To what extent does the affluence of the 1950s account for the Conservative election victories of 1955 and 1959? Hannah van Teutem. The affluence of Britain in the 1950s was a large reason as to why the Conservative Party gained victory in both the 1955 and 1959 election. Nevertheless, there were other factors which also had an impact on the success of the party. For example, there were the different issues with the weaknesses and the strengths of the Conservative party. Following this, there were the weaknesses of the opposition; the Labour party.
Finally, there were the conflictions with the Conservative Party’s social policies, and other surrounding aspects. Judging these factors, it seems massively clear that the affluence and the rise of the economy in Britain, was a large factor for the Conservative’s victories. Affluence in Britain majorly contributed to the victories of the Conservative party. The 1950s was a time of economic progression; more people had money to spend, their pockets, which had been empty for many years after the war were finally being filled. The end of austerity was nigh.
Churchill’s government was able to end rationing, which had been a burden to the public for decades, and had been sustained for years after the war had actually ended. It was a welcome cut. The government had also promised to build more houses, and they kept this promise, and fulfilled the pledge of building 300,000 houses a year. This meant they then had an achievement on record, which many members of the public could identify, and recognised as a success for the party. Following this, the Conservative party was able to cut taxes, which increased public spending. Again, people had more money to spend.
Churchill was still the ‘wartime hero’, and the growth of the economy led the party with confidence into the eyes of the public. During the 1950s, there was full employment, and it was a period where jobs could be found and the economy was being boosted. In the year 1955, unemployment had decreased by approximately 53,000 – from 285,000, to 232,000. The end of austerity would have been a huge accomplishment, and it would have favoured the Conservative party massively. Most of the public would have been praising the government for the end of a dark, hopeless period, which the Second World War left Britain in.
The country was out of this crestfallen age, and people were able to spend money and live more luxurious lifestyles – highlighted by the fact that fashion had started to spread across Europe, and objects such as the ‘Stiletto’ had invaded Great Britain, brought to draw attention to the legs and calves, something some members of the public were now able to spend their money on. To a large extent, the affluence of Britain led the Conservative party to an election victory, especially in 1955, and then following in 1959.
Nevertheless, the Conservative party had other strengths, and also other weaknesses. Despite the fact that Churchill was getting old, he was still a much-loved wartime favourite, adored by the public for the success during the war. This image would have been a considerable reason for the victory in the Conservative party; Churchill’s charisma and strength through the difficult times would have stayed in the memories of many of the people. However, soon after, the Conservative party, and their ruthless etiquette, decided that Churchill had started to get old.
He couldn’t carry on leading the party in his age, and therefore, was replaced by Anthony Eden. Eden was a success at first, he was popular, and he was handsome. He was even named the ‘Housewife’s favourite’. Unfortunately shortly after the charming start, the Conservative party had a substantial disaster, to say the least. The Suez Canal crisis, in 1956. The canal was originally built by the British and the French, and was an absolutely crucial part to the economic state of the country. Most imports were passed through the Suez Canal, and a vital source of energy – oil.
The Suez Canal was at threat, Egypt wanted its land back, and Britain and France couldn’t possibly allow this. Eden then hatched a plan. The Israelis would benefit with Britain and France as their alliances, and so Israel invaded Egypt, and Britain decided to tried to make a ‘peacekeeping zone’, right around the Suez Canal. It was one of the most ridiculous plans ever made in government. Egypt saw it coming, and Eden came back to England absolutely humiliated, having gained nothing. When America found out about the whole plot, the Americans started to sell the British pound, and Eden was left blushing.
Naturally, the Conservative party abolished Anthony Eden as their leader, and Harold MacMillan replaced him. It was a huge weakness to the party, and something people would remember for it for years ahead. As we can see, in contrast to this, the affluence of the early 1950s would have been a substantial reason for the victories, as there were so many mistakes after it. Nevertheless, after MacMillan replaced Eden in 1957, despite some difficulty and some harsh conditions – an increase in interest rates, a cut of public spending –he sacked Thorneycroft, and hired Heathcote-Amory.
Together, they reduced the interest rates, and then spent more money, giving the public more. Moreover, there were underlying problems which were part of the foundations of the economy, the pound was overvalued and society was changing. In defiance of the issues the Conservative party faced, the opposition party was completely unstable. The party was split in two, and the fragility of the party was high and noticeable to the public. It was Nye Bevan, versus Hugh Gaitskell. Nye Bevan was a Welsh ex-miner, a total socialist, and a Trade Union official.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, Hugh Gaitskell was a public school boy from England, who believed Capitalism should be used to improve the conditions of the working class, totally different from Bevan’s perspective. It was the Moderates against the Radicals, with completely different perspectives about what Labour’s policies should be. Bevan wanted more nationalism of major industries, whereas Gaitskell didn’t want any more. Bevan believed the Trade Unions should be the heart of the party’s policy, whereas Gaitskell only wanted limited power for them.
Here we can see the total utter opposition between the two sides, within one party. The sheer lack of a structured party led the Conservative party to seem even stronger, which could have been a major contribution to its victories. It had come to a stage where Bevan was publically displaying his detest for the Gaitskell moderates, and actually walked out of some of the speeches. Churchill said: “that man is a gold mine to us”. Churchill was right. When Labour lost the 1955 election, and a following 1. 5 million votes, many blamed the segregation of the party.
So, to a large extent, the opposition was weak, making the Conservative seem the better of the latter, which was also a large contributor to the Conservative victory. It is important to remember the social surroundings of the government at this point in time. The 1950s was a time of change, and the nation had come together to celebrate the coronation of Queen Elizabeth, and the Korean War had ended, so the Cold War was over. The Conservative Party’s social policies (or lack of) were embedded around the social changes of the 1950s.
There were problems with the Trade Unions and the Welfare State. By 1957, the country had lost 8 ? million working days due to strikes, and people were demanding for their wages to increase for the assets of their jobs. MacMillan then decided to give the unions a pay-rise after the railway strike of 1957. For a while, the Unions were settled. Churchill had never done anything about immigration. At first, it wasn’t necessarily a problem, people came to the country, and others embraced it.
However, by the late 1950s, people had started to notice it, and racism started to unfold. Between 1961 and 1962, 100,000 people were immigrating to Britain. The Conservative party also tried to reduce the armed forces, and shrink the army. This meant that any nuclear defence which may be needed was being lost. All three of these things highlight some of the deeper weaknesses in the social politics of the Conservative party, and contrast nicely with the fact that affluence was obviously the largest reason for the success of the Conservative party.
After studying the many factors surrounding the Conservative victories, it seems clear that the main reason for the victories was the ability to push Britain through an era of affluence, and get Britain out of austerity. Having seen the weaknesses of the party, followed by the weaknesses of the opposition, it’s obvious that the Conservative party were clearly the greater, as the alternative party was hugely unstable at the time. The Conservative party had its problems, but it stayed a united front, despite what may have been happening away from the public eye.
From viewing the social policies, none of them seem to have benefitted the large scale of the public, and therefore, the one thing which always affected most people, was the economy, which the Conservative party got back on track after the long period of sadness and austerity. All of these factors probably contributed to the success of the Conservative party, but the largest extent of victory must be placed around the neck of the age of affluence, created by the Conservative party, giving Britain the chance to spend and live a relaxing and joyous life.
