Daniel Shapiro

Was a Labour victory inevitable in the General Election of 1945?

Labours victory at the 1945 General Election saw the party achieve their first victory at the
polls since 1929 and also their first ever overall majority in the House of Commons. Labour
won 393 seats, 180 more than the Conservatives tally of 213. The Tories had lost despite
having their popular and enigmatic war time leader Winston Churchill at the helm. The
election result was no doubt surprising at the time but now there are many who feel that
the result was inevitable, such as historian Charles Mowat who said that the victory was
the culmination of a political movement now more than sixty years old
1
and there is
indeed a reasonable amount of evidence to support that claim of inevitability.
Francis Williams described Labours victory as the manifestation not simply of a transitory
mood at one general election, but of a genuine and cumulative increase over many years of
popular support for Socialist policies that had been advanced with increasing precision in
every phase of the Labour Partys history
2
. Peter Richards suggested that the
Conservatives had been on retreat well before 1939: the war had merely accelerated those
processes through which Labour would inevitably win power
3
and it is clear that the war
did prompt a large amount of voters to turn to Labour.

Many leading figures in the Labour party had all played major roles in organising the home front
during the War. They were experienced, respected and well known personalities. Atlee was
Deputy Prime Minister, Herbert Morrison was Home Secretary and the popular Ernest Bevin was
minister for Labour and National Service. Lord Beaverbrook was forced to admit in 1945 that The
ability at the disposal of the socialists exceeded the talent of the Conservatives
Attitudes towards the left-wing were changing dramatically during the war. 3.5 million
houses had been bombed out by the end of the war and a third of all houses in Britain were
in need of some serious repair while around 60,000 people had lost their lives during the
bombing raids. The war, of course, caused a large amount of social mobility with people
from different social backgrounds working together for a common goal. Towards the end of
the war, the British public had realised that common rewards such as better housing and

1
C. L. Mowat, "Some Recent Books on the British Labour Movement," Journal of
Modern History 17 (1945): 356.
2
Francis Williams, Fifty years march (London, 1951), p. 358.
3
Peter G. Richards, 'The political temper', Political QuarterlyX,V I, I (945), 57-66.
Daniel Shapiro
social services were more likely to be provided by a Labour government. In June 1945
forty-two per cent of those questioned by the British Institute of Public Opinion (B.I.P.O)
felt that Labour were best qualified to overcome the housing crisis as opposed to twenty
per cent who believed in the Conservatives.
4
The war-time alliance with the Soviet Union
had done much to increase sympathies towards the left and socialism. During the war a lot
of propaganda was focused on making the Russian people and Uncle Joe seem very similar
and less threatening to the British people. James Hinton had even suggested that a
revolutionary spirit
5
had emerged during the war.

Left-wing policies definitely now seemed less threatening to middle class voters. Although the
increased middle-class vote for Labour was marginal, it did give the party an edge over the
Conservatives in many Metroland constituencies.
6
Most of all though, many voters felt that they
should be repaid with major social reforms ,to repay them for the sacrifices they had made
during the War and William Beveridge was to provide an answer to this. His report, published in
1942, planned to put an end to the five giants (Want ,Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness)
and proudly boasted that everyone could be protected from cradle to grave with proposed
ideas such as National Insurance and free universal access to education and health services.
Labour fully put their support behind the idea and it was to be a key part of their election
campaign. In a B.I.P.O survey in 1943, 48% questioned said they would gain if the report was
implemented, while 80% of a group surveyed (the majority of which were working class) favoured
a free health service, while 90% approved of it. These figures show the potential positive impact
in voting that Labour had gained in putting their weight behind the Beveridge Report during war-
time.
Clearly, there is much evidence to suggest that Labours victory in 1945 was inevitable even
before the election had started. However, much evidence can also be found to suggest that
Labours victory was not inevitable and the reasons for their victory lay in the election campaign
of June-July 1945.

4
Steven Fielding What did the People Want? The meaning of the 1945 General Election, Historical Journal,
Vol 35, No.3, September 1992 pp. 635
5
James Hinton, Labour and socialism (Brighton, I983), p. I65.
6
Steven Fielding What did the People Want? The meaning of the 1945 General Election, Historical Journal,
Vol 35, No.3, September 1992 p. 637
Daniel Shapiro
Much can be said to suggest that the Conservatives had lost the election rather than Labour
winning it. The circumstances of the war meant that the Conservative party was not properly
prepared to fight a General Election campaign. Thirty per cent of Tory MPs had served in the
armed forces, (compared to 10% of Labour MPs) while almost 300 of the partys constituency
agents and organisers were still involved in war work. This meant that a large part of the Tory
election team was vastly unprepared. Faults can also be easily picked out in the Conservatives
election campaign. At election time, the electorate was definitely looking forward to a new and
different Britain with the feeling of never again in the air. The Tories election programme was
too focused on Churchill and his record as war-time PM. The Conservative manifesto was entitled
Mr Churchills Declaration of Policy to the Electorate and the partys main poster featured his
picture without even a mention of the party. Many were obviously very upset by the conservative
partys emphasis on a man rather than the party. People appreciated Churchill and spirit he gave,
but they did not want to dwell on the war for too long and were now looking towards the future.
Labour embraced the public feeling very well and their campaign was in stark contrast to that of
the Conservatives. Their manifesto was entitled Let us face the Future they promoted the
feeling of Never Again with posters concentrating on the future, housing and work.
Churchill also made a major gaffe in the run up to the election. He said the Labour government
would be forced to rely on some sort of Gestapo. Many people took umbrage to this slur and
69% of those asked by a Gallup poll felt the Gestapo speech to have been bad
7
. Even the Times,
a paper sympathetic to the Conservatives, criticised Churchill for emphasising the narrow
animosities of the party fight
8

