United Kingdom and Golden Age
To what extent can the period of Conservative dominance between 1951 and 1964 be viewed as ‘Thirteen Wasted Years’?
The Labour government in their 1964 party election manifesto described the period of 1951-64 as the ‘13 wasted years’. This is in contrast to the historian Blake who referred this period of conservative power the ‘Golden Age’. The period did have periods of good and bad, spread especially across the areas of international, economic and social policies.
The 1950s in hindsight was a period of missed opportunities and growth was sluggish compared with Britain’s competitors
• Britain lacked any real coherent strategy over her place in the world. Had she missed the boat over Europe? What would be the effects of decolonization, the end of Empire and an increase in immigration in society?
• There was a lack of long-term planning by all four Conservative Prime Ministers
• Expectations of ‘continuous affluence‘ were too great; hence public disillusionment
• The early 1960s produced a series of deflationary policies which resulted in poor byelection and local election results
• The Conservatives had not halted the relative economic decline of Britain which became more apparent in the early 1960s
• ‘Short-termism’ by a variety of Conservative chancellors was designed to win elections rather than ‘modernise’ British society and the economy
• Was Britain actually in decline before the 1950s and, if so, how much does this alter any judgement of 1951–1964?
• Britain’s poor educational performance meant that fewer students stayed on in higher education compared to abroad
Candidates may use the following material to argue against the premise:
• The Conservatives did not undo Attlee’s legacy; in fact ‘Butskellism’ retained many of the key features such as the Welfare State and the mixed economy
• With the Labour Party in such disarray throughout much of this period, what would its performance have been like if in
The Labour government in their 1964 party election manifesto described the period of 1951-64 as the ‘13 wasted years’. This is in contrast to the historian Blake who referred this period of conservative power the ‘Golden Age’. The period did have periods of good and bad, spread especially across the areas of international, economic and social policies.
The 1950s in hindsight was a period of missed opportunities and growth was sluggish compared with Britain’s competitors
• Britain lacked any real coherent strategy over her place in the world. Had she missed the boat over Europe? What would be the effects of decolonization, the end of Empire and an increase in immigration in society?
• There was a lack of long-term planning by all four Conservative Prime Ministers
• Expectations of ‘continuous affluence‘ were too great; hence public disillusionment
• The early 1960s produced a series of deflationary policies which resulted in poor byelection and local election results
• The Conservatives had not halted the relative economic decline of Britain which became more apparent in the early 1960s
• ‘Short-termism’ by a variety of Conservative chancellors was designed to win elections rather than ‘modernise’ British society and the economy
• Was Britain actually in decline before the 1950s and, if so, how much does this alter any judgement of 1951–1964?
• Britain’s poor educational performance meant that fewer students stayed on in higher education compared to abroad
Candidates may use the following material to argue against the premise:
• The Conservatives did not undo Attlee’s legacy; in fact ‘Butskellism’ retained many of the key features such as the Welfare State and the mixed economy
• With the Labour Party in such disarray throughout much of this period, what would its performance have been like if in