POLI20532 From Blitz to the Big Society; British Politics Since 1940

7366537 University ID

The General Election of 1945 produced an overwhelming victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. It took the mass radicalism engendered by the Second World War to give the party its first Parliamentary majority, and hence its first opportunity to test in untrammelled political conditions the potential for substantial social change (Coates, 1975, p.42). The partys distinctive election manifesto of 1945, Let Us Face the Future, declared the partys intention to bring out the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain - free, democratic, efficient, progressive, and public-spirited (Political Stuff, 2001). The manifestos radical promise tapped the aspirations of an electorate whose experience of austerity and total war left many eager for fundamental changes in British society. It generated a climate of optimism, with the genuine conviction that pre-war poverty and privilege should not be allowed to return. Hugh Dalton, Attlees first Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared triumphantly, a new society was to be built; and we had the power to build it (Marquand, 2009, p.118).
I

In Britain Since 1918, David Marquand claimed that Attlees victory in the 1945 election put democratic-collectivist tatisme into the saddle. Collectivism, from the Latin Colligere To gather together, is the belief that collective human action is morally and practically superior to individual self-striving. It places emphasis on the interdependence of every human being holding that an individuals actions should benefit not themselves, but a collective community. Collectivists believe that individual submission to the collective goal guarantees individuals against being exploited and subordinated to the goals of others. tatisme, or statism, is the belief that the state is at the centre of the political vision. It is a political philosophy that emphasises the exertion of state control over an individual citizen, and supports the use of the state to achieve economic, social, or general political goals. It describes the institutions and political practices in which executive authority gathers increasing levels and varieties of power into its hands, with the aim of achieving goals in the interests of the majority. In light of these definitions, it is the thesis of this essay that Attlees 1945 1951 Administration did not put democratic-collectivist tatisme into the saddle. By evaluating the Nationalisation programme (Section II), the Welfare Programme and Social Reforms (Section III), and the Economy and Economic Planning (Section IV), one

POLI20532 From Blitz to the Big Society; British Politics Since 1940

7366537 University ID

will suggest that instead of creating a more egalitarian, collectivist, and socialist society, Clement Attlees Administration nurtured British capitalism steering it through a period of stress in the aftermath of the Second World War. The Administrations policies failed to revolutionise the lives of the people it claimed to support.
II

The Public Ownership programme was the distinctive side of the Governments plans a symbolic charge that the party stood for social transformation rather than mere social reform (Marquand, 2009, p.131). It was, as Clement Attlee assured the Party conference in 1945, our Socialist policy, which we must carry out as rapidly and energetically as we can (Shaw, 1996, p.24). According to the 1945 election manifesto, Let Us Face the Future, each industry must have applied to it the test of national service. If it serves the nation, well and good; if it is inefficientthe nation must see that things are put right (Political Stuff, 2001). Industries were required by constructive supervision to further the nations needsnot to prejudice national interests by restrictive anti-social monopoly (Political Stuff, 2001). Labours unity and momentum meant a phase of extraordinary legislative activism between 1945 1949; in these four years, the Attlee Administration had initiated state takeovers of certain branches of the economy (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.219) - nationalising the Bank of England, Cable and Wireless, civil aviation, electricity and gas supply, coal mining, the railways, long-distance road haulage, and finally, the iron and steel industry {in the face of intense Conservative political and industrial opposition} (Coates, 1975, p.44). By 1951, over two million workers had been transferred from the private to the public sector. It is true to say that Labours nationalisation schemes surpassed all previous measures. However, despite these achievements, the aims of the programme, at its critical points, were vague, ambiguous, and abstruse. The party leadership was more concerned with accommodating Labours enemies than with a genuine socialist programme. The nationalisation programme strengthened the private sector, reinforcing the economic and social position of its ruling groups. It relieved [the private sector] of its responsibility for industries requiring vast new investment programmes (Howell, 1976, p.153), and provided them instead with an infrastructure of publically owned basic industries whose pricing policies could be designed so as to subsidise the private sector (Coates, 1975, p.52). Its pattern of public ownership had strengthened the very classes it had promised to reform it did not shift the balance between labour and capital. It had failed to achieve a fundamental transformation in the balance of class power, both

