Conservative dominance in the years 1951 to 1964 Essay Example
Conservative dominance in the years 1951 to 1964 Essay Example

Conservative dominance in the years 1951 to 1964 Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 3 (1466 words)
  • Published: October 15, 2017
  • Type: Essay
Text preview

The chief ground for conservative laterality in the old ages 1951 to 1964 was labour disunity? ” Access the cogency of this position I agree with this statement as the labor party leaders were ageing. The labour leaders were from the pre-war epoch therefore it meant that they were non in touch with the population. This led to labor disunity throughout the old ages as it caused Attlee to retire. he found that he couldn’t understand what the immature wanted. For the populace they left their trust with the labor party and set it in the conservativists as they felt that labor had failed to make the consumer revolution that everyone had hoped for. By 1951 the populace were besides fed up with the rationing that they still had to digest even though the war had ended 6 old ages ago hence this helped the conservative laterality in those old ages. Another ground as to why labour disunity was to fault for labour laterality was the turning split in the party caused by the Bevanites and Gaitskillites. The split in the party was due to Gaitskell presenting prescription and dental medicine charges. Bevan supported the left wing of the party whereas Gaitskell supported the right wing of the party and followed Attlee in going the following leader of labour authorities. The split led to disunity as Gaitskell didn’t have the full support of the party ; his thoughts were ever traveling to be argued against. Another ground why the split caused disunity in the labor party was to mak

...

e with the trade brotherhoods. The trade brotherhoods were back uping the left wing of the party ; this was a job peculiarly during the Scarborough conference in 1960.

Frank Cousins was the leader of the one of the most powerful brotherhoods. TGWU ( conveyance and general workers ) and was an utmost left wing. He led ferocious resistance to Gaitskell over Britain’s atomic arms. Gaitskell wanted Britain to hold atomic arms because of the looming menace of Russia. during the cold war ; they could pass over out states at any clip. At the party conference in Scarborough Frank Cousins opposed Gaitskell’s leading over the labour party and in peculiar atomic arms. He challenged Gaitskell over his determination non to refect one-sided disarming. This caused disunity in the party because it showed to the public how weak the labour party was if a trade brotherhood leader. who had no power within the party was able to order what they did. It showed to them that person who was a little minority was able to garner a batch of power. It was humiliation for Gaitskell because it showed he wasn’t able to command what was go oning to the party. Besides disunity in the party was due to the fact that the left wing of the party was closely associated with CND ( run for atomic disarming ) . The left wing side of the labour party were in favor of atomic disarming and being connected with atomic disarming scared many labour protagonists. Many people were non in favor of atomic disarming a

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

it was at the tallness of the cold war and they were scared of a atomic war go oning ; this nexus between the CND and the labor party could hold led to many electors turning off from the labor party in the 1959 election.

Another ground which could hold turned people off from voting for the labor party in the 1959 election was the association of CND being anti-government. Their ‘unilateralism’ became a powerful magnet for anti-government protest in some ways it about was seen as a replacement for resistance in authorities. With many labour collectivists associated with one of the most powerful force per unit area groups in Britain it made people question the thoughts that the labour authorities had and their ability to run the state. The concluding ground for a split in labour disunity was clause four. Clause four was the committedness to nationalization of everything which was a measure towards socialism and communism. Gaitskell put forward the thought to get rid of this clause and labours committedness to nationalization to nationalization. He was impressed with the manner Germany had dumped their committednesss to Marxist thoughts in their party conference in 1959. Many people including the left wing of labor opposed this thought and Gaitskell had to endorse down from his thought. With events go oning in the universe connected with socialism and communism. the abolition of clause four was linked to the thoughts of extremist socialism which scared people as it was excessively close to communism for their liking. However it wasn’t merely the labour disunity that caused the conservative party to stay dominant. The conservativists had strengths of their ain that they used to the best of their ability. When conservativists came into power in 1951 it marked the terminal of the asceticism epoch and the start of the station war roar. From 1952 most economic indexs pointed upwards with the roar in auto ownership. place ownership increased. helped by the easy entree to cheap mortgages and nutrient rationing ended wholly in 1954.

Harold Macmillan who was so the lodging curate fulfilled the election pledge of acquiring new places constructed above 300. 000 per twelvemonth. The age of richness helped maintain the conservativists dominant in political relations as it meant the populace saw that party as the 1s who could do a alteration. Besides the conservativists maintaining their promises meant the populace would esteem them. In the tally up to the 1955 election Butler was able to hike conservative election chances with a ‘give-away’ budget. This meant for people in the in-between categories would be provided with ?134 million in revenue enhancement cuts. For these in-between categories it meant an overpowering support in favor of the conservativists because of the categories that might non hold been able to afford the consumer goods were given a opportunity to. For the conservativists in the 1955 general election the public temper was what was described as a ‘feel good’ factor. They wanted the continuance of the consumer goods and therefore they would go on to vote for the conservativists as they saw them as the party who would be

able to offer them it. Another ground for conservative laterality was that the national imperativeness was overpoweringly in favor with the conservativists. During the 1955 election this helped win support and it besides helped during Macmillan’s clip as premier curate. Macmillan seemed to hold the media in the thenar of his manus utilizing the new political chances that were provided by the telecasting. With the conservative party deriving broad spread coverage throughout the state and labour non. it meant people knew more about the conservative party. With the national imperativeness concentrating on the conservativists it gave them adequate attending to win the elections oppressing labor in every licking. An of import ground for the conservative laterality was the personalities that led the party.

Winston Churchill gained his repute for taking Britain to triumph during the war. However during his station war leading he was really much absent and Anthony Eden the moving premier curate led the conservativists. Eden was the first premier curate that the public felt they could understand what they wanted. Anthony Eden was said to hold ‘represented modern-day manhood. ’ This led the populace to believe that for the first clip after the war they would have the benefits that they wanted. Eden has besides many progressive thoughts in domestic personal businesss nevertheless in the terminal this was his ruin. The Suez crisis split the conservative party and for the first clip it looked like they would be weakened and labour would take power nevertheless it didn’t. Eden was resigned in 1957 and Harold Macmillan who led the run to abort the Suez crisis emerged as premier curate.

He restored the party integrity and in the 1959 led the conservativists to another win in the election. Macmillan from 1957 showed his aura of assurance and political command. This showed to the populace that the politicians and leaders in the party were strong willed and would make anything in their power to protect their state. This gave the conservativists the regard that they needed to travel on and win the elections. Overall I think that although the labour party were weak. and this failing led to the conservativists ruling political relations and authorities ; conservative laterality was due to the power that the leaders had. The people saw that this party was able to give them everything they wanted with the age of richness. Besides conservatives made certain that labour protagonists would alter sides as they gave regard to the labour’s station war consensus. With maintaining with the station war consensus it showed to the people they were leaders who knew what they party wanted and non the ageing leaders in the labor party.