MODERN BRITISH HISTORY ESSAYS/PLANS <3
1951-1964: 13 YEARS OF CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE.
‘Increased prosperity rather than internal Labour divisions, explains why the
Conservatives were too politically dominant in Britain in the years 1951-1964.’
The Labour Party won the 1964 election by 6 seats, with 44.1% of the vote compared to the Conservatives
43.6%, ending a period of 13 years of Conservative political dominance. The common consensus is that the
age of affluence created by the Conservatives and the effect of this in terms of dividing the Labour Party are the
reasons why they were so politically dominant. However, the key factor for the Conservative dominance was
their strong leadership, compared to the relatively weak leadership of the Labour Party. The importance of their
leadership is exemplified after 1962, when their leadership under Macmillan began to crumble & so did their 13
years of political dominance.
The Conservative Party came into power in 1951 due to the image problem of the defeated Labour Party, who
were seen to be the party of high taxes and rationing, in contrast to the increased prosperity that the
Conservatives brought about in the following 13 years. The Conservatives milked this sentiment in later
publicity campaigns, with slogans such as “Life's better off with the Conservatives, don't let Labour ruin it”. By
1955, the Conservatives could point to record employment numbers and the lowering of taxes, as one and a
half million people now didn't need to pay the PAYE tax. Between 1951 and 1963, an age of prosperity was
created, as wages rose by 72% while prices only by 45%. The real earnings of men in industry increased by
95% which had a damaging impact on the Labour Party as this demographic represented their core support. A
consumer boom saw the number of cars on the road increasing from 3400 to 7 million, and the number of T.V
sets from 3 million to 13 million. The Conservatives manipulated the economy to encourage spending by
steadily lowering faxes, prompting Macmillan to claim in 1957 that the British public had 'never had it so good.
They also manipulated it to engineer periods of boom times before elections to give signs of promising times
ahead. They did this through subscribing to 'Stop-Go' economics, where before an election: they would reduce
taxes, increase government spending and ease credit to cause inflation. This is a key factor in their election
victories of 1955 and 1959. Stop-go economics however, caused the British economy to stagnate and be left
lagging behind European competition. Furthermore, by 1964, the consumerist society that the Conservatives
created had outgrown the outdated Conservative Party, who they believed couldn't offer modernisation.
The affluent society that the Conservatives created widened the divisions of the Labour Party, helping them to
become politically dominant, but these divisions had existed beforehand due to weak Labour leadership. This is
exemplified by Attlee's failure to step down after the 1951 election defeat, making it hard for the party to shake
off its image problem. The affluent society did mean that the divisions between the lower class, traditionally
Labour voters, and the middle class, declined, meaning the Conservatives won over voters that used to vote
Labour. Furthermore, in the affluent society. socialism and trade unions, the basis of the Labour Party no longer
seemed relevant. However, it was weak leadership, namely from Clement Attlee, that allowed these ideological
divisions to develop and manifest themselves in different disputes. To begin with, the dispute over nuclear
weapons, which went against socialist pacifist ideals. The CND in 1958 and 1959 marched to Aldermaston in
favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, with support from many left wingers within the Labour Party.
Furthermore, there were disputes over foreign policy, and whether to follow the USA or the communist USSR in
the age of the two 'superpowers! The Trade Unions also began to challenge the Labour leadership, especially
when Frank Cous ns became leader of the TGWU. This led to the development of two 'gangs (Marr) which
Attlee was unable to control. The 'gangs' were the left wing "Bevanites” led by Nye Bevan and the more
moderate “Gaitskellites” led by Hugh Gaitskell. Furthermore, weak leadership was shown by Attlee's successor,
Hugh Gaitskell. In 1956, Gaitskell failed to capitalise on the furore over the Suez crisis, in which Prime Minister
Eden had kept the Suez agreement secret from most of his Cabinet. Moreover, at the 1959 Labour Conference,
Gaitskell made the improbable promise of not increasing taxes in a period of economic stagnation after Suez,
which brought widespread ridicule. His inability to control the 'gangs' was exemplified by him suggesting the
,MODERN BRITISH HISTORY ESSAYS/PLANS <3
abandonment of Clause IV, which committed the party to nationalisation: which was beat down by competition
from the Left. Weak Labour leadership in the face of divisions and the Conservatives creation of an affluent
society also helped the Conservatives to be politically dominant.