POLI20532 From Blitz to the Big Society; British Politics Since 1940

7366537 University ID

within individual industries and in society as a whole (Francis, 1997, p.66). As Ralph Miliband opined, the Government enjoyed the co-operation of private industry. Or, more accurately, private industry enjoyed the cooperation of the Government (Miliband, 1961, p.290). Over 80% of the economy remained in private hands its piecemeal legislation to nationalise one-fifth of the economy was a departure from previously held beliefs. The Labour Believes in Britain policy statement, released in 1949, said that nationalisation was only appropriate where private enterprise was failing the nation. Labour had accepted the mixed economy a stark betrayal of Clause IV of the party constitution, To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industryupon the common ownership of the means of production (The Socialist, 2008). The public ownership programme initiated by the Attlee Administration was not as statist or centralist as David Marquand suggested. It failed to put the levers of economic power into the hands of the state. Furthermore, compensation schemes paid by the Labour Government were inconceivably generous (Shaw, 1996, p.25). The compensation schemes lessened the redistribution of class power in post-war British societystrengthening the prestige of the very groups which had prospered amid inter-war depression (Coates, 1975, p.52). David Marquand suggested the nationalisation programme allowed the state to channel economic forces in the direction that the public interest required (Marquand, 2009, p.131). Collectivism was non-existent. The profiteering rich and the oligarchs of newly-nationalised industries re-invested their compensation money in the private profitable sector. Individual self-striving remained prominent much to the disillusionment of the working-classes. Attlees Administration acted as a manager of capitalism justifying it without shame. Labours nationalisation programme also led to a lack of democracy in the workplace. The schemes failed to challenge the workplace hierarchy of the managerial responsibilities on the one hand, and the trade union functions and workers tasks on the other (Coates, 1975, p.50). Between 1948 and 1949, thirty-four resolutions at the Labour party conferences dealt with democratic control of nationalised industries, supporting workers participation, and the inclusion of more Socialists on the boards of industries (Rubinstein, 1977). Instead of participative forms of organisations, new Morrisonian public-corporations were introduced. They were undemocratic and bureaucratically structured, with traditional status divisions between management and workforce perpetuated (Shaw, 1996, p.25). These new public corporations were headed by members of the managerial and ownership class of the former private industries (Coates, 1975, p.48). For example, the head of the National Coal Board had previously been head of one of the largest private colliery companies in the country. The Labour Party had accepted the traditional

POLI20532 From Blitz to the Big Society; British Politics Since 1940

7366537 University ID

capitalist managerial rule. They restricted workers in the decision-making process forbidding them to exercise full control of their own industrial destinies. Many workers were dissatisfied with the fruits of nationalisation the Railway Review reported that at the end of 1948, 45% of the 485 railwaymen who replied to their questionnaire felt frustration had increased after a year of nationalisation (Rubinstein, 1977). There had been no change under public ownership private capitalists were reassured that their interests were being looked after (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.222). The workers were alienated and pessimistic of future nationalisation schemes. Ownership had changed; power did not.
III

As opined by Edmund Dell, the Attlee Governments enduring monument is the welfare state (Dell, 2000, p.138). The expansion of the Welfare State was based on three Acts the National Health Service Act 1946, the National Insurance Act 1946, and the National Assistance Act 1948. The Labour Governments welfare achievements were real and of lasting value; a challenge to the inherited structure of social inequality (Coates, 1975, p.47). Despite the tenuous finances of the country (the initial stages of the Welfare State were to be funded by the $4 billion American loan that Britain received in December 1945), the Let Us Face the Future manifesto pledged the establishment of a universal healthcare service that would be available free for all. It committed itself to a housebuilding programme it will proceed with a housing programme with the maximum practical speed until every family in this island has a good standard of accommodation (Political Stuff, 2001). It promised to create a system of universally available social insurance, providing guaranteed minimum incomes to those subject to unemployment, ill-health, industrial accidents, disablement, infirmity and old-age (Coates, 1975, p.46). The Attlee Administration promised to maintain Jobs For All the continuation of the highly successful Full Employment programme established on a collectivist-consensual basis during the wartime coalition government. Finally, in terms of Education, the Labour Party promised an educational system that will give every boy and girl a chance to develop the best that is in them (Political Stuff, 2001). On paper, these were to be one of social democracys finest accomplishments (Shaw, 1995, p.37) enshrining the fundamental values of socialism. The origins of a comprehensive national health service date back before the beginnings of the Attlee Administration in 1945. The Liberal Health Insurance Schemes of 1906, along with the Dawson Report 1920, and the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance 1926, point to the existence of a democratic-collectivist consensus for a

