Why Labour lost in 1951 is a highly debated topic within the world of politics. To understand why Labour lost in 51 it is important to understand some of the issues Labour had to face during their time in government from 1945-51. One of the major issues Labour had to face was how to rebuild Britain following the end of the Second World War, it also had to face the decolonisation of the British Empire and the loss of key figures within the party due to age and illness by 1951. After researching the topic thoroughly, I Would argue the main reason Labour lost in 51 was because the government of the loss of a number of major political figures including the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. The reason why many claim that it was the loss of major figures within the Labour Party administration that caused labour to lose in 1951 is that Clement Attlee himself lost focus due to this loss. This gives rise to the claim that this is the most important reason because if your own leader has given up then who is there to motivate not only the voters but the candidates themselves. Some have disputed this claim as Labour still won …show more content…
However, they must have had some impact on the result of the election for scholars and politicians to have taken notice of them. So it is not a question of whether or not they had an impact but whether or not they made the crucial impact to be the main reason for Labour’s loss in 51. The main reason I believe that neither of these arguments were the main reason for Labour’s demise is that Labour won the popular vote so it is not possible that the majority were disillusioned with the Labour party, and as Labour lost more in 1951 than in 1950 therefore the difference could not have been made by the redrawing of the boundaries as this had occurred by the 1950
It could be argued that Gladstone’s failure to unite his party, during a time when their ultimate support and confidence in his leadership was crucial, was a significant tactical error that contributed heavily towards the failure of the 1886 Home Rule Bill. The results of the 1885 general election were to have a significant impact on the political landscape of Britain; despite winning the most seats, the Liberals did not have an overall majority.As Parnell and the Irish Parliamentry Party (IPP) held the balance...
Assess the Claim that the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929-31 Were Unable to Achieve Anything
who had been seen by many Tories as a future leader of the party lost
Tom Gatenby To what extent did the Conservatives lose the election rather than the Liberals win the election? “The election of 1906 was a significant watershed in the political history of Britain” Kenneth Owen Fox The election of 1906 was a landside victory for the Liberal Party. This is due to many factors, it could been influenced by the manifesto of the Liberal Party, or perhaps even more strongly the failure of the Conservative Party to unify on such reforms as the Tariff Reform. The lack of a strong unified Conservative government clearly had a large effect upon the outcome of the 1906 election, to what extent this is true will be explained in the essay.
Prime Minister Robert Menzies was a believer in the need for ‘great and powerful friends’ and the idea of ‘forward defence’. Before the 1949 federal election, Menzies campaigned on the representation of the Labor Party as out of touch with Australia’s postwar ambitions. He was aided by Chifley’s willpower to cover union wage stresses and control increase. Predominantly injuring for Labor was a Communist-led coal strike in New South Wales, and the government’s practice of troops to
‘Confidence in the government declined between 1968 and 1980 largely due to political scandal’. To what extent do you agree?
The sixties was a decade filled with major political debates that affected the entire country. By the time the sixties came around we were in the most turbulent part of the Cold War, an era of military and political tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. As Dwight Eisenhower brought the fifties to a close it was time for a new president to take hold of the reigns. As the country closed in on one of the closest elections in history it was up to Democratic candidate, John F. Kennedy to compete agains...
The 1950’s have received a reputation as an age of political, social and cultural conformity. This reputation is rightfully given, as with almost every aspect of life people were encouraged to conform to society. Conforming is not necessarily a negative thing for society, and the aspects of which people were encouraged to conform in the 1950’s have both negative and positive connotations.
The early 1900s was a time of many movements, from the cities to the rural farms; people were uniting for various causes. One of the most widespread was the labor movement, which affected people far and wide. Conditions in the nation’s workplaces were notoriously poor, but New York City fostered the worst. Factories had started out in the city’s tenements, which were extremely cramped, poorly ventilated, and thoroughly unsanitary. With the advent of skyscrapers, factories were moved out of the tenements and into slightly larger buildings, which still had terrible conditions. Workers were forced to work long hours (around 12 hours long) six hours a day, often for extremely low pay. The pay was also extremely lower for women, who made up a large portion of the shirtwaist industry. If a worker were to openly contest an employer’s rule, they would be promptly fired and replaced immediately. Also, strength in numbers did not always work. Managers often hired brutal strikebreakers to shut movements down. The local police and justice were often of no help to the workers, even when women were being beaten. At the time, the workers needs were not taken seriously and profit was placed ahead of human life. This was not just a struggle for workers’ rights; it was also a movement for the working class’ freedom.
roots and is by no means as socialist as it was. But is it still
middle of paper ... ... d therefore the smaller parties can be considered to have very little effect on the overall political situation. In conclusion, the UK can still best be described as a two party system, provided two considerations are taken into account. The first is that Conservative dominance victories between 1979-97 was not a suggestion of party dominance and that eventually, the swing of the political pendulum will be even for both sides. This can perhaps be seen today with Labour's two landslide victories in 1997 and 2001.
Recognizing that most of Europe was socialist, Churchill worked to remove England from the labor party in order to run over the rise of totalitarianism. The socialist government in Germany was under the control of the Nazi party increasing angst with Hitler in control (Johnson 108-112). Through his elections as Prime Minister he was able to mend the damage done by Chamberlain in his attempt to appease Hitler (Johnson 46). Having lived through World War I, Chamberlain was determined to avert another war. His policy of appeasement towards Hitler was co...
In conclusion, the 1950s is considered to be a decade of progress by many historians, rather than a period of major conservatism. We can still find signs of progress from the 1950s in our world today, in everything from housing to appliances and popular culture. This period also introduced some new ideas to the American culture by the way of television shows, radios, and newspapers.
Was it because of his part in the decline of the Liberal party? Or was
World War, whose negative effects had spilled over through the 1950s. The 1960s were therefore