This weak leadership contrasted to the strong leadership of the Conservatives, which was vital in them
becoming politically dominant in the period. The Conservative party seemed to be the natural party of
government and commanded a strong deferential vote, exemplified by over 50% of conservative voters
believing the Conservatives were born to rule. This belief was briefly threatened by the Suez crisis, but after the
resignation of Eden. Macmillan took over. Macmillan won the 1959 election. He was the unflappable
international statesman and during his time in office, unemployment stayed between 2-3 % while inflation
averaged 2.5%. He presided over decolonisation, kept the commonwealth together, and Morgan argues his
ability to 'bridge old and new values was integral to the period of Conservative dominance. Macmillan was
ruthless in sticking to his beliefs, showing the strong leadership that the Labour Party lacked, displayed by his
refusal to drop the post-war consensus in the economic hard times of 1957-1959, which led to the resignation
of the monetarist Chancellor Thorneycroft and his treasury team in 1958. The fact that leadership was so
important is exemplified post 1962; as the Conservatives leadership crumbled so did their grip on British
politics. The age of prosperity that the Conservatives created became their Achilles heel as by 1962, the
consumerist society had outgrown the outdated Tories. Macmillan tried to revitalise the party by swapping his
Cabinet for a more youthful one in the 'night of the long knives’ in 1962 but his leadership was knocked beyond
repair by the scandals of 1963 and 1964, namely the Argyll divorce cases and especially the Profumo Affair.
For the first time, scandals involving the government were brought before the mass public due to the rise of
television and satire programmes which mocked mercilessly the people involved. Macmillan was forced to
resign. His successor was Lord Douglas Home, another Old 'Etonian' but by now the public had become
disillusioned with the Conservative candidates of deference.
In conclusion, leadership, rather than increased prosperity or Labour division was the key factor in the
Conservatives becoming politically dominant between 1951 and 1964. The importance of leadership was
shown in the 1964 election, which was an election of personalities as the parties offered little different due to
the embracement of the post-war consensus. However Wilson had managed to gain a degree of unity in the
Labour Party, himself a former left winger and promised to embrace the white heat of technology and
modernise the nation. He was seen to be "Huddersfield Harold” an old grammar school boy who was pictured
with his cloth cap and smoking a pipe, the nemesis of the 'Old Etonian’ and the 'grouse moor' image. He was
also the candidate who was seen pictured with the Beatles, who subscribed to modernisation and the upbeat
nature of the 'swinging sixties' In comparison, for the electorate, Home represented an outdated Conservative
Party and the decline of deference.
,MODERN BRITISH HISTORY ESSAYS/PLANS <3
‘13 years wasted of Conservative rule between 1951-64?’
Harold Wilson and the Labour Party claimed in the run up to the 1964 general election that Conservative rule
between the years 1951 to 1964 amounted to 13 wasted years due to a lack of social and welfare reform during
a time of increasing affluence for the nation. To historians like Peter Hennessey and economists like Larry
Elliot, this period was actually an economic ‘Golden Age’ which saw a rise of living standards. However, to
historians such as Barnett, the period 1951-64 was 13 years of wasted opportunities to modernise and
restructure the economy. By the end of the Conservatives' time in office, there was an inevitable culmination of
long-term economic decline ‘underlying the surface of growth was a pattern whereby Britain had steadily
logged behind other Western nations' (K. O. Morgan, 1990).
