• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How successful was labours' nationalisation programme 1945 - 1951?

Extracts from this document...


Jasmin Hillerby How Successful was Labour's Nationalisation programme 1945-51? The post-war Labour government was the first to have have a majority and was therefore able to carry out the long cherished aim of clause IV of the Party's constitution; mainly widespread nationalisation. Among the areas this essay will consider are the nationalisation of electricity and gas, steps towards a more socialist society, and the cost of the programme. It will be argued that nationalisation had mixed success in that it was successful in some respects, however, it failed to provide what Labour had envisaged in others. Labour's nationalisation policy was greatly welcomed by the British public at first, Six years of total war had left widespread support for State planning, ownership and control. A way in which it was a success was that there was very little opposition to the nationalisation of industries such as coal and the railways, even by conservatives. ...read more.


There was also large success in the gas industry as there were massive improvements that made up for where it had previously lacked far behind electricity. There was also a growth in civil aviation and in cable and wireless communications; electrification extended to more remote parts of the country. However, the expansion of both the electric industry and the gas industry threw them into competition with each other. A great success of Labour's nationalisation programme of 1945-51 was the increase and expansion of industries in Britain. There was important expansions in some of the newer industries especially car production. Manufacturing output increased by 50% during these years, and the volume of exports rose by 67% between 1947 and 1950. There was remarkable expansion of production and exports in the five years up to 1951, however, along side these was a slow rise in the cost of living. ...read more.


The pay of workers and the working conditions in the nationalised industries did not change a great deal and workers often found themselves to have the same managers after nationalisation as they did before. The administrative system adopted by Labour did not directly involve workers in the decision making or running of industries and the government resisted attempts to appoint representatives of the workers to their boards. In conclusion, although the nationalisation programme was important for Labour and it's ideology, it was a less successful reform than in other areas of their society. It did have some profound effects on production and exports but it failed to make dramatic improvement in most areas. The programme worked out to be more costly than some people argued it was worth, but it did manage to drive Britain away from total capitalism, and instead Britain became a more mixed economy. Overall, the Programme wasn't a complete failure, but it had very limited success. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Why did Labour win the 1945 election and lose in the 1951 election?

    Britain at the time, but the fact was, Labour were held accountable. The economy's recovery was further hindered by the short-sighted "need" to remain a world power. This aim was ill-fated and in the eyes of many economists "obviously exceeded the country's economic capacity".

  2. How successful was the Labour Government from 1945- 1951?

    Bevan allowed doctors to continue with their own private practices whilst allocating private wards in hospitals their exclusive patients. This is seen as a criticism of the Labour party, they had the chance to remove some the class division that existed in 1950's Britain, this damaged the parties' idea that it supported the working classes and wanted equality for all.

  1. Free essay


    However, the TUC and miners thought the Samuel Commission would solve any problems and bring the situation to an end. The Samuel Commission report was published in March 1926. The document was fairly conservative and proposed that the mine owners should continue with reorganization and modernization, should not as k

  2. how successful was the labour govt 1945 - 51?

    Unlike the NHS, it was not free for all, the amount of money given to an individual, depended upon his/her employment history and how much they had contributed to social security. This however was only the beginning of a major plan, and in 1948, the Assistance Act aimed to help those who fell through the national insurance net.

  1. How far was Labours electoral defeat in 1951 the result of economic difficulties?

    This links to the divides that occurred within the Labour party; especially as the Conservatives had become so much stronger and had fully recovered from their post-war defeat, making it another reason for which Labour were weaker in the 1951 election and potentially a contributor to their defeat.

  2. The Successes of Labour from 1945

    In the financial crisis of 1951, at the time of the Korean war, the Chancellor, Hugh Gaitskell, was forced to introduce payments by patients for their prescriptions, and for some forms of central treatment. This breaking away from the principle of free medical provision split the Labour cabinet.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work