Discussions with Dr. Holmes - A Sample Tutorial Seminar

Yesterday afternoon, we met with Dr. Martin Holmes for our first tutorial session. We were assigned 15 books to read (or at least try to read) and were asked to come prepared to discuss the statement: “despite its fine intentions, the Attlee government was a failure.”

(Attlee, former leader of the Labour party, served as Prime Minister from 1945-1951. His minister-ship was sandwiched in between two Conservative Churchill terms, during the time immediately following WWII and prior to the Korean War. Under the Attlee government, Britain took a strong turn towards socialism. Parliament nationalized major industries including coal and steel, and created a welfare state. Sobered by WWII, the public looked forward to creating a ‘New Jerusalem,’ which was what the Labour Party under Attlee promised via collectivization. Government would be given more control, but for the benefit of the people. While many of the programs Attlee put in place, such as the NHS, are still around today, scholars continue to debate the validity of Parliament’s usurpation of power.)

We discussed whether the Attlee government represented a paradigm shift, or continuity from the Churchill administration (and whether socialism was truly a consensus movement). Prior to WWII, Britain under Conservative control already had a centrally planned economy and mandatory conscription – Labour was basically tightening pre-existing government controls. But it could be said that they went too far – controlling up to 20% of industry, something the Conservatives would never have done. Many scholars look back on the Attlee government in retrospect with a critical eye – Britain largely financed its programs from a substantial loan from the US, and was spending money it didn’t have. (So ironically, the US tax payer was paying for socialized medicine – but for Britons!) Moreover, Britain might have fared better in the long term had it spent that loan money on stabilizing infrastructure and industry first – not concentrating on health care or higher wages for workers. One need only need look to the German example as proof that reprioritizing would have been more beneficial. Once given aid, Germany concentrated on improving its economy first, and then from a position of strength, financed its own welfare programs which were actually larger than the UK’s.

Nationalization was given the benefit of the doubt by the British people – it was widely assumed that this was what had to be done to bring about utopia. But creating equality for all meant large personal tax hikes (which alienated the middle class) and continued austerity – rationing was actually worse after the war than before it. Problems for Labour later in the term included devaluation of the pound, and a deep freeze in ’47 which plagued the coal industry. Things were just as complicated abroad as at home, with the India/Palestine question, the decision to pursue the technology of the bomb, and joining NATO.

So, back to the original question - was the Attlee government a failure? I believe ‘failure’ is a relative term. On the one hand, there was never a time in the government’s history when it was more productive than under the Attlee leadership. It created a massive amount of legislation, and certainly took on a more humane role. But Britain was thinking short-term, not long-term. It was creating programs it had no hope to be able to finance into the future – we see the government trying to consolidate its power at the end of the term (perhaps an admission that it had taken on too large of a role). Margaret Thatcher would be left trying to rectify the economic fallout in the 70s (but that is what we’re to discuss next week).

To judge the Labour government under Attlee, you have to look at why they won, but also look at why they lost. Labour was affirmed with a landslide victory in ‘45 (which came as a shock to Attlee himself) but lost handily in the next election.  Charisma may have captured a naïve, hopeful public post-war, but when it didn’t deliver, Conservatives were handed back the reigns.