In dispute of the theory of 'continuous decline', the Conservative government showed some promising progress
on the educational front as the government was able to realise the importance of technological education. This
is because it gave opportunities to the more practically inclined and prepared the 2 to 3 percent of pupils
attending a technical school for real world employment. Thus, the introduction of the College of Advanced
Technology was a long-term achievement as, in reality, none existed in 1944. However, despite having built
6000 new schools and 11 universities during their government, Conservative education policies showed
limitations to the amount of progress they had in this area. By retaining the 1944 Education Act, which involved
the 11-plus test, they achieved little as Childs (2001) argues that it ‘Discriminated strongly against the working
class’. Therefore, this unfair system did little for social change and further divided the poor, working classes and
the children from wealthier backgrounds who were able to escape this system by attending fee-paying 'private'
or 'independent' schools. Also the Conservatives made the mistake of not giving enough priority to
Comprehensive schools, which were 'designed to give the children a greater security and self-esteem than the
selective system (Childs, 2001). As a result, it was not until the London County Council's decision to end the
11-plus that the children could stop feeling that they were 'second-class children - Sir Edward Boyle. So, it
shows that in fact the Conservatives seem to have not only wasted their time in office endorsing the wrong
educational policy, but could also have affected the children's later in life who were subjected to the system.
However, while in power during the 13 years between 1951 and 1964, it could be argued that the
Conservatives did in fact achieve something. For instance, historians like Hennessey saw this period as more
progressive than it may have seemed. This was noted in the decay left by the war that the government
attempted to sweep away allowed some long-term success: new towns were built on greenfield sites such as
Harlow in Essex and Kirkby in Merseyside. Furthermore, the housing -stock damaged from neglect and war
saw change as, by 1953 327,000 new houses had been built and in 1954, 354,000, which clearly showed the
Conservative had some direction and did play a part in changing Britain for the better. On the other hand, this
was not enough as those living in cramped council and rented housing were given low priori by the
Conservatives. Subsequently, this forced local authorities to use cheap methods to re-house those who still
lived in low-standard housing, which resulted in the development of large, high-rise blocks of flats that often
suffered from dampness. Thus, it showed that although the Conservative government built 300,000 new
houses every year after 1952, this concentration on private housing meant they did little for those who needed
the housing project more, which were perhaps the lower classes. So it is arguable that the Conservatives had
in a sense wasted time on not really driving social change.; it was not until the Thatcher government of the
1980s that encouraged the mass sale of council houses to their tenants that their was significant social change
as people living in council and rented accommodation far outnumbered private owners in 1950s Britain.
Nevertheless, most noted was the Conservatives’ time in office saw the period of the Golden Age emerge as
seen in the significant real rise in living standards. Wages rose by 72% and prices just 45% between 1951 and
1963, meaning people could buy more with their money. Also under the Conservatives Their stop-go policies
allowed full employment, however, this led to a rise in wages, which caused a demand for more consumer
goods as seen in the number of cars sold rose fro 1,5 million to 5.5 million between 1950 and 1965: as a result,
a huge rise in prices followed, which caused inflation. The failure of the Conservatives was seen in them never
, MODERN BRITISH HISTORY ESSAYS/PLANS <3
being able to sort this problem as K. O. Morgan (1990) argues that perhaps after all the Tory success in the late
fifties owed to good fortune, the fall in the cost of imports, accidents that prevented wage inflation from getting
out of hand' In spite of this, the Conservatives reduce the working week hours in 1961 from 48 to 42, meaning
that people had more time to spend their money on leisure, family: overall it is clear that Britain, under
Conservative rule did see a first real rise in living standards and relaxation of controls since the 1930s. Yet, the
Conservatives ‘stop-go’ economic policies saw a distinct waste of 13 years in office to change and improve
Britain's place in economic world trade. Thus, the government policies achieved only short-term gain such as
adopting the ‘stop’ phase, putting strict controls on borrowing money by raising the bank rates from 2% to 4%;
and the limits on imports resulted in a deficit surplus of €300 million instead of the £700 million, which the
Conservatives inherited from Labour. However, Butler's measures in fact hindered vital economic growth as the
stop-go policies undermined business confidence because the volatile economy caused long-term planning
and investment to become difficult: at a time where rapid economic growth should have taken place, the result
was low investment and comparative economic decline - leading Britain becoming less competitive.