Many newspapers were hostile to the Tories, with the Daily Telegraph and Daily express as
exceptions. The Mirror, the highest circulated paper in Britain, enthusiastically backed Labour.

There was also much to aid Labour during their election campaign. Labour also had the full
backing of the Trade Unions. They had not fought in the war as they were involved in the war
effort, so they were available to fully engage in Labours electoral campaign. They were to prove
invaluable for Labour in gaining votes in the trade sector and lower class.

7
Harrisson archive, file report 2253.
8
Quoted in Pelling, '1945 reconsidered', pp. 4Io-II.
Daniel Shapiro
Labour also benefitted tremendously thanks to the poor showing of the Liberals. The Liberal
party contested less than half the available seats. This meant that a lot of tactical voting
came into play. Many Liberal voters were now voting for Labour, often not in support but
simply to stop the Conservatives from gaining a seat. One Liberal voter said that I am at
heart a Liberal, I never have been a true Tory. As things are I realise that the only chance to
throw our weight in is on the side of Labour as this will be a definite fight between Tory and
Labour.'
9

There was also evidence of a large amount of voter disillusionment and apathy. A survey of
feeling conducted amongst the services found that that four-fifths considered that none of
the parties would do what they wanted
10
and as many as 40% of service personnel
abstained in the 1945 General Election.
11
Furthermore, a Gallup poll held in the late
summer of 1944 showed that thirty-six per cent of its civilian sample felt politicians acted
on behalf of the country's interests, thirty-five per cent thought they looked out for
themselves and twenty-two per cent suggested they were only concerned with
party advantage.
12


This evidence may suggest that Labours win may have been out of disenchantment with the
previous Conservative governments rather than due to its own performance and prospects.
A B.I.P.O survey conducted in August 1944 showed that 44% wanted some form of coalition
under Eden or Churchill whereas only 26% sought an exclusively Labour government.
13

While only 4% wanted to see Atlee as leader, this evidence disputes the claim that the war-
time coalition made Labour officials more electable. Furthermore, a March 1945 poll
revealed that 55 per cent of those asked were willing to vote for an anti-conservative
popular front.
14


9
Harrisson archive, file report 2257.
10
31 Mass-Observation, The journey home( London, 1944), p. i o6; Captain 'X', A soldier looks ahead
(London, 1944), pp. 81-2.
11
R. B. McCallum and Alison Readman, The British general election of 1945 (Oxford, 1947), p.
30.
12
Steven Fielding What did the People Want? The meaning of the 1945 General Election, Historical Journal,
Vol 35, No.3, September 1992 p. 629
13
Steven Fielding What did the People Want? The meaning of the 1945 General Election, Historical Journal,
Vol 35, No.3, September 1992 p. 629

14
Steven Fielding What did the People Want? The meaning of the 1945 General Election, Historical Journal,
Vol 35, No.3, September 1992 p. 629
Daniel Shapiro
A large amount of disdain from the general public towards the conservatives would have
come from the Conservatives lack of promise on social reform and due to their lack of
endorsement of the Beveridge report. Labour fully endorsed the report in 1942 and placed
it in their manifesto. Steven Fielding says that It can be said, with not much exaggeration
that the 1945 general election had been won two years before it took place. Whereas the
Conservative dominated coalition quibbled about the report's details a majority of Labour
back-benchers had enthusiastically endorsed it and even taken the unprecedented
step of forcing a division in protest at the government's hesitation. If the Conservatives had
previously won votes by wrapping themselves in the flag, after December 1942 Labour
covered itself with the pages of the Beveridge report.
15
and I agree with him. I too believe
that the election was won when Labour endorsed the Beveridge report because it gave the
feeling of change and Never Again that the people wanted. However, I also feel that if the
Conservatives had backed the Beveridge reforms and had conducted their election
campaign more skilfully, then Labours victory would not have been destined, but, they
didnt and I feel these failures did indeed make Labours victory in 1945 inevitable.









15

15
Steven Fielding What did the People Want? The meaning of the 1945 General Election, Historical Journal,
Vol 35, No.3, September 1992 p. 629