‘The main reason for conservative dominance in the years 1951 to 1964 was labour disunity’ Assess the validity of this view.

Secondly, as Wilson faced crises in the failure of Trade Union reform and a stagnant economy, the Tories moved steadily to the right, many seeing this as a successful move by Heath. The move to the right got a massive publicity boost in Selsdon Park Hotel at a shadow cabinet meeting (January 1970) in the run-up to the election. In the public eye, the term ‘Selsdon Man’ (a phrase readily clutched by the media) meant a return to free enterprise -which directly contrasted Wilson’s policies of interventionism - the return to the values of hard work, trade union reform and a more efficient and independent industry. These ideas, although not particularly revolutionary in terms of policy for Tories, in election year provided a real incentive to frustrated voters, who looked at the struggling Wilson government whose interventionist policies were having little upswing effect on the economy. Many see the conference as an end of consensus politics, and the start of a marathon political battle between the two leaders. The fact that the Tories gained such publicity at Selsdon, and managed to convince the electorate that contrasting policies to the labour government such as the move to a more free market economy was necessary, showed Heath to be a successful leader in the outset of his campaign.

Disraeli believed in an organic society held together by duty and responsibility, and was responsible for the Second Reform Act which gave the working class the vote and also improved housing conditions and hygiene. This is often seen as a form of Tory welfarism. One nationism reached its peak in the 1950s and 1960s when conservative governments in the UK promoted social welfare, in stark contrast to later, New Right conservative governments such as the Thatcher Government (1979-90). In the 50s one-nation conservatism was seen as a ‘middle way’ between ‘laissez-faire’ liberalism and socialist state planning. Therefore, paternalistic conservatism could be seen as the way of moderation.

This period of Labour rule is often marked down as a poor performance on behalf of the labour party, critically looked upon by many historians. There were many failings under the rule of this government however the circumstances they were placed in caused severe restraints in their options.

The election campaign in 1964 was a close run contest even though there was a low public approval of the current Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home. The labour party only won a majority of 3 seats. The reason for the decline in support for the Conservative party was because of events and scandals such as the Profumo affair

Except for the British Labor Party, the vehicles of the new postwar policies were not, as might have been expected, the democratic socialist parties.

In 1997, Labour were very much in touch with the electorate and focused on salient issues, whereas the conservatives focused on issues such as trade unions and devolution which were not deemed as salient. This benefitted Labour as they gained a huge win at this election and rather than personality playing a huge part, it may have been their policies.

The Labour government of 1974-1979 also won two elections, the 1974 February election and the 1974 October election, however both were won by a minority. The February election was won by 4 seats and the October election was won by 42 seats. The reason for the slim win is to do with inflation. The Labour governments of 1974-1979 were in office at a bad time because Britain had started to suffer from huge inflation because of the oil price rise in 1973, and so voters didn’t have a clear decision on which they were going to vote for. This shows that at the moment the 1964-1970 Labour Government was more successful by far because of their majority of 110 seats in the 1966 election.

The 1950s in America are often described as a time of complacency. By contrast, the 1960s and 1970s were a time of great change. But the economy of the 70s was not stable because of the Oil crisis and presidents did not seem to find a solution to get the economy work again. For the right, the federal government had been spending too much money on the social programs. Conservatism believes that the best way to run a society is to maintain social and political framework and that the government should be as limited as possible,

This would mean that wartime coalition ministers from all major parties were far more willing to cooperate with each other. Paul Addison (1975) argued that pre-war and wartime conditions led to a unique situation in post war Britain which led to a coming together of thinking in politics and society. This was strongly influenced by the Beveridge Report’s ‘Five Giants’. As mentioned before, this cooperation was also aided by the fact that fears of an extreme Labour government in 1945 had been disproved, meaning that key policy makers in the Conservative Government could be seen to be ‘One Nation Tories’; keen to build on national cooperation to maintain and essential post war consensus. Another fundamental aspect of post war consensus was the idea of the necessity of a ‘Big Government’; many Conservatives were now convinced of the government intervention in social and economic policies, resulting in them being far more in tune with public opinion and so accepted Labour's welfare policies such as Keynesian economics. With regard to Winston Churchill, his government were seen to indeed follow Keynesian economics, but

The centrepiece of Labour 's programme of constitutional reform was undoubtedly devolution. This was achieved with remarkably few problems. There now seems no likelihood that the new arrangements could be reversed, even by a Conservative administration. The election on 6 May 1999 of a Parliament in Scotland, with extensive powers of primary legislation as well as tax-raising, and an Assembly in Wales, with powers of secondary legislation only, will have a profound impact on governance within the UK. In

He managed to make this Bill seem radical enough to satisfy the Radicals and other pressure groups, while allowing some amendments, which appeased the Liberals. This was crucial o passing the bill since the Conservatives were in a minority. Whilst boosting Disraeli’s reputation and showcasing his political skill, the Second Reform Act also brought Disraeli popularity among his own MP’s. This links to Derby’s leadership, because it was after this Act that Derby recommended Disraeli to Queen Victoria as his successor. Therefore, it was Disraeli’s determination and political skill that passed an act which led to his leadership of the Conservative Party.

At the end of World War One in November 1918 the Labour Party emerged as a strong political Party. Prior to this it was the Liberal Party that was expected to be the main opposition to the Conservatives, with Labour as a party who used the popularity of the Liberals to become noticed. However, it soon became apparent that the Liberals were a weak and flagging party who were unable to unite as one to make decisions. It is evident that the First World War may have been an important factor in the growth of Labour and the decline of the Liberals.

How relevant It would also be difficult to deny that Labour’s leadership image were responsible for their poor showings in the 1983 with Michael Foot as leader and 1987 with Neil Kinnock. This view is supported by Jenkins’s study of the 1983 election, stating “Labour seemed to disqualify itself from office. Michael Foot personified in every way Labour’s unfitness to govern and the extent to which it had lost touch even with its natural constituency” . Indeed, poll ratings for Michael Foot had reached an unprecedented low of a popularity rating of just 24%, the lowest since polling began , thus suggesting the electorate saw him as the most improbable prime minister, hence a poor electoral performance in 1983. This view is given further support

The “Third Way” separated itself from the old party’s agenda and endeavored to border itself from the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major that ruled until 1997. Giddens, the political theorist of the Third Way, believed the old class-based divisions of the left and right were redundant. He wanted to create no more than an outline of an integrated political programme, covering each of the major sectors of society. Kramp argues such a massive initiative proved Giddens intent to design a coherent political agenda and an alternative to total capitalism and complete socialism. Kramp asserts Giddens believed that reformist governments could no longer rely on traditional statist programmes claiming that campaigning from the centre would illicit mutual support while still remaining dedicated to radical measures. A point Tony Blair included in his 1997 speech at the European Socialists’ Congress, where he stated the Left had to “modernise or die.’” He stressed to Congress the need to abandon old left "statist" policies claiming “…. our task today is not to fight old battles but to show that there is a third way, a way of marrying together an open, competitive and successful economy with a just, decent and humane society.”

In addition, while Freda and Durrans both highlighted imperial issue was a “national issue transcending party politics”, Durrans argued that Disraeli attempted to “annex the movement to the conservative cause”. This is because, as Durrans argued, Disraeli criticised the Liberal party “for their subtle and continuous efforts for the previous years to ‘effect the disintegration of the empire.’” This view is furthered as Disraeli projected the conservative party as ‘a national party’. Therefore, imperialism was adopted as a ‘national cause’ in order to defend Britain against Liberalism and support “by every means her imperial sway”. This suggests and reinforces Durrans statement that Disraeli’s elevation of imperial policies was born of political