Beveridge's Labour Party Analysis

With the end of the Second World War, the world began its new era with the Cold War. In Europe, many (new) experiences occurred, advancing mainly in Western European nations: an economic boom never before seen, increased wealth for its citizens, but increased tension with the Soviet Union along the Iron Curtain. In this new age, many western countries developed their own version of a socialist society; after the war, leaders found it imperative that they provide for their constituents, prevent in-house fighting within Western Europe while preparing and arming themselves for any potential opposition from the Soviet Union along its borders with Eastern Europe. The United Kingdom, most notably, approached this mindset through nationalization.

Even though Britain won the war, the country still had problems that it now had to deal with. For the government to provide due care unto its citizenry, changes in how the government behaved was needed. This was achieved through the transition into a social democracy. In this new social democracy, elements for a more prosperous Britain included stronger trade unions, the welfare state, comprehensive education, and a mixed economy, where the government took more ownership in certain industries that were deemed valuable for the advancement and progression of Britain and planned those parts of the economy nationally (Kavanagh). To undertake that task, nationalization was crucial, where the state takes over the responsibilities of production and distribution from its former private owners.
The notion of nationalization was not such a foreign concept prior to World War II. In 1943, Sir William Beveridge published a report detailing how Great Britain would plan out its social services once the war commenced. While the Beveridge Report focused primarily on tackling what he described as the “Five Giants of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness”, there was an importance placed on the necessity of central planning to support this level of social welfare (Beveridge) (Burns).
This style of governmental operation had proven effective during the war as seen with the British, American, and Soviet Union’s coordinative efforts. However, the amount of control that each government had over private business varied greatly; while the governments of the first two nations maintained control of certain businesses and industries, they were returned to their pre-war status while the latter country retained complete control after the war based off its communist structure. To create its envision of a welfare state, Britain needed some form of control over certain indispensable industries. With Britain’s idea of nationalization, it tried to strike a balance between the extremes of the Soviet Union and United States (Burns).
Now that the war ended, it was time to rebuild Britain.

Not only was the infrastructure in need of repair due to German bombings, but the social structure for the sake of the public as well. The British people were in a lack of necessities then more than ever and the problem needed to be addressed. The issue was addressed with Attlee’s Labour party when it came into leadership in 1945. Early in his party’s 1945 manifesto, “Let Us Face The Future: A Declaration of Labour Party for the Consideration of the Nation”, it mentions the wants of the nation; the Labour Party wanted tackle Beveridge’s Five Giants to best provide for its people “good food in plenty, useful work for all, and comfortable, labour-saving homes... a high and rising standard of living, security for all against a rainy day [and] an education system that will give every boy and girl a chance to develop the best that is in them”

(Manifesto).
The same sentiments were felt in the Ministry of Supply, G. R. Strauss’ 1948 speech that he delivered on nationalizing the iron and steel industry. With these materials under the control of the state, Strauss believed that it benefited the nation by leading to planning full employment”, workers by “offer[ing] greater security to those who work in it”, consumers by “get[ting] the steel they require at low cost”, and Western Europe by better “co-operat[ing with them]... in the revival of the industrial prosperity... and the strengthening of its democratic foundations” (Strauss).
To make sure that the British nation truly benefited from this new attitude in governance, several industries had to be properly sustained.

In the event where one of these powerhouses were to fail, the nation’s ability to provide would be greatly diminished. The coal mining industry in Britain was a prime subject for this government scheme. For decades, this business had several issues hindering its effectiveness. Easily considered as a basic industry and a staple for Britain for providing the main source of heating, it would be best that coal be transition from control under private owners who have that much influence over society into control under the government for the interest of the public (Mowat 272). Coupled with obstinance between management and worker, declining coal production, and (dwindling) labor force, the coal industry was an important economic field to attend to (Mowat

272).
In Britain, G. R. Strauss made that clear in his 1948 speech addressing the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. Steel was a vital instrument for Britain in the postwar era as all of the nation’s “capital equipment depend[ed] on steel” as well as most of its valued exports; Britain’s “prosperity...security and influence on World affairs” were highly dependent on steel production (Strauss).
In the 1945 Labour Party’s speech in Bournemouth, Attlee explained the importance of nationalisation for the country. These nationalisation programs were considered “essential” for the planned economy that the party envisioned so that “full employment, economic prosperity and justice for all” can be fulfilled (1945).
Under nationalization, the public body was in control of determining the supply of basic materials and services for the good of the nation. However, conflict arose over the operation of certain industries based on the overall goals of the two differing organizations. With regards to private owners, having “a total productive capacity below potential demand” was considered advantageous, according to Strauss; selling “limited quantities of products at good prices” seemed more financially suitable than investing funds into new equipment and plants to increase production and output for it to only be “prove[n] redundant” (Strauss). On a national level, the British government had more concerns and, as a result, need for a higher output than that of the private owners. Strauss found it crucial to note that for the sake of the nation, steel production should meet the demand of both peacetime and wartime environments. Strauss was very much aware of the looming threat of the Soviet Union and the protective measures needed to contest any spread of communism or direct warfare. With “security against possible aggression [being] still a problem for [the nation]” and the production of iron and steel being an important indicator for “the war potential of a modern state”, Strauss felt it essential that the state take over the iron and steel industry to more properly determine the nation’s capacity and demand for those materials (Strauss).
Given the position that the leaders were in, nationalization appeared as an appropriate action to undertake. With a population tired of war who were plagued with problems before the war, the project for a social democracy provided a potential remedy as it provided a social safety net to protect its citizens from the Five Giants. Since some industries were too valuable to be left under the hands of private owners, resulting in outcomes that benefited their shareholders more than the general public, nationalizing them allowed for outcomes more tailored for the national interest of the common good.