It can be mistaken Butler's ‘Go’ phase during 1953 & 1954 had a positive effect due to the cut in back rates
encouraged investment and produced some industrial expansion, but the fact that there was also full
employment and an economic boom, which coupled with Butler's 1955 pre-election budget, added further fuel
for inflation to rise. This similar pattern carried on through the Conservatives' time in office and a particular
criticism of the Conservative government, especially Macmillan, is the failure of focusing on short-term gains,
which caused only long-term damage, rather than looking at long-term gains. An example of this is Macmillan's
focus on the up-coming 1959 election, which made him reject Thorneycroft's proposition of getting inflation
under control by holding down expenditure for 1958 to 1959 m, which shows the Conservatives inability to look
at the bigger picture. Most notably, the Conservatives biggest failure was to enter the EEC at the beginning in
1957 - marking their period in office as one full of wasted opportunities. Ultimately they wasted time
concentrating too much on Britain's 'special relationship' with the USA and subsequently were left out of joining
the EEC for over a decade.
By the end of the Conservatives' rule of Britain, it could be argued that they achieved progress albeit little, and
in fact the period from 1951 to 1964 were largely wasted as their failures far outnumbered their achievements;
it was in fact, as Barnett would argue, a period of continuous decline: the failure to control public spending, to
restructure and modernise the British industry and raise productivity to match their foreign competitors. So, with
Britain's share of world trade declining to a tenth by 1975 - from a quarter in 1951, it shows that the
Conservatives were simply relying on conveying the false image of prosperity to stay in power, when in fact
they has wasted no time avoiding tackling the real issues externally and internally, Britain appeared to be
thriving and self-confident, yet much of it was based on illusion and evasion.
1951-1964: 13 YEARS OF CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE.
‘Increased prosperity rather than internal Labour divisions, explains why the
Conservatives were too politically dominant in Britain in the years 1951-1964.’
The Labour Party won the 1964 election by 6 seats, with 44.1% of the vote compared to the Conservatives
43.6%, ending a period of 13 years of Conservative political dominance. The common consensus is that the
age of affluence created by the Conservatives and the effect of this in terms of dividing the Labour Party are the
reasons why they were so politically dominant. However, the key factor for the Conservative dominance was
their strong leadership, compared to the relatively weak leadership of the Labour Party. The importance of their
leadership is exemplified after 1962, when their leadership under Macmillan began to crumble & so did their 13
years of political dominance.
The Conservative Party came into power in 1951 due to the image problem of the defeated Labour Party, who
were seen to be the party of high taxes and rationing, in contrast to the increased prosperity that the
Conservatives brought about in the following 13 years. The Conservatives milked this sentiment in later
publicity campaigns, with slogans such as “Life's better off with the Conservatives, don't let Labour ruin it”. By
1955, the Conservatives could point to record employment numbers and the lowering of taxes, as one and a
half million people now didn't need to pay the PAYE tax. Between 1951 and 1963, an age of prosperity was
created, as wages rose by 72% while prices only by 45%. The real earnings of men in industry increased by
95% which had a damaging impact on the Labour Party as this demographic represented their core support. A
consumer boom saw the number of cars on the road increasing from 3400 to 7 million, and the number of T.V
sets from 3 million to 13 million. The Conservatives manipulated the economy to encourage spending by
steadily lowering faxes, prompting Macmillan to claim in 1957 that the British public had 'never had it so good.
They also manipulated it to engineer periods of boom times before elections to give signs of promising times
ahead. They did this through subscribing to 'Stop-Go' economics, where before an election: they would reduce
taxes, increase government spending and ease credit to cause inflation. This is a key factor in their election
victories of 1955 and 1959. Stop-go economics however, caused the British economy to stagnate and be left
lagging behind European competition. Furthermore, by 1964, the consumerist society that the Conservatives
created had outgrown the outdated Conservative Party, who they believed couldn't offer modernisation.
The affluent society that the Conservatives created widened the divisions of the Labour Party, helping them to
become politically dominant, but these divisions had existed beforehand due to weak Labour leadership. This is
exemplified by Attlee's failure to step down after the 1951 election defeat, making it hard for the party to shake
off its image problem. The affluent society did mean that the divisions between the lower class, traditionally
Labour voters, and the middle class, declined, meaning the Conservatives won over voters that used to vote
Labour. Furthermore, in the affluent society. socialism and trade unions, the basis of the Labour Party no longer
seemed relevant. However, it was weak leadership, namely from Clement Attlee, that allowed these ideological
divisions to develop and manifest themselves in different disputes. To begin with, the dispute over nuclear
weapons, which went against socialist pacifist ideals. The CND in 1958 and 1959 marched to Aldermaston in
favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, with support from many left wingers within the Labour Party.
Furthermore, there were disputes over foreign policy, and whether to follow the USA or the communist USSR in
the age of the two 'superpowers! The Trade Unions also began to challenge the Labour leadership, especially
when Frank Cous ns became leader of the TGWU. This led to the development of two 'gangs (Marr) which
Attlee was unable to control. The 'gangs' were the left wing "Bevanites” led by Nye Bevan and the more
moderate “Gaitskellites” led by Hugh Gaitskell. Furthermore, weak leadership was shown by Attlee's successor,
Hugh Gaitskell. In 1956, Gaitskell failed to capitalise on the furore over the Suez crisis, in which Prime Minister
Eden had kept the Suez agreement secret from most of his Cabinet. Moreover, at the 1959 Labour Conference,
Gaitskell made the improbable promise of not increasing taxes in a period of economic stagnation after Suez,
which brought widespread ridicule. His inability to control the 'gangs' was exemplified by him suggesting the
,MODERN BRITISH HISTORY ESSAYS/PLANS <3
abandonment of Clause IV, which committed the party to nationalisation: which was beat down by competition
from the Left. Weak Labour leadership in the face of divisions and the Conservatives creation of an affluent
society also helped the Conservatives to be politically dominant.
This weak leadership contrasted to the strong leadership of the Conservatives, which was vital in them
becoming politically dominant in the period. The Conservative party seemed to be the natural party of
government and commanded a strong deferential vote, exemplified by over 50% of conservative voters
believing the Conservatives were born to rule. This belief was briefly threatened by the Suez crisis, but after the
resignation of Eden. Macmillan took over. Macmillan won the 1959 election. He was the unflappable
international statesman and during his time in office, unemployment stayed between 2-3 % while inflation
averaged 2.5%. He presided over decolonisation, kept the commonwealth together, and Morgan argues his
ability to 'bridge old and new values was integral to the period of Conservative dominance. Macmillan was
ruthless in sticking to his beliefs, showing the strong leadership that the Labour Party lacked, displayed by his
refusal to drop the post-war consensus in the economic hard times of 1957-1959, which led to the resignation
of the monetarist Chancellor Thorneycroft and his treasury team in 1958. The fact that leadership was so
important is exemplified post 1962; as the Conservatives leadership crumbled so did their grip on British
politics. The age of prosperity that the Conservatives created became their Achilles heel as by 1962, the
consumerist society had outgrown the outdated Tories. Macmillan tried to revitalise the party by swapping his
Cabinet for a more youthful one in the 'night of the long knives’ in 1962 but his leadership was knocked beyond
repair by the scandals of 1963 and 1964, namely the Argyll divorce cases and especially the Profumo Affair.
