How successful were the Labour governments of 1924 and of 1929-31?

Authors Avatar

09/05/2007        History (ISJ)        Aman Janmohamed (NPS)
                Page
 of

How successful were the Labour governments of 1924 and of 1929-31?

In order to evaluate the success of the two Labour governments, one must first evaluate both the positive and negative aspects of both separately, and then come to a reasoned conclusion taking into account both governments and their respective positions and situations.

        The Labour government of 1924 displayed both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, Labour had shown that it could actually run the country; indeed MacDonald said to the King, ‘They have shown the country that they have the capacity to govern in an equal degree with the other parties in the House.’ This was clearly a major area of success and proved the widespread view that ‘Labour was unfit to govern’ was wrong and also it was proof that MacDonald and the Labour party could be trusted to run the country efficiently. Secondly, the Labour Party had shown that it was a party of moderate centre-ground, by conducting itself responsibly and refuting the fears of a social upheaval on socialist lines. In essence, the Party had shown, over a time period, that it was capable of providing a more than satisfactory government and no doubt proved wrong all those doubters. MacDonald himself even said that they had done much to dispel ‘the fantastic and extravagant belief which at one time found expression that they were nothing but a band of irresponsible revolutionaries intent on wreckage and destruction’. Furthermore it must be noted that the manner in which the Government had been defeated worked to their advantage as they were able to shift responsibility from themselves and thus blame the defeat on the case of exceptional circumstances. Effectively this was extremely important as it meant that the government ministers and the party escaped unscathed from this defeat, and also their long-run optimism was preserved. If we look more closely at the domestic and foreign affairs of the Labour government, it must be noted that not much was actually achieved domestically. Education was a great area of achievement for Labour, as state scholarships for poorer students were restored. Furthermore Trevelyan raised the leaving age up to 15, meaning that all children were to receive a chance at a proper education, which would obviously benefit the country in both the short and long run. In the housing market, it had expanded the provision of public housing, by increasing subsidies for local authority house building and assuring the building industry that such measures would operate for at least 15 years. Wheatley, the Minister for Health and Housing, had combined the state and private sector, in a plan for the long-term success, and this did quite a lot to end the problem of inadequate housing supply. Indeed by 1933, when the scheme was stopped, 500,000 houses had been built. Labour also increased unemployment benefits. Labour did spent £28m on public work schemes to increase employment – although it must be noted that the sum was not exceptionally high. With foreign policy, Labour seemed to achieve more success than on the domestic side. MacDonald saw himself as a ‘mediator’ in European affairs, and by 1924, MacDonald had a fair degree of success in the international ‘arena’. This was done firstly by assuming a case of neutrality between France and Germany, even though the British and French had been close allies. MacDonald also helped to negotiate the Dawes Plan which was use to diffuse the crisis caused by reparations. MacDonald was furthermore a strong supporter of the League of Nations and he spoke at the assembly. He also sought to negotiate the Geneva Protocol in order to strengthen the pledges of collective security amongst the European powers.

Join now!

        However on the negative side, there was the problem with the leading ministers, and these can include MacDonald. MacDonald questioned his leading ministers’ performances; however it can be argued that there performances tires as he himself tired. Furthermore he was quite poor in the case of handling his colleagues, and was sometimes described as rather arrogant towards them, and so this set a likely precedent for future problems. Moreover the Party’s weakness on policy was exposed, as the Party only really had a long-run and vague commitment to socialism. The Party didn’t have a majority and so the distinctive policies ...

This is a preview of the whole essay