DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 1 Coming to the Forefront, 1883–1931

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 1 Coming to the Forefront, 1883–1931 Notes Chapter 1 Coming to the Forefront, 1883–1931 1 Robert Pearce, Attlee (London: Longman, 1997), p.4. 2 Kenneth Harris, Attlee (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1984), p.110. 3 Beatrice Webb‘s Diary, British Library of Political and Economic Science, 29 Feb. 1940, 6838. 4 Francis Williams, Nothing so Strange: an Autobiography (London: Cassell, 1970), p.219, & Lord Beloff, ‘The Improbable Prime Minister’, Daily Telegraph, 23 Sept. 1982. 5 C.R. Attlee, Empire into Commonwealth: the Chichele lectures delivered at Oxford in May 1960 (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), p.3. 6 C.R. Attlee, As it Happened (London: Heinemann, 1954), p.38. 7 Trevor Burridge, Clement Attlee: a Political Biography (London: Jonathan Cape, 1985), p.42. 8 J.T. Murphy, Labour‘s Big Three: a Biographical Study of Clement Attlee, Herbert Morrison and Ernest Bevin (London: Bodley Head, 1948), pp.34–5. 9 Peggy Attlee, With a Quiet Conscience: a Biography of Thomas Simons Attlee (London: Dove & Chough, 1995), p.44. 10 Winston S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (London: Cassell, 1948), p.137. 11 The Times, 23 Nov. 1920, 9. 12 Harris, Attlee, p.48. 13 Pearce, Attlee, p.24. 14 Times Literary Supplement, 11 March 1920, 175. 15 Bernard Bosenquet to Editor, Times Literary Supplement, 22 April 1920, 256. 16 Harris, Attlee p.61. 17 159 HC Deb (Parliamentary Debates: Official Reports (Hansard) House of Commons, 5th series), 23 Nov. 1922, 96. 18 Attlee, As it Happened, p.59. 19 D.J. Heasman, ‘ “My Station and its Duties” – the Attlee Version’, Parliamentary Affairs, XXI (1967–8) 83. 20 J. Vernon Jensen, ‘Clement R. Attlee and Twentieth Century Parliamentary Speaking’, Parliamentary Affairs, XXIII (1969–70) 278. 21 The Times, 12 Sept. 1923, 8. 22 W. Golant, ‘The Political Development of C.R. Attlee to 1935’, unpubl. B.Litt. thesis, Oxford University, 1967, p.136. 23 Ibid., p.137. 24 161 HC Deb, 15 March 1923, 1897–1900. 25 Murphy, Labour’s Big Three, p.107–9. 26 The Times, 29 June 1923, 16. 27 Burridge, Clement Attlee, p.63. 28 171 HC Deb, 17 March 1924, 112–4. 29 180 HC Deb, 19 Feb. 1925, 1435. 172 Notes to Chapter 1 173 30 Leslie Hannah, Electricity before Nationalisation: a study of the Electricity Supply Industry in Britain to 1948 (London: Macmillan Press, now Palgrave, 1979), p.98– 100. 31 191 HC Deb, 18 Feb. 1926, 2280. 32 Harris, Attlee, p.77. 33 The Times, 27 Feb. 1926, 16. 34 Golant, ‘The Political Development of C.R. Attlee’, p.197. 35 Report of the Indian Statutory Commission, vol.II – Recomendations, May 1930, PSP Cmd. 3569, 21–2. 36 C.R. Attlee, Cabinet Memorandum, ‘The Problems of British Industry’, 29 July 1930, CAB24/214C.P.283(30). 37 Attlee, As it Happened, p.69. 38 C.R. Attlee to Tom Attlee, 1 Nov. 1930, C.R. Attlee’s Letters to his brother Tom, Bodleian Library, MSS. Eng. c. 4792, fol.38. Reproduced by permission of Anne, Countless Attlee. 39 C.R. Attlee Memorandum, ‘Particular Application of the General Principle’, 1931, Attlee Family Papers. Reproduced by permission of Anne, Countess Attlee. 40 Lord Ponsonby to MacDonald, Jan. 1931, Ponsonby Papers, Bodleian Library, MS. Eng. hist. c. 672, fol.4. Reproduced by permission of Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. 41 249 HC Deb, 19 March 1931, 2224. 42 Oswald Mosley, My Life (London: Nelson, 1968) p.232. 43 Hugh Dalton, Call Back Yesterday: Memoirs, 1887–1931 (London: Frederick Muller, 1953), p.259. 44 John Parker, Father of the House: Fifty Years in Politics (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), p.35. 45 Pearce, Attlee, p.42. 46 Philip Williamson, National Crisis and National Government: British Politics, the Economy and Empire, 1926–1932 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p.214. 47 Sidey Webb, ‘What Happened in 1931: a Record’, Political Quarterly, III (1932) 3. 