Skip to main content

The Labour Party, 1945–64

  • Chapter
Book cover British Political Parties
  • 26 Accesses

Abstract

In 1945 the Labour Party, partly to its own surprise, achieved an over-all majority for the first time in its history. The new government had none of the limitations said to have shackled previous Labour governments, but it did not interpret the election results as a victory for ‘socialism’; the reforms of the Labour government were essentially uncontroversial and fully in keeping with the consensus that had emerged from the Second World War. The Bank of England, civil aviation, coal, gas, electricity, inland transport and iron and steel were nationalised, but only the nationalisation of iron and steel was controversial and only the last two were to be denationalised. Even the government was lukewarm over iron and steel, leaving it to the last; moreover, compensation was extremely generous for the previous owners of all these industries. The form of public ownership was quite comforting for those suspicious of Labour’s nationalisation programme; public boards or corporations, as favoured by the main architect, Herbert Morrison, ensured a degree of management continuity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes to Chapter 9

  1. A. A. Rogow, The Labour Government and British Industry, 1945–51 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955).

    Google Scholar 

  2. For an account of internal Labour politics between 1945 and 1951, see K. D. Morgan, Labour in Power (OUP, 1984) pp. 45–81.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Also H. Pelling, The Labour Governments 1945–51 (London: Macmillan, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  4. L. Hunter, The Road to Brighton Pier (London: Arthur Barker, 1959) p. 32. The book is a fascinating mixture of gossip and political history.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See Hugh Dalton, High Tide and After, 1945–60 (London: Muller, 1962) p. 359.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See also M. Foot, Aneurin Bevan, 1945–60, vol. 2 (London: Davis Poynton, 1973) pp. 294–5, for the claim that health charges became ‘an obsession’ with Gaitskell.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Compare Foot’s account, very hostile to Gaitskell, with that of P. Williams, Hugh Gaitskell (London: Jonathan Cape, 1979), which is equally ungenerous to Bevan (see particularly pp. 238 and 267).

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Lord Moran, Churchill: The Struggle for Survival 1940–65 (London: Constable, 1966) p. 335.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See F. Williams, A Prime Minister Remembers (London: Heinemann, 1961) p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Also K. Harris, Attlee (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1982) pp. 258–61.

    Google Scholar 

  11. For an account of the plot, see B. Pimlott, Hugh Dalton (London: Jonathan Caope, 1985) pp. 505–8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Also ‘his [Morrison’s] interpretation of the 1933 rules was open to question, while his personal interest in provoking a leadership contents was embarrassingly obvious to all’, B. Donoughue and G. W. Jones, Herbert Morrison (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1973) p. 343.

    Google Scholar 

  13. For a discussion of the Bevanites, see M. Jenkins, Bevanism: Labour’s High Tide (Nottingham: Spokesman, 1979). The book has a particular concern with Eastern Europe but chs 5–6 are relevant here.

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. Miliband, Parliamentary Socialism, 2nd edn (London: Merlin Press, 1972) p. 322.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. H. S. Crossman (ed.), New Fabian Essays (London: Turnstile, 1952); and

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. A. R. Crosland, The Future of Socialism (London: Jonathan Gape, 1956).

    Google Scholar 

  17. For details on Socialist Commentary and Socialist Union see S. Haseler, The Gaitskellites (London: Macmillan, 1969) pp. 66–80.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. D. E Butler and R. Rose, The British General Election of 1959 (London: Cass, 1970) p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  19. In M. Abrams and R. Rose, Must Labour Lose? (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960) p. 105.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See L. Minkin, The Labour Party Conference, rev. edn (Manchester University Press, 1980) pp. 369–73. It is difficult, therefore, to give exact figures.

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Harrison, The Trade Unions and the Labour Party Since 1945 (London: Allen & Unwin, 1960) p. 316.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Also K. Hindell and P. Williams, ‘Scarborough and Blackpool: An Analysis of Some Votes and the Labour Party Conferences of 1960 and 1961’, Political Quarterly, vol. XXXIII, no. 3, July–September 1962, pp. 306–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Compare Crosland, p. 341, with the views of an American conservative-pluralist, S. M. Lipset, Political Man (New York: Anchor, 1963) pp. 227–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See R. T. McKenzie, ‘The Wilson Report and the Future of the Labour Party Organisation’, Political Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, February 1956, pp. 93–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1987 Alan R. Ball

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ball, A.R. (1987). The Labour Party, 1945–64. In: British Political Parties. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18725-6_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics