Both Tony Blair and Clement Attlee were elected with huge majorities on a tide of national optimism. This article examines whether Labour’s leader avoid the fate of the 1945 Government.
The Labour Government of 1945-51 is rightly seen as one of the most reforming governments of the last century. The election of Labour in 1997 brought to mind for many the hope and aspirations of Clement Attlee’s time. The size of each Government’s majority and their election on a rising tide of national optimism appeared to demonstrate a high level of similarity. This is inaccurate.
The 1945 Government is justifiably viewed as having a massive impact. There was the creation of the National Health Service, fundamental reform of education and the innovative use of nationalisation, amongst others. Yet that Government was widely perceived as having ‘run out of steam’ after three years. Once its first mass of reforms were introduced the Government seemed unable to continue the process. It did not have enough ideas to sustain it once the reforming agenda had been completed.
Both the 1945 and 1997 Governments were elected on a high tide of optimism but both disappointed some supporters. it is hard to imagine now but any were disappointed by the 1945 Government because it was not left-wing enough. Such critics often pointed to the failure to alter Britain’s institutions, for example to allow for greater levels of economic planning to take place. They believed that the great capitalist institutions, as well as the governmental institutions, should be altered. This did not happen.
Critics of the Blair Government ignore constructive reforms and prefer instead to concentrate upon a perceived failure to redistribute income, a fascination with ‘spin’ and the effort spent controlling the party.
Many, however, applaud this Government’s more open and pluralistic style of government. But the Attlee Government implemented the Beveridge Report on welfare reform and the Butler Report on education reform. Beveridge was a Liberal and Butler was a Conservative. Was 2945 the high-point of pluralistic politics?
Personality clashes are nothing new, either. The Attlee Governments had ongoing problems with Aneurin Bevan (being particularly ‘troublesome’ around 1951), clashes between Herbert Morrison and Attlee, and the threat of the trade union power base held by Ernest Bevin (because of his former leadership of the TGWU). Indeed, the current media-inspired tales of clashes between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are very limited in comparison, especially as they have little to do with policy and more to do with who leads the party. By contrast, the 1945 Government saw genuine differences over the direction which policy should take.
One of the most noticeable difference between the 1945 and 1997 Governments has been their economic records. In 1945, Labour fell into the trap of failing to deliver sustained economic growth. A massive economic downturn, combined with debts from the war, led the Government to seek loans from the USA who, in turn, demanded massive cuts in public spending. The Blair Government has been much more successful in developing an economy which has grown and withstood the vagaries of the world markets.
There is also a huge difference between the two Governments in their relative abilities to challenge opponents. The NHS was forced through against the wishes of many within the medical establishment. The Blair Government has been less successful, and less willing, to force its view upon others.
The prospects for a second full Blair term are much stronger than they were for Attlee after the 1950 General Election. He faced a united Conservative opposition led by a popular leader, Winston Churchill. Blair is not in that position, oversees a strong economy, has raised spending and, most importantly, has a plan for future activity. Nonetheless, it must be remembered that while Labour lost the 1951 election, it did so with the highest number of votes the party has ever received.
Progress: Labour’s Progressive Magazine, Winter 2000/01