With the out break of war in 1914 Labour the Liberals and the Conservatives all agreed to hold a “poll truce” which lasted until 1915 and the start of the Asquith coalition and in 1916-18 the war time coalition. These stints in coalitions gave Labour their first taste as part of an active government and allowed MPs to become experienced in the running of government, all be it in wartime.
Further growth for the Labour party was seen in 1918 when the electorate increased so did Labours percentage of the vote, from 7% rising to 22%. This put the Parties number of politicians up from 42 too 60, the trend of Labour replacing the Liberals is gradually becoming clearer. It could be said that this growth of the Labour party was due to the failing during the war of the Liberals however Martin Pugh suggests that it was the Liberals inability to take advantage of the war that led to their downfall. “… The key factor is not so much that the war undermined the Liberals as they failed to seize the opportunity that the war offered them to unite as a party of government, lead the nation to military victory, and so consolidate the success they had achieved between 1906 and 1914.” Martin Pugh, Modern British History.
Again another advantage to the Labour Party came in 1918 when David Lloyd George called for a vote of confidence in Asquith. Lloyd George lost 293 votes to 106. This caused the Liberal Party to split weakening the party to a degree, which would not allow them to reform in the near future. Again the problems in the Liberal party had created opportunity for the Labour party to grow.
Until 1922 Labour had remained part of the Coalition but when it was realised that this was no longer in the best interests of the country it was dropped. In the 1922 election Labour gained 142 seats and in 1923 this rose to 191, still behind the Conservatives. This led on too the Labour victory in the 1924 election.
The victory in the 1924 election showed how far the party had come since its formation in 1906 and while the support of the TUs had been vital to the growth of the party the failing of the Liberal cannot be underestimated in its success or cause as pointed out by Martin Pugh it is important not to over look the strength of Labour in their success. “The growth of Labour as a political force has as much to do with Liberal weakness as Labour strength.” Martin Pugh, Modern British History.
It is important to realise what the Liberal failing were as well as what exactly is meant by the strength on Labour. The Liberal Party splitting created a opening for Labour especially since it didn’t recover until the 30’s, military conscription during the war was against fundamental Liberal policy they lost support of the Irish Nationals who walked out of the house of Commons and final the first part the post system in Britain caused them problems. The growth of the labour party is accredited to the workers with the vote leaving the Liberals for the more radical Union funded Labour, strong links with the TUs gave it strong financial backing they played an effective role in the war supporting the country in 1918 it set out its list of constitutional programmes. It can be seen that while the weakness of the Liberals was important it is also important to consider the strength of Labour, and its strong Union backing.
While the general passed while the Conservatives were in office a noticeable point is the silence of Labour not seen to be supporting the strikers, this shows perhaps an early separation from Labour and the TUs. Labours second term can perhaps be accredited to the poor performance of the Conservatives leading up to the General strike, this does of course mean that by striking the Unions opened the door for Labour to return to office.
Labours second term unfortunately feel during the depression, it can be seen that Labour in trying to support the unemployed hurt itself by eventually running out of funds, and then having to attempt to bring in policy which could be seen as Conservative to control it, this caused the party to be divided and ultimately hurt the Party for the rest of the decade, here it is apparent that it was not the Unions involved in the fall of Labour but instead the Parties own fault.
The Conservatives and Coalition type governments dominated the 30’s. During the war years however Labour were given a further opportunity to show how successfully they could run the country, all be it on a war time economy. While it was Coalitions during the war it was Labour who controlled Britain and the way the country was run while Churchill and the Conservatives controlled the war effort. It was this success at running the country during the war that supported their effort to be elected in 1945. Again it was success by Labours own doing and questionable support from the TUs. Other issues that did help Labour were what were seen as failing of the conservatives in previous governments throughout the 30’s, Labour wasn’t blamed for the issues of the past 25 years and so they were seen as the best Party to run the country, again making their own success. Labour politicians such as Attlee, Cripps, Bevin, Dalton and Morrison were all seen to have gained excellent experience running the wartime cabinet.