For the first time, scandals involving the government were brought before the mass public due to the rise of
television and satire programmes which mocked mercilessly the people involved. Macmillan was forced to
resign. His successor was Lord Douglas Home, another Old 'Etonian' but by now the public had become
disillusioned with the Conservative candidates of deference.
In conclusion, leadership, rather than increased prosperity or Labour division was the key factor in the
Conservatives becoming politically dominant between 1951 and 1964. The importance of leadership was
shown in the 1964 election, which was an election of personalities as the parties offered little different due to
the embracement of the post-war consensus. However Wilson had managed to gain a degree of unity in the
Labour Party, himself a former left winger and promised to embrace the white heat of technology and
modernise the nation. He was seen to be "Huddersfield Harold” an old grammar school boy who was pictured
with his cloth cap and smoking a pipe, the nemesis of the 'Old Etonian’ and the 'grouse moor' image. He was
also the candidate who was seen pictured with the Beatles, who subscribed to modernisation and the upbeat
nature of the 'swinging sixties' In comparison, for the electorate, Home represented an outdated Conservative
Party and the decline of deference.
,MODERN BRITISH HISTORY ESSAYS/PLANS <3
‘13 years wasted of Conservative rule between 1951-64?’
Harold Wilson and the Labour Party claimed in the run up to the 1964 general election that Conservative rule
between the years 1951 to 1964 amounted to 13 wasted years due to a lack of social and welfare reform during
a time of increasing affluence for the nation. To historians like Peter Hennessey and economists like Larry
Elliot, this period was actually an economic ‘Golden Age’ which saw a rise of living standards. However, to
historians such as Barnett, the period 1951-64 was 13 years of wasted opportunities to modernise and
restructure the economy. By the end of the Conservatives' time in office, there was an inevitable culmination of
long-term economic decline ‘underlying the surface of growth was a pattern whereby Britain had steadily
logged behind other Western nations' (K. O. Morgan, 1990).
In dispute of the theory of 'continuous decline', the Conservative government showed some promising progress
on the educational front as the government was able to realise the importance of technological education. This
is because it gave opportunities to the more practically inclined and prepared the 2 to 3 percent of pupils
attending a technical school for real world employment. Thus, the introduction of the College of Advanced
Technology was a long-term achievement as, in reality, none existed in 1944. However, despite having built
6000 new schools and 11 universities during their government, Conservative education policies showed
limitations to the amount of progress they had in this area. By retaining the 1944 Education Act, which involved
the 11-plus test, they achieved little as Childs (2001) argues that it ‘Discriminated strongly against the working
class’. Therefore, this unfair system did little for social change and further divided the poor, working classes and
the children from wealthier backgrounds who were able to escape this system by attending fee-paying 'private'
or 'independent' schools. Also the Conservatives made the mistake of not giving enough priority to
Comprehensive schools, which were 'designed to give the children a greater security and self-esteem than the
selective system (Childs, 2001). As a result, it was not until the London County Council's decision to end the
11-plus that the children could stop feeling that they were 'second-class children - Sir Edward Boyle. So, it
shows that in fact the Conservatives seem to have not only wasted their time in office endorsing the wrong
educational policy, but could also have affected the children's later in life who were subjected to the system.
However, while in power during the 13 years between 1951 and 1964, it could be argued that the
Conservatives did in fact achieve something. For instance, historians like Hennessey saw this period as more
progressive than it may have seemed. This was noted in the decay left by the war that the government
attempted to sweep away allowed some long-term success: new towns were built on greenfield sites such as
Harlow in Essex and Kirkby in Merseyside. Furthermore, the housing -stock damaged from neglect and war
saw change as, by 1953 327,000 new houses had been built and in 1954, 354,000, which clearly showed the
Conservative had some direction and did play a part in changing Britain for the better. On the other hand, this
was not enough as those living in cramped council and rented housing were given low priori by the
Conservatives. Subsequently, this forced local authorities to use cheap methods to re-house those who still
lived in low-standard housing, which resulted in the development of large, high-rise blocks of flats that often
suffered from dampness. Thus, it showed that although the Conservative government built 300,000 new
houses every year after 1952, this concentration on private housing meant they did little for those who needed
the housing project more, which were perhaps the lower classes. So it is arguable that the Conservatives had
in a sense wasted time on not really driving social change.; it was not until the Thatcher government of the
1980s that encouraged the mass sale of council houses to their tenants that their was significant social change
as people living in council and rented accommodation far outnumbered private owners in 1950s Britain.
