of Britain becoming independent in international affairs.
However, right wing Labour members argued that the Soviets were dangerous and through the US, Britain can be sustained financially.

What was the legacy of the Attlee government between 1945-1951?