IN 1945 Labour held a massive majority and so took this opportunity to implement the Beveridge report proposals, which in effect turned Britain into a welfare state. By implementing the National Insurance Act The Industrial Injuries Act The National Assistance act and the NHS the Labour government were finally seen to be getting across major reform, which had been the Parties aim since its original formation 40 years previously.
During the Period of 1945-51 Labour found itself once again short of money and so they took a loan from the USA and Canada, which allowed them to continue the construction of their welfare state. Unfortunately as part of the loan Britain agreed to increase it’s spending on Civil Defence and so once again Labour was short of money, and the pound had fallen into the Dollar gap. This poor management of the economy led Labour to fall out of the public graces, this period had seen little involvement from the TUs and Labour had still managed to find its self-loosing to the Conservatives, arguably with stronger TU support the Party may have found themselves keeping power.
The 1950s saw a conservative dominated government period due to the failing of Labour in their last term in office. The strength of the Conservative governments and their handling of Britain’s economic problems led them to stay in government until 1964 when once again Labour returned to power. When they did they found Industrial relations to be poor Labour and the Unions no longer communicated on the level they once did and so the situation became problematic. The fact that Labour no longer had the complete support of the Unions does show that they did no reply entirely on them and they made their own success.
Harold Wilson the Labour PM was quoted to say referring to the TUs striking, “They [the TUs] destroy the economic welfare of the nation.” A Labour Pm talking about the Unions in this way was unexpected and shows the decline in the relationship between the two. Both Labour and the Conservatives attempted to introduce statutory rule against the Unions to improve industrial relations however neither wanted to be unpopular, and while their relationship was in decline Labour could not afford to lose its main financial backers as well as the risk of losing membership. The TUs were still an important factor in the Labour party success.
The image of Labour in the 60’s was one, which followed popular culture and once again led to popularity. The Labour government gained support and by the 66-election Labour vote ad rose from 43.8% to 47.9% while the Conservatives had fallen from 49.4% to 41.9%. Labours popularity was increasing despite its dwindling relationship with the TUs. However the party was not that strong and when the election was called in 1970 they loosed, the public had not been impressed with the progress they had made and so they were not re-elected, this perhaps shows the reliance that Labour still had on the TUs.
The years 1970-74 saw a Conservative government making unpopular policy, which was anti Strikes, when the Trade Unions Congress voted against following the law it created problems. 72 saw a successful miners strike which led to pay increases, when an election was called in 74 Labour one by a tiny majority showing that with the support of the TUs now driven away from the Conservatives they could be much stronger.
In October 74 a second election was held giving Labour a 42-seat majority. However this would a difficult time for Labour with the oil price rise of 73 Labour needed another loan. They went to the International Monetary Fund and got a £4 billion loan with an agreement to cut public spending which they did by £1 billion by 79. This stabilised the economy but this led to 1.6 million people in unemployment this led to a major rift between the Unions and the party.
The period of Conservative rule starting in 1979, Margaret Thatcher decided to end the rule of the Unions. In 1984-85 Labour did not support the miners in their strike showing the changed relationship between the party and the Unions. When the Strike collapsed Thatcher aided Rupert Merdoch the man behind the Sun and Times newspapers in destroying the print Union one of the strongest in the country. Labour once again did not step in and aid the union. However this was perhaps a mistake because Labour did not see government again until 1997 and Anthony Blair with new Labour.
It is clear that the Trade Unions did affect the success of the Labour Party from its formation in 1906 onwards. However it would be ridiculous to say that the Trade Unions were the only reason for the Parties success, and to do so you would have to over look factors such as the failing of the Liberals and Labours ability to Govern. Throughout its first 50 years it would be fair to say that the Trade Unions were very important to the Party in terms of funding and member ship however if it wasn’t for opportunities such as the Wars for Labour to prove itself it may never have reached the point it is at today.