Explain Why Labour Lose In 1951

Why Labour lost in 1951 is a highly debated topic within the world of politics. To understand why Labour lost in 51 it is important to understand some of the issues Labour had to face during their time in government from 1945-51. One of the major issues Labour had to face was how to rebuild Britain following the end of the Second World War, it also had to face the decolonisation of the British Empire and the loss of key figures within the party due to age and illness by 1951. After researching the topic thoroughly, I Would argue the main reason Labour lost in 51 was because the government of the loss of a number of major political figures including the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin.
The reason why many claim that it was the loss of major figures within the Labour Party administration that caused labour to lose in 1951 is that Clement Attlee himself lost focus due to this loss. This gives rise to the claim that this is the most important reason because if your own leader has given up then who is there to motivate not only the voters but the candidates themselves. Some have disputed this claim as Labour still won

the popular vote by 230,684 votes or 4.5% yet still lost the election. Therefore raising the argument that Atlee and the Labour party campaigned effectively and lost solely because of the unrepresentative nature of the First Past the Post system. An argument which incidentally all the major parties have agreed with at one time or another.
Both of the arguments above make valid arguments as Attlee did appear to be absent minded when it came to the election campaign in 1951. However how could Labour have won the popular vote if he had been, absent minded? However, are these arguments incompatible? Is it not possible that Labour won the popular vote in spite of Atlee losing focus as turnout in Labour strong holds was higher than that of swing and conservative strong holds. So in other words traditional Labour voters in traditional Labour seats were energised by the campaign but those in key swing seats were not. 
There are however other compelling arguments as to why Labour lost the 1951 General Election. One such argument is that Labour no longer offered the opportunities that the ambitious craved. This is a compelling argument because it suggests a group of people that following the war would have bought into the change that Labour promised but as rationing of food and clothing was still ongoing, six years after the end of the war, so they had become disillusioned, therefore resulting in the election results of 1951. Others have of course disagreed with previous argument instead stating that the main reason Labour lost in 51 was that changes to the constituency boundaries, as set out in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, and introduction of postal voting. Again this argument is quite compelling especially since Attlee himself suggested that this had caused them issues in 1950 prior to the election in 51.
However as is often the case in topics which are open to the secrecy of balloting it is not possible to say whether or not these factors definitively caused labour to lose the election in 1951.

However, they must have had some impact on the result of the election for scholars and politicians to have taken notice of them. So it is not a question of whether or not they had an impact but whether or not they made the crucial impact to be the main reason for Labour’s loss in 51. The main reason I believe that neither of these arguments were the main reason for Labour’s demise is that Labour won the popular vote so it is not possible that the majority were disillusioned with the Labour party, and as Labour lost more in 1951 than in 1950 therefore the difference could not have been made by the redrawing of the boundaries as this had occurred by the 1950

election.
Another reason that some people claim led to Labour losing in 1951 is the media claiming certain members of the Labour administration, most notably Bevin before his death, were no longer up to the job of running the country. This is a convincing argument as it is often argued that the media influence public opinion so if the media convinced the public Labour were incompetent then Labour would obviously lose the election. Some may disagree with the previous argument however instead arguing that Labour lost the election because of the internal divisions within the party. This is because the infighting meant that some members of the public did not trust Labour with running the country and that a number of Labour party members no longer supported Attlee’s leader ship.

On the other hand, some people argue that neither of these reasons can possibly be the main reason why Labour lost in 1951. The Argument against the first of the above points is that people look at media which they agree with therefore the media only reaffirms their views rather than changing them therefore meaning it would not lead to people being persuaded not to vote Labour. The reason people would argue with the second argument above is that Labour voters would remain united in order to stop the Conservatives coming to power therefore even if there is infighting within the party they will unite at election time in order to avoid a Conservative government.
Some people have argued that the main reason that Labour lost in 1951 was the public’s disillusion with the Labour party’s policy of austerity. , , , This is a compelling argument as the public had elected a left wing government in order to bring about change and equality within society and instead were punished with spending cuts and rationing extended well beyond the end of the war. Other people have disagreed with the previous argument instead arguing that Attlee’s leadership (or lack of). Attlee’s ability to lead the party was called into question during a, “row that arose over Gaitskell's imposition of health charges had its origins in Cripps's period when he had wanted to put some limit on the expanding health budget under Bevan's control.” This was due to the fact that Attlee his guidance during the situation was minimal, however it must be admitted that Attlee was ill in hospital with an ulcer at the time. What makes this argument even more compelling is the timing of the election in 51 which due to it being October meant economically speaking it was a bad time for Attlee to hold an election.
However once again people do debate the whether or not either of these argument could have caused Labour to lose the election. For example, regarding the first argument in the above paragraph people have claimed that the public at the time although they were not happy with austerity they understood the need for it and therefore did not hold it against the government. An argument which could be used to back up this theory is the fact that the Conservatives who were the largest party in an elected coalition in 2010, were returned with a majority government in 2015 therefore showing the public understand that when times are hard cuts are necessary. Regarding the later argument in the previous paragraph I was also claimed that Attlee was “not only in important respects a great PM but in many ways a beau ideal of PM’s” this suggests that not only was his leadership sufficient to be the Prime Minister but that in many ways he is the best PM we have ever had.

One final argument that people have claimed led to Labour losing the election in 1951 was the Conservatives approach to the election they fought hard and made less cautious promises than they had in 1945. They also changed their policy on selecting parliamentary candidates so that their class background was no longer taken into account making it easier for them to be seen as the party of the majority rather than the minority. This is a strong argument because it shows how the Conservatives changed tact during their time out of office in order to be ready to fight to retake office. How prepared for the fight they actually were for the election after just six years out of office may have taken Labour by surprise which may explain why to some Labour supporters the loss came as such a shock.

Some people have disagreed with the above argument claiming that how close Labour came to retaining power even getting more votes than the Conservatives. They were fully prepared for the election and threat that the Conservatives posed. They may even claim that although the Conservatives preparation moved them closer to winning an election than they had been in 45 that it was due to bad luck relating to the electoral system being disproportionate and losing key members of their administration that led to Labour losing in 1951.

During this essay I have assessed the many factors that have been put forward by academics and political analysts relating to why Labour lost the election in 1951. During my research I found numerous more but found that they had less of an effect than those mentioned above although will have still had some impact. From the main points above although I cannot say with any level of certainty that one of the factors caused Labour to lose the election to the Conservatives. I can say that they all had their impact on the situation and contributed in their own way to causing the result in 51. However, at the end of my research I would personally argue that because Labour many top political figures within their administration before the election without time to recover properly, and the impact that had on Attlee himself that this was the most important factor that caused Labour to lose in 1951.