Why did the Conservatives win/ Labour lose the 1951 UK general election?
I feel as though I’ve spent days aimlessly searching the internet for a clear answer to this question. From the research I’ve done, I’ve attempted to form what I consider to be that clear answer. For all of my fellow A2 AQA historians out there, I hope this helps!
Why did the Conservatives win/ Labour lose the 1951 UK general election?
There are three main sub-categories for this answer; the Conservative’s strengths, Labour’s weaknesses/ limitations, and uncontrollable factors.
Conservative’s strengths:
Following their post-war election defeat, the Conservatives were able to make significant improvements to the party between 1945 and 1951. Their time in opposition led to the rebuilding and remodelling their policies to allign with post-war consensus (mixed economy, welfare state etc). Buter was key to this; promising that the Conservatives would not reverse the reforms introduced by Labour. This showed they were flexible and committed to improvement; they were a party of continuity and efficiency. Their election campaign was heavily based off the idea that, if voted into power, there would be a period of consolidation after the previous years of innovation.
Lord Woolton was also key in the reformation of the party; holding membership dirves, propaganda campaigns and obtaining donations from bug businesses who were threatened by Labour’s nationalisation. The newly recruited young members dramatically contrasted with the aging Labour cabinet and presented the Conservatives as a rising party fit to govern.
Furthermore, the Conservatives were able to exploit Labour’s failures to improve living standards. Under Labour, rationing continued, with further dried egg and bread rationing introduced in 1946. This caused widespread discontent as even during the war, bread had not been rationed. In realising that the quality of life was far more important to the public than any other factor, the Conservatives promised to build 300,000 houses a year, although they did admit in their manifesto that not much could be done to lessen the strain of rationing in 1951.
Britain’s involvement in the Korean War also enabled the Conservatives to play on Churchill’s ‘war hero’ status.
Labour’s weaknesses/ limitations:
As Charmley so aptly put it, the government was ‘exhausted in mind, body and manifesto commitments.’ Many of Labours intergral cabinet ministers had been in office since 1940 and now, a decade later, were cumbling under the strain of the the continuous post-war crises that plagued Britain. While ill health may have played its part in weakening the Labour party, the lack of enthusiasm put into manifesto commintments was by far more significant. The party had achieved many of the reforms put forward in their 1945 manifesto, most noteably the implementation of the welfare state, and now lacked new policy ideas. Instead of indroducing new reforms and methods to improve living conditions, Attlee decided to focus on fighting the election based on the party’s previous successes, claiming that the Conservatives could not be trusted with the reforms they had introduced.
The consequences of entering the Korean War in June 1950 also contributed to Labour’s downfall. The financial strain of rearming subsequently led Gaitskell, who at this point was Chancellor of the Exchequer, threatening the idea of introducing prescription charges to the NHS (although it was not implemented until the Conservtives gained power in 1951 ). Understandably, the architect and far left member of the party, Bevan, was enraged at this suggestion. His subsequent retirement from the party therefore revealed that Labour was divided in its views and ultimately undermined its unity, providing a poor image to potential voters.
The poor timing of the 1951 election can also be claimed to have weakened Labour’s position. Gaitskell and Morrison (Deputy Prime Minister) both doubted whether Labour would be able to defeat the Conservatives in 1951, owing to their loss of seats in the 1950 election. They suggested the election should take place the following year, in 1952, hoping the government would be able to make enough progress towards economic improvement to win the election. However, Attlee wanted to resolve the political uncertainty in Britain befre the King’s scheduled six-month tour of the Commonwealth, and so the election was scheduled for 1951, putting them in a disadvantaged position
Uncontrollable Factors
In the 1950 election, the Liberals put up 475 candidates and secured 2.6 million votes (9.1% of the entire vote). However, in 1951 they could only manage 109 candidates, gaining just over 700,000 votes (2.6% of entire vote). Ultimately, the Conservatives profited from the decreased presence of Liberal candidates as they were able to win their votes through appealing to middle class needs, more so than Labour, who was affliated with the continuation of rationing, high taxes, wage freezes and unfulfilled promises for housing.
Maybe not the most important factor, but definitely worth noting, is the fact that the UK employs a ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system. So, while Labour won the popular vote, gaining large majorities in their constituencies, the Conservatives won the majority of seats, gaining narrow victories, but in more constituencies. In this respect, although Labout lost the 1951 election, it can be claimed that they only marginally lost popular support meaning, in my opinion, the most significant factor contributing to their loss was the mistiming of the election.
Sources:
How Labour Governments Fall: From Ramsey MacDonald to Gordon Brown
Timothy Heppell, Kevin Theakston (2013)
Aspects of British Political History 1914- 1995
Stephen J, Lee (2005)
The Lessons of 1945–1951 Tories in Opposition
Robert Blake (1968)
