Abstract
‘After 1951’, according to James Hinton, ‘the labour movement entered into a long drawn out and, as yet, unresolved crisis’.1 Historians and political commentators are generally agreed that, after the heady days of the Attlee government, Labour went into prolonged and steep decline. Much of the evidence speaks for itself. The number of Labour voters fell from 14 million in 1951 to 11 million in 1987; the party’s trade union base was steadily eroded in the wake of profound changes to the industrial workforce; and individual Labour party membership dropped alarmingly — by at least three quarters from its high point in the early 1950s. In this longer-term framework, the thirteen frustrating years in opposition after 1951 have traditionally been portrayed as marking the origins of Labour’s downward slide. The party’s poor electoral showing in the 1950s was clearly the result, in part, of factional in-fighting of the sort that had been absent immediately after the war. Labour’s reaction to the loss of power in 1951 was to enter into protracted internal disputes: between Bevanite ‘fundamentalists’ advocating extensions of public ownership and Gaitskellite ‘revisionists’ seeking to play down nationalisation at the expense of social justice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
J. Hinton, Labour and Socialism. A History of the British Labour Movement 1867–1974 (Brighton, 1983), p. 179.
C. A. R. Crosland, Can Labour Win? (London, 1960), pp. 9–12.
See also M. Abrams and R. Rose, Must Labour Lose? (Harmondsworth, 1960).
J. E. Gronin, Labour and Society in Britain 1918–1979 (London, 1984), pp. 13–15.
J. Morgan (ed.), The Backbench Diaries of Richard Crossman (London, 1981), p. 31: diary entry for 6 November 1951.
Tom Driberg, cited in Campbell, Nye Bevan, p. 273. On these developments, see M. Jenkins, Bevanism: Labour’s High Tide (Nottingham, 1979) and D. Howell, The Rise and Fall of Bevanism (Leeds, n.d.).
B. Pimlott, ‘The Labour Left’, in C. Cook and I. Taylor (eds), The Labour Party. An Introduction to its History, Structure and Politics (London, 1980), p. 174.
S. Haseler, The Gaitskellites. Revisionism in the British Labour Party (London, 1969), pp. 6–8.
E. Shaw, Discipline and Discord in the Labour Party (Manchester, 1988), pp. 30–50. Shaw characterises the 1950s and early 1960s as the era of ‘social-democratic centralism’ in party management, when the ‘tanks’ at Transport House ensured strict discipline. He notes (p. 295) that in the 1980s ‘disciplinarians from this period, like Denis Healey (who had favoured Bevan’s expulsion) embraced “tolerance”… and “the right of dissent” when they found themselves in the minority, were treated with cold scepticism by left-wing veterans of the Bevanite wars’.
D. Butler, The British General Election of 1955 (London, 1955), pp. 82–94 and 160; Pelling, Short History of the Labour Party, p. 114.
L. Hunter, The Road to Brighton Pier (London, 1959), p. 222.
Denis Healey, The Time of My Life (London, 1989), p. 154.
C. A. R. Crosland, The Future of Socialism (London, 1956), p. 102ff.
For an assessment, see G. Foote, The Labour Party’s Political Thought (London, 1985), pp. 212–20.
On this theme, see D. Widgery, The Left in Britain 1956–68 (Harmondsworth, 1976).
C. Cook and J. Ramsden (eds), By-Elections in British Politics (London, 1975), pp. 195–6.
D. Butler and R. Rose, The British General Election of 1959 (London, 1960), pp. 189–201.
H. M. Drucker, Doctrine and Ethos in the Labour Party (London, 1979) pp. 8–10.
I. McLean, ‘Labour since 1945’, in C. Cook and J. Ramsden (eds), Trends in British Politics since 1945 (London, 1978), p. 48.
S. Crosland, Tony Crosland (London, 1982), p. 93.
D. Marquand, The Progressive Dilemma. From Lloyd George to Kinnock (London, 1991), pp. 133–4.
B. Brivati, ‘Campaign for Democratic Socialism’, Contemporary Record, 4, 1 (1990), pp. 11–12.
P. Anderson, ‘The Left in the Fifties’, New Left Review, 29 (1965), pp. 8–9: ‘Instead of calling for a structural extension of the public sector by a wide transfer of existing industries from private to public ownership, it in effect proposed to build up the public sector alongside an intact private sector, by creating new public enterprises in the “science-based” and “growth” industries, where the government already finances the bulk of research. The idea was, politically, a small masterpiece.’
L. J. Robins, The Reluctant Party. Labour and the EEC 1961–75 (Ormskirk, 1979), pp. 11–38.
A. Howard and R. West, The Making of a Prime Minister (London, 1965), p. 38.
D. Butler and A. King, The British General Election of 1964 (London, 1965), pp. 110–16;
A. Howard, Crossman. The Pursuit of Power (London, 1990), pp. 262–4.
See J. Goldthorpe et al., The Affluent Worker. Political Attitudes and Behaviour (Cambridge, 1968).
N. Tiratsoo, Reconstruction, Affluence and Labour Politics. Coventry 1945–60 (London, 1990), pp. 110–20.
T. Jones, ‘Labour Revisionism and Public Ownership 1951–63’, Contemporary Record, 5, 3 (1991), pp. 443–6.
T. Nairn, ‘Hugh Gaitskell’, New Left Review, 25 (1964), p. 63.
Copyright information
© 1993 Kevin Jefferys
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jefferys, K. (1993). Years of Opposition, 1951–64. In: The Labour Party since 1945. British History in Perspective. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22902-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22902-4_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-52975-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-22902-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)