The main reason for Conservative dominance in the years 1951-64 was Labour disunity.

Assess the validity of this view.

Conservative dominance in 1951 to 1964 can be attributed to a number of factors; some

argue that it was due to the key personalities in the Conservative Party during this period,
such as Macmillan and Butler, who presented a charismatic and confident image to the
public which secured votes. Some disagree and state that it was based on shifts in ideology
and was in fact due to Conservative adherence to the post-war consensus (mixed economy,
welfare, full employment) that resonated positively with the general public allowing them to
remain dominant for 13 years. Alternatively, others argue as the question states that it was
Labour disunity that led to Conservative dominance as they did not present themselves as a
viable alternative. The main reason, however, was the economy as the feel-good factor
from the generally thriving economy was the driving force behind voters choices and
therefore political party success. The economy greatly influenced the public vote as people
were more interested in their own wealth and prosperity rather than the good of society to an
extent, it was the age of affluence under Conservative dominance so there was no reason to
vote otherwise.
Peter Hennessy argues that the main reason for Conservative dominance was the economy,
not Labour disunity; Hennessys interpretation focuses on the significant improvement to
living standards and subsequent social mobility. Hennessys Golden Age is very much
based on economic indicators directly linked to society. The feel good factor is evidenced
through improved living standards and wages, economic factors are public indicators of
economic growth for an average citizen. Mens wages went up from 8.30 in 1951 to 15.35
in 1961, this change in the economy is a positive one for the public as living standards, in
consequence, rose as well this can be seen through the increase in private saving and
home ownership with 300,000 new houses available a year. Further evidence of economic
growth was the increase in car ownership during 1950-65 from 1.5 million to 5.5 million;
consumerism is one of many indicators of a thriving economy. Some historians such as
Correlli Barnett may argue that the economy was not thriving as the British GDP growth rate
remained at 2.3, which was low in comparison to West Germanys growth of 5.1 and Italys
of 5.6. These statistics however were less important to the general public as they did not
affect the public directly. With the economy growing, albeit slowly, and the high living
standards maintained, the public were not inclined to vote against Conservative leadership
as the public are more receptive to economic success rather than political advantage.
Therefore the continuous perceived economic growth and improvement to standard of living
between 1951 and 1964 underpins the publics perception of the Conservatives and this is
the most important reason for their dominance during this period.
Others argue that Labour disunity was the main reason for Conservative dominance as the
public were not presented with an alternative political party that was viable for leading the
government. Therefore, civilians continued to vote Conservative which maintained their
dominance through 1951 to 1964. Some examples of the Labour Partys internal divisions
were partially publicised as the Trade Unions opposed Gaitskell as a leader of the Labour
Party mainly due to Gaitskells support of the construction of nuclear weapons. The Trade
Unions also disliked Gaitskell because of his adherence to the post-war consensus;
something they considered to be a departure from the Labour Partys true socialist goals.
The Trade Union alternatively supported Bevan as he was a true socialist and was antinuclear. The Labour Party also failed to maintain public support due to their association with

the CND (Committee for Nuclear Disarmament) in 1959. However, the disunited Labour
Party was debatably due to the economy as the economic ideologies within Labour differed
greatly. Bevan and Gaitskell opposed one another, Gaitskell wanted to adhere to the postwar consensus which was creating the age of affluence, support the construction of nuclear
use and to abolish Clause Four (commitment to nationalism); Bevan on the other hand
opposed prescription charges and campaigned for nationalism. The Gaitskell-Bevan split
was predominantly based on economic ideology which was the root cause of Labour
disunity, economy is therefore the most important reason for Conservative dominance.
Another significant reason for Conservative dominance is the adherence to the post-war
consensus by the Conservative Party. As the consensus included Britain having a mixed
economy, full employment, welfare benefits and more, this suggested an improvement for
the citizens lives which boosted Conservative Party popularity. The Conservatives
committed to the consensus, evidently seen through the decision not to privatise industries
this displays the partys movement away from right-wing policies (privatised companies and
industries). The government also maintained a good relationship with the Trade Unions
which contrasted Labour Partys disunity and internal dispute with the Trade Unions. The
Conservative image of a stable political party possibly contributed to their dominance.
However, some historians would argue that this is not a valid argument as although the
public were partial to the consensus and supported the party adhering to it, the reason they
did so was to sustain high living standards. With the Conservatives continuing Labour
welfare reforms through the consensus (NHS, benefits system and council housing) they
ultimately raised the average living standards in the country; growth in the economy allowed
for a boost in investments into the welfare system thus living standards in Britain rose. The
relationship with the Trade Union resulted in good working conditions and wages. Therefore
this factor supports the view that the economy was significantly more important and
underpins voters decisions during this period.
Finally, some historians argue that key personalities in the Conservative Party during 195164 ensured Conservative dominance. The public naturally seek confident and strong leaders
for the government and a united party, the Conservative Party were the only political party
that presented this. Conservative confidence can be seen through Lord Woolton and Butlers
lead roles in the 1945 General Elections which increased public appeal. Butler was also well
regarded as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Macmillan was referred to as Supermac
Macmillan had successfully reached all his targets as Housing Minister and had built
300,000 new houses in 1951-55 due to his charisma and confidence as a politician. These
contributed to the dominating popularity of the Conservative Party which validates their
dominance in government. However, this is not a compelling argument for Conservative
leadership for 13 years as Anthony Eden caused the Suez Crisis in 1956 which had financial
repercussions and ultimately presented the Conservative party as disorganised. Additionally,
Butler gained popular as a political individual due to his economic policy, the give away
budget in the 1955 General Election led to a 134 million tax cut. The popularity of key
personalities within the Conservative government was ultimately rooted in the economy.
In conclusion, the economy was the main reason for the Conservative dominance as the
success of a political party in government is fundamentally assessed by the economy, the
feel good factor. The growth of the economy led by a government is more important than
the political ideology as the public are in general merely concerned with their living standard,
the higher the living standards the better the mood of the citizens, thus, increasing the

likelihood of the general public swinging towards electing for the same government: the feel
god factor. During 1951 to 1964 living standards were high resulting in favourable
Conservative support, for the public, there was just no reason to otherwise.