POLI20532 From Blitz to the Big Society; British Politics Since 1940

7366537 University ID

national scheme, dictated by the logic of circumstances, rather than by the ideology of politicians or the demands of pressure groups (Kavanagh and Morris, 1989, p.74). The introduction of the health service, to combat the giants of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness, furthered notable collectivist and egalitarian ideals. The creation of the NHS was seen as a turning point for the Attlee Administration. With a free universal health service, it is true of David Marquand to suggest that tatisme was put into the saddle the state played an integral role in the vision and achievement of this social goal. Healthcare was no longer a commodity the state suppressed the unfairness of the marketso the service was run on merit and pursuing the public interest (Marquand, 2009, p.131). The immediate results of the NHS were staggering. The Rowntree Foundation, in 1950, found that poverty in a working-class area of York had reduced by 25% - mainly due to the universal healthcare service and the implementation of the fullemployment programme. Despite these accomplishments, the National Health Service spending never exceeded 4.5% of Britains GNP; compared to the Netherlands (5.9%), the US (6.8%) and Canada (7.3%) (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, pp.225 226). These important social reforms were imperative to improving the quality of life for the working-class electorate; however, power had not shifted between the classes. The qualitative social transformation of privilege, wealth, and equality of opportunity (Coates, 1975, p.47) had not come. In terms of spending on Welfare benefits, Britain compared unfavourably with other European countries. For instance, West Germany, France, and Spain offered a number of welfare benefits more generous than those in Britain (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.226). During the first three years of the Attlee Government, 750,000 new homes were built (Marquand, 2009, p.122) an incredible achievement for an Administration who were attempting to ease the transition from total war to a state of peace. The Housing policy was based on specifically socialist ideals; based on the concepts of provision on the basis of need and the right to a quality service irrespective of purchasing power (Francis, 1997, p.129). Under the guardianship of Aneurin Bevan, the Labour Administration was able to inject a specifically collectivist, socialist element into its social security programme. In spite of the triumphs, when Labour left office in 1951, there was still an immense pool of uncleared slums and unsatisfied demand remained (Marquand, 2009, p.122). The physical destruction of cities, as a result of the Second World War, remained prominent. Finally, the Education system, after the Attlee Administration, remained the most divisive, unjust, and wasteful of all the aspects of social inequality (Francis, 1997, p.141). The Labour Party, when in power, failed to use the education system as a tool to create a more egalitarian society. It failed to introduce a distinctly socialist policy

POLI20532 From Blitz to the Big Society; British Politics Since 1940

7366537 University ID

choosing instead to continue to implement the Education Act of 1944. The education system was largely neglected the equality of opportunity and access remained a distance dream. Selective education remained (predominantly based on the unfair 11-plus examination) the British education system remained distinctly unmeritocratic and bias towards the middle-classes. True to its promise of alleviating the individual from the endemic destitution, the Labour Administration, in democratic-collectivist and statist style, created a framework by which the working-classes were able to improve their lives. The state played an integral role in what was to become an enduring domestic legacy with which the benefits it brought to the British people at large are not in doubt. Nevertheless, these reforms, initiated by the Labour Party, depended almost entirely on the vigour of national capitalism (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.227). The health of the nation was subordinated to the health of capitalism frequently throughout Clement Attlees time in office. Whether it is the rearmament programme, or the establishment of the nuclear weapons programme, social reforms were attacked with increasing ferocity whenever things became tight (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.227).
IV

