Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On first glance I would say Yes. Even on second glance I would still say Yes!
I have always found it unbelievable that the British people could throw Churchill out like that after the war. Basically the Labor party led by Clement Attlee, promised enough goodies to people that they bought the election.
While all parties do this to a varying extent, this was the first time the Labor party had come into power on its own and IMO they went way too far into changing things at a time that Britain needed some more serious long term strategic planning. For instance, expensive changes like nationalizing coal mines, steel mills, railroads and electric companies, cost the nation dearly both in monies and Britain's long term competitiveness with other countries.
On first glance I would say Yes. Even on second glance I would still say Yes!
I have always found it unbelievable that the British people could throw Churchill out like that after the war. Basically the Labor party led by Clement Attlee, promised enough goodies to people that they bought the election.
While all parties do this to a varying extent, this was the first time the Labor party had come into power on its own and IMO they went way too far into changing things at a time that Britain needed some more serious long term strategic planning. For instance, expensive changes like nationalizing coal mines, steel mills, railroads and electric companies, cost the nation dearly both in monies and Britain's long term competitiveness with other countries.
Few people understand the changes that World War II caused among the British people. One thing was clear, a consensus gradually formed among Britons that after the Nazis were beaten that they wanted fundamental change in their society. Britain had always been a very stratified society with great differences in social class. The war forced every person to do his/her share. It also did something that was unthinkable it brought together all sorts of people from all sorts of social classes into the armed services and into industries engaged in war production. What had been acceptable before the war was no longer tolerable afterward. The Labour victory of 1945 made that point clearly.
Before the war, people were largely willing to at least accept a society that rationed medical care based on dollars rather than on need. They were willing to at least accept children going without education for want of money. They were willing to accept deprivation and destitution among large segment of their populations as run-of-the-mill.
People who sacrifice and experience an event that involved as much death and suffering as World War II did generally want something in return for the sacrifice that they made. Going back to "the way things were" doesn't sit well with them. Britain was not unique in that respect. In the USA, returning veterans were given assistance to go to college, obtain housing, and compensate them for disabilities. Perhaps, there is even an implicit bargain between the common people and the ruling classes in a country that "when the war is over, we'll try to make things right".
Perhaps, Winston Churchill could have won the election of 1945 if he had been more astute. What was needed was a politician who understood the feelings and aspirations of the electorate and was willing to offer them a reasonable alternative to what the Labour Party offered. Nationalizing industries was a mistake. However, creating the NHS (National Health Service) was not. The NHS exists today and is favorably received by a large majority of Britons. Churchill should have tried to put together a "progressive-conservative" program for the electorate. A good model for him might have been the administration of Theodore Roosevelt in America. TR was a republican, but one interested in reform. Instead, Churchill advocated a solid conservative platform and essentially suggested going back to the way things were before the war. This sat badly enough with most British people, but he compounded the error further. He gave a pre-election speech suggesting the Labour Government would need a "Gestapo" to enforce its policies. For men and women who had fought the Germans since 1939 this was a terrible slander and insult and undoubtedly cost Churchill many votes.
Instead, Britain got Clement Atlee and a Labour Government that was defeated six years later in 1951.
Ultimately, Churchill's defeat was the result of his inability to connect with the aspirations of ordinary British people. That's a little different than those people simply being purchased by "goodies" given by the opposition.
Well, remember that Churchill was a disaster as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s. Those memories were probably still a factor for the British, despite World War II. Quoting from memory, a friend of Churchill once remarked, "When Winston was wrong, well, My God." Economics were never his strong suit and I think the nation instinctively knew that.
Clement Attlee, however, was not any better of a choice. The mass nationalization of industry after World War II crippled the recovery and made it difficult for Britain to enjoy post-war prosperity. It wasn't until Margaret Thatcher came along that Britain really managed to shake off the economic funk of World War II.
Few people understand the changes that World War II caused among the British people. One thing was clear, a consensus gradually formed among Britons that after the Nazis were beaten that they wanted fundamental change in their society. Britain had always been a very stratified society with great differences in social class. The war forced every person to do his/her share. It also did something that was unthinkable it brought together all sorts of people from all sorts of social classes into the armed services and into industries engaged in war production. What had been acceptable before the war was no longer tolerable afterward. The Labour victory of 1945 made that point clearly.
Before the war, people were largely willing to at least accept a society that rationed medical care based on dollars rather than on need. They were willing to at least accept children going without education for want of money. They were willing to accept deprivation and destitution among large segment of their populations as run-of-the-mill.
People who sacrifice and experience an event that involved as much death and suffering as World War II did generally want something in return for the sacrifice that they made. Going back to "the way things were" doesn't sit well with them. Britain was not unique in that respect. In the USA, returning veterans were given assistance to go to college, obtain housing, and compensate them for disabilities. Perhaps, there is even an implicit bargain between the common people and the ruling classes in a country that "when the war is over, we'll try to make things right".
Perhaps, Winston Churchill could have won the election of 1945 if he had been more astute. What was needed was a politician who understood the feelings and aspirations of the electorate and was willing to offer them a reasonable alternative to what the Labour Party offered. Nationalizing industries was a mistake. However, creating the NHS (National Health Service) was not. The NHS exists today and is favorably received by a large majority of Britons. Churchill should have tried to put together a "progressive-conservative" program for the electorate. A good model for him might have been the administration of Theodore Roosevelt in America. TR was a republican, but one interested in reform. Instead, Churchill advocated a solid conservative platform and essentially suggested going back to the way things were before the war. This sat badly enough with most British people, but he compounded the error further. He gave a pre-election speech suggesting the Labour Government would need a "Gestapo" to enforce its policies. For men and women who had fought the Germans since 1939 this was a terrible slander and insult and undoubtedly cost Churchill many votes.
Instead, Britain got Clement Atlee and a Labour Government that was defeated six years later in 1951.
Ultimately, Churchill's defeat was the result of his inability to connect with the aspirations of ordinary British people. That's a little different than those people simply being purchased by "goodies" given by the opposition.
A decent assessment, but if one looks at the 1945 Tory platform it was not a hardcore right wing platform. It endorsed the NHS, for example. Churchill, however, campaigned poorly, as you mentioned - he demonized Labour as extremists, which they were clearly not. This backfired on him. Labour promised a brighter future and a "nation fit for heroes", a more appealing vision.
Also, the public did not necessarily disapprove of Churchill as much as they disapproved of the Conservative Party, remembering the prewar Tory Governments of Baldwin and Chamberlain. The average person viewed the party in a very low light, which led to Labour's triumph.
Attlee's political skills were top notch but he was blinded by ideology on economics, and the influence of Nye Bevin and the near universally loathed Stafford Cripps didn't exactly help Britain.
Well, remember that Churchill was a disaster as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s. Those memories were probably still a factor for the British, despite World War II. Quoting from memory, a friend of Churchill once remarked, "When Winston was wrong, well, My God." Economics were never his strong suit and I think the nation instinctively knew that.
Clement Attlee, however, was not any better of a choice. The mass nationalization of industry after World War II crippled the recovery and made it difficult for Britain to enjoy post-war prosperity. It wasn't until Margaret Thatcher came along that Britain really managed to shake off the economic funk of World War II.
I'm not sure if this was a factor in the 1945 elections, but Churchill wanted to maintain the colonial empire when it became clear that Britain no longer had the resources to do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did the British make a mistake in the 1945 elections?