Nevertheless, most noted was the Conservatives’ time in office saw the period of the Golden Age emerge as
seen in the significant real rise in living standards. Wages rose by 72% and prices just 45% between 1951 and
1963, meaning people could buy more with their money. Also under the Conservatives Their stop-go policies
allowed full employment, however, this led to a rise in wages, which caused a demand for more consumer
goods as seen in the number of cars sold rose fro 1,5 million to 5.5 million between 1950 and 1965: as a result,
a huge rise in prices followed, which caused inflation. The failure of the Conservatives was seen in them never
, MODERN BRITISH HISTORY ESSAYS/PLANS <3
being able to sort this problem as K. O. Morgan (1990) argues that perhaps after all the Tory success in the late
fifties owed to good fortune, the fall in the cost of imports, accidents that prevented wage inflation from getting
out of hand' In spite of this, the Conservatives reduce the working week hours in 1961 from 48 to 42, meaning
that people had more time to spend their money on leisure, family: overall it is clear that Britain, under
Conservative rule did see a first real rise in living standards and relaxation of controls since the 1930s. Yet, the
Conservatives ‘stop-go’ economic policies saw a distinct waste of 13 years in office to change and improve
Britain's place in economic world trade. Thus, the government policies achieved only short-term gain such as
adopting the ‘stop’ phase, putting strict controls on borrowing money by raising the bank rates from 2% to 4%;
and the limits on imports resulted in a deficit surplus of €300 million instead of the £700 million, which the
Conservatives inherited from Labour. However, Butler's measures in fact hindered vital economic growth as the
stop-go policies undermined business confidence because the volatile economy caused long-term planning
and investment to become difficult: at a time where rapid economic growth should have taken place, the result
was low investment and comparative economic decline - leading Britain becoming less competitive.
It can be mistaken Butler's ‘Go’ phase during 1953 & 1954 had a positive effect due to the cut in back rates
encouraged investment and produced some industrial expansion, but the fact that there was also full
employment and an economic boom, which coupled with Butler's 1955 pre-election budget, added further fuel
for inflation to rise. This similar pattern carried on through the Conservatives' time in office and a particular
criticism of the Conservative government, especially Macmillan, is the failure of focusing on short-term gains,
which caused only long-term damage, rather than looking at long-term gains. An example of this is Macmillan's
focus on the up-coming 1959 election, which made him reject Thorneycroft's proposition of getting inflation
under control by holding down expenditure for 1958 to 1959 m, which shows the Conservatives inability to look
at the bigger picture. Most notably, the Conservatives biggest failure was to enter the EEC at the beginning in
1957 - marking their period in office as one full of wasted opportunities. Ultimately they wasted time
concentrating too much on Britain's 'special relationship' with the USA and subsequently were left out of joining
the EEC for over a decade.
By the end of the Conservatives' rule of Britain, it could be argued that they achieved progress albeit little, and
in fact the period from 1951 to 1964 were largely wasted as their failures far outnumbered their achievements;
it was in fact, as Barnett would argue, a period of continuous decline: the failure to control public spending, to
restructure and modernise the British industry and raise productivity to match their foreign competitors. So, with
Britain's share of world trade declining to a tenth by 1975 - from a quarter in 1951, it shows that the
Conservatives were simply relying on conveying the false image of prosperity to stay in power, when in fact
they has wasted no time avoiding tackling the real issues externally and internally, Britain appeared to be
thriving and self-confident, yet much of it was based on illusion and evasion.
