to nationalize the means of production, I do not think that the government was committed to them. As although Attlee and his ministers started off with a clear left wing agenda to implement, I think this desire was soon lost (a problem with many forward thinking governments). It cannot have been purely due to restraints imposed on them by other agents that this government stopped at 25% (Crosland, 1956, p.89) of public ownership. Nationalization did not produce the immediate change that was hoped for in 1945, particularly in the redistribution of wealth, as unlike communist countries the UK government compensated businesses (by 1951 £2.1 billion in compensation had been paid out). Plus measures had not been adopted to effectively combat some of the problems that existed in these nationalized industries, the government continued to push for lower prices of coal, ignoring the dwindling supplies due to lack of modernization in the industry. This cruel fate was recognized by Crosland as he stated ‘public-monopoly nationalization… no longer seems the panacea that it used to.’(Crosland, 1956, p.363) This glum realization changed government policy as they no longer whole- heartedly pursued nationalization, and their commitment to the interpretation of socialism I am deploring for this essay soon disappeared. Thus I do not think it would be correct to claim that this government was committed to socialism. The next period that I will consider is the Labour governments of the 1970s under Wilson and Callaghan, however I feel that it is important to first consider Wilson’s previous period in power from 1964. I have not decided to examine this period separately for two reasons; firstly as I believe they are clearly connected (as Wilson was Prime Minister for both) and because I feel that achievements during this period were limited (in large part due to the devaluation of the pound). Nonetheless it does require mention and I shall start with Wilson's statement of the ‘white heat of technology’, showing that there still remained a certain focus on the means of production that carried on into the 1970s. Moreover, and crucially for the following period there was the event of ‘In Place of Strife’. The decision for the proposals to be shelved proved particularly damaging for the next Labour government, with their time marred by clashes with the trade unions, which in many ways prevented them from being as left wing as they might otherwise have been. So could the corporatism and increase in political action that occurred in the Labour party in the 1970s be considered a socialist government? Although the party were still technically committed to nationalization and public ownership, the solid proposals that existed had been put back by the work of Ted Heath. Plans to nationalize the docks had been scrapped, plus public shares in companies such as Short Brothers, BEA, steel companies and Thomas Cook had been sold off. The response of the of the 1973 programme was very promising in this respect due to calls for greater public ownership and increases in state planning, but once again when these proposals actually reached the commons they were very diluted, with only parts of certain markets such as British Leyland ending up being brought into public ownership. They also seemed to be departing from their commitment to Keynesian economics (whilst not completely relevant a previous must of any British socialist) with unemployment growing and reaching a million by April 1975 (Expressandstar.com, ‘Those were the days’, retrieved 27 December 2011). After Wilson's retirement things appeared to get worse, as conditions for the IMF loan meant severe cuts to public spending, halting the social programme. However some industries were still brought into government control such as British Aerospace, British National Oil Corporation and what remained of the shipbuilding industry (Thorpe, 2001). Although the government weakened in power with industrial disputes becoming more common, eventually things became too much with their demise all but confirmed by the winter of discontent, and it is for this reason that despite attempts I do not believe this government was committed to socialist ideals. While they came into power promising a ‘fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families’ (February 1974 Labour Party Manifesto), this did not really occur as power instead seemed to be transferred to the unions and businesses. Although I do not believe this was entirely their fault, as they were victims of bad timing, suffering from worldwide financial problems, but it still did lead them to abandon their socialist principles.
Next we come onto New Labour under Blair, a so-called hero after the 18 disastrous years in
79
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker