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