At the end of the Second World War, the British economy was nearly-bankrupt and grossly overstretched (Marquand, 2009, p.123) its prestige and wealth had been severely reduced. With accumulated debts of 2,723 million (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.228), Britain had gone from being the largest creditor to the worlds largest debtor the search for national solvency was the Attlee Administrations main aim. The 1945 Let Us Face the Future election manifesto stated that Labour was to plan from the ground up (Political Stuff, 2001). Private investment and development was to conform to government purposes. The manifesto attacked the Czars of big businessin whose hands the concentration of too much economic power was held (Political Stuff, 2001). Labour was going to stand up against the chaos of economic do-as-they-anarchy promoting the use of economic assets in the interests of the electorate. It was a fiercely anti-capitalist, pro-collectivist pledge. With the use of the state to achieve economic goals, it aimed to reduce the rainy days to a minimum (Political Stuff, 2001). Despite the election pledges, the aims of the manifesto were not achieved. The Attlee Administration had diluted its socialist commitment abandoning it in favour of Keynesian-inspired expedients (Francis, 1997, p.34).

POLI20532 From Blitz to the Big Society; British Politics Since 1940

7366537 University ID

Economic Planning had a limited impact, and did not markedly transform either class relations or capitalist economic imperatives (Coates, 1975, p.55). There was no central planning department, and the National Investment Board, proposed in the Let Us Face the Future manifesto to determine social priorities and promote better timing in private investment (Political Stuff, 2001), was never established. The Labour Government of 1945 1951 did not use the planning machinery it had inherited from the wartime coalition to curtail the economic power and social privileges of the classes it attacked in its manifesto. Instead, it sought a close and co-operative working relationship with them (Coates, 1975, p.56). The controls which the Labour Party inherited were essentially negative they can stop activity but they cannot promote it (Dell, 2000, p.148). The Attlee Administration, by 1947, had dismantled the complete edifice of war-time controls (Coates, 1975, p.58). This was the first steps towards a free economy the Attlee Government had succumbed to the pressure of profit-aspiring private corporations. The Labour Party had discredited economic planning failing to transform the private capitalist society that prospered during the depression of the 1930s. David Marquands claim that the 1945 1951 put tatisme into the saddle can be disputed. From 1947 onwards, the Labour Party disassociated itself from the levers of economic control. Instead, the government attached itself to Keynesian-style economic policies. It promoted the market economy and private, self-interested entrepreneurial activity. It was a complete defeat for the government at the hands of the private industry (Shaw, 1995, p.32). The dramatically altering direction of the Governments economic policy from 1947 onwards led to an unprecedented draconian attack on the people it claimed to represent and serve. The terms of the Land-Lease Plan and Marshall Aid, a programme to enable European economies to rebuild after the Second World War, allowed the British Pound to be freely convertible into American Dollars. During the Attlee Administration, this led to three sterling crises (1947, 1949 and 1951). It resulted in delayed investment, slowed technical change, low productivity, and weakened Britains competitive position in the world (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.230). The result of the sterling crises led to an economic policy far from being based on the notions of collectivism. There were basic cuts in basic rations of meat, fat, sugar, and other foodstuffs. As David Marquand opined, Food was adequate, but dismal; queues were ubiquitous; black markets flourished (Marquand, 2009, p.122). In addition, the average calorie intake per person per day was cut by nearly 14% (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.230). There was a sharp reduction in consumer spending power, large reductions in living standards, workers were required to pay higher taxes, and under the government White Paper entitled Statement on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices, there would be no increase in wages, salaries or dividends. The Tribune

POLI20532 From Blitz to the Big Society; British Politics Since 1940

7366537 University ID

Magazine in 1948 enthusiastically claimed that the austerity policy and wage freeze was bold and understandably adequate (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.249). Collectivism in British society during 1945 1951 was an illusion; a fallacious ideal. As Ralph Miliband highlights in Parliamentary Socialism, it was much easier to place the major share of the burden on the poor than on the rich (Miliband, 1961, p.313). The Attlee Administration grew more conservative in its attempt to encourage private growth (Coates, 1975, p.66). It had created an environment in which private enterprise could flourish strengthening the political and economic position of the very social groups that it had once promised to bring down (Coates, 1975, p.66). The Labour Party had promised socialism expectations that were not fulfilled. They, instead of creating a collectivist society at home, continued to fund extravagant rearmament programmes to salvage Britains dwindling imperialist role in the world. The Labour Party attacked the very people it claimed to support a negation of its aims at a domestic level. They were the epitome of austerity (Dell, 2000, p.202) the electorate were asked to suffer because of the failings of its government.
V

The Labour Administration of 1945 1951, led by Clement Attlee, was the zenith of social reconstruction ranked with the great reforming governments of Gladstone and Asquith (Marquand, 2009, pp.118 119). The creation of the Welfare State, its most memorable and significant achievement, improved the war-torn lives of millions of the British electorate. The Labour Party were the peoples party its popularity showed no signs of slowing down. Memberships had exceeded the one-million mark by 1950, and its share of the popular vote continued to grow in successive general elections in the 1951 election, Labour achieved the highest poll ever for one party 13,948,605 votes with only the vagaries of the electoral system keeping them out of office (Cliff and Gluckstein, 1988, p.253). Despite these accomplishments, one believes it is wrong of David Marquand to suggest that the Attlee Administration put democratic-collectivist tatisme into the saddle. The concentration of capital and economic privilege remained, and the old power structure was undeniably intact (Coates, 1975, p.74). Collectivism was missing, and statism was absent. The Attlee Administration failed to reform the classes it rightfully attacked in its 1945 election manifesto. The Labour Party represented a wave of hope and optimism with many believing they would help to make the world a better place. It failed, however, to champion the rights of the working-people it used draconian measures to stifle their voices. By 1951, class, gender, and economic differences resulted in a British society that had reverted back to being highly divided (Fielding et al, 1995, p.128). As John Saville highlights in Jim

POLI20532 From Blitz to the Big Society; British Politics Since 1940

7366537 University ID

Firths Labours High Noon, the Attlee Administrations legacy in office provided a springboard for the rich to take off into the profiteers paradise of the 1950s (Saville in Fyrth, 1993, p.37).
Word Count 2,093 words. Bibliography and References:
Books: Cliff, Tony, and Gluckstein, Donny (1988), The Labour Party A Marxist History, Cox and Wyman Publishers, Reading. Coates, David (1975), The Labour Party and the Struggle for Socialism, Cambridge University Press, London. Dell, Edmund (2000), A Strange Eventful History Democratic Socialism in Britain, Harper Collins Publishers, London. Fielding, Steven, Thompson, Peter, Tiratsoo, Nick (1995), England Arise! The Labour Party and Popular Politics in 1940s Britain, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Francis, Martin (1997), Ideas and Policies under Labour 1945 1951: Building a New Britain, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Fyrth, Jim (1993), Labours High Noon Government and the Economy 1945 1951, Lawrence and Wishart Publishers, London. Howell, David (1976), British Social Democracy: A Study in Development and Decay, Croom Helm Publishers, London. Kavanagh, Dennis, and Morris, Peter (1989), Consensus Politics from Attlee to Thatcher, Basil Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Marquand, David (2009), Britain since 1918 The Strange Career of British Democracy, Phoenix Publishers, London. Miliband, Ralph (1961), Parliamentary Socialism: A Study of the Politics of Labour, Allen and Unwin Publishers, London. Shaw, Eric (1996), The Labour Party since 1945, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Internet Websites: Rubinstein, David, Socialism and the Labour Party The Labour Left and Domestic Policy 1945 1951. Published in 1977. Accessed at http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/History/Lableft.html. Date Accessed; 01/03/2012. Political Stuff, The 1945 Labour Party Election Manifesto Let Us Face the Future; A Declaration of Labour Policy for the Consideration of the Nation. Published in 2001. Accessed at http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1945/1945-labour-manifesto.shtml. Date Accessed; 12/03/2012. The Socialist Party Newspaper, 1918 2008; Clause IV and Nine Decades of Workers Struggle. Published on 20th February 2008. Accessed at http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/3792. Date Accessed; 01/03/2012.