48 Attlee, As it Happened, p.74. 49 Williamson, National Crisis and National Government, p.17. 50 Keith Laybourn, Philip Snowden: a Biography, 1864–1937 (Aldershot: Temple Smith, 1988), p.120. 51 257 HC Deb, 2 Oct. 1931, 707–12. 52 Ibid., 726 and 771. 53 Memorandum, ‘The Labour Party in Opposition’, Nancy Astor Papers, Reading University, MS 1416/1/1/1027. Reproduced by permission of Reading University Archives and Manuscripts Office. 54 G.T. Garratt, The Mugwumps and the Labour Party (London: Hogarth, 1932), p.147. 55 Andrew Thorpe, The British General Election of 1931 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 254. 56 James Jupp, The Radical Left in Britain, 1931–41 (London: Frank Cass, 1982), p.4. 57 Pearce, Attlee, p.50. 174 Notes 58 David Jarvis, ‘Stanley Baldwin and the Ideology of the Consrvative Response to Socialism, 1918–31’, unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Lancaster University, 1991, p.540–1. Chapter 2 Attlee and the Depression, 1931–5 1 Burridge, Clement Attlee, p.74. 2 G.D.H. Cole, ‘Memorandum on the Disposal of Profits and the Control of Expenditure of Socialised Undertakings’, 14 Dec. 1933, G.D.H. Cole Papers, Nuffield College, GDHC/D1/58/5/2. Reproduced by permission of R.J.D. Cole. 3 Herbert Morrison, An Autobiography (London: Odhams, 1960), p.122. 4 Labour Party, Report of the 32nd Annual Conference (London: Labour Party, 1932), p.205. 5 East London Advertiser, 5 Sept. 1931, 5. 6 R.H. Tawney, ‘The Choice before the Labour Party’, Political Quarterly, III (1932) 326. 7 H.V. Barry to Cripps, 16 Jan. 1935, Cripps Papers, Nuffield College, MSS. CRIPPS 554. Reproduced by permission of Lady Ann Cripps. 8 Pethick-Lawrence to Cole, 7 June 1932, Cole Papers, GDHC/D1/69/34/4. 9 Labour Party, Report of the 33rd Annual Conference (London: Labour Party, 1933), p.161. 10 Ibid., p.162. 11 The Economist, 10 June 1933, 1237. 12 Friday Group, Easton Lodge weekend, notes for discussion, 16–17 April 1932, Cole Papers, GDHC/D1/67/1/1–2. 13 Article, ‘Labour and the Banks’, New Statesman and Nation, 14 Oct. 1932, 438. 14 Friday Group, Easton Lodge weekend, notes for discussion, 16–17 April 1932, Cole Papers, GDHC/D1/67/1/1–4. 15 Salisbury to Samuel, 5 Nov. 1932, Samuel Papers, House of Lords Record Office, HLRO, Hist. Coll. 128, Samuel Papers, A92(1). Reproduced by permis- sion of the House of Lords Record Office. 16 Friday Group Minutes, 13 May 1932, Cole Papers, GDHC/D1/66/2/1. 17 Golant, ‘The Political Development of C.R. Attlee’, p.237–8. 18 C.R. Attlee Memorandum, ‘Cabinet Reconstruction’, 10 Nov. 1932, Cole Papers, GDHC/D1/68/5/2. 19 E. Shinwell, ‘Notes on Cabinet Reconstruction’, 26 Oct. 1932, Cole Papers, GDHC/D1/68/5/2. 20 Hugh Dalton, ‘Cabinet Reconstruction’, 10 Nov. 1932, Cole Papers, GDHC/D1/68/6/2. 21 Stephen Brooke, Labour’s War: the Labour Party during the Second World War (Oxford: Oxford Historical Manuscripts, 1992), p.19. 22 C. Clarke and C.R. Attlee Memorandum, ‘Industrial Reconstruction’, 1932 (date uncertain), Attlee Family Papers. 23 Ben Pimlott, Hugh Dalton (London: Macmillan, 1986), p.212. 24 C.R. Attlee, The Will and the Way to Socialism (London: Methuen, 1935) p.44–5. Notes to Chapter 2 175 25 Hugh Dalton Memorandum, ‘Finance and Trade Policy’, March 1933, Addison Papers, Bodleian Library, Box 128, File 172/4/710. Reproduced by permission of Viscount Addison. 26 Attlee, The Will and the Way to Socialism, p.45–6. 27 Dalton Memorandum, ‘Finance and Trade Policy’, March 1933, Addison Papers, Box 128, File 172/4/710. 28 Elizabeth Durbin, New Jerusalems: the Labour Party and the Economics of Democratic Socialism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), p.59. 29 C.R. Attlee to John Parker, 2 August 1937, Cole Papers, GDHC/D1/56/5/1. 30 Kenneth O. Morgan, Labour People: Leaders and Lieutenants, Hardie to Kinnock (Oxford: OUP, 1989), p.112. 31 C.R. Attlee to J.E. Meade, n/d, Meade Papers, British Library of Political and Economic Science, MEADE 2/5. 32 Labour Party, For Socialism and Peace: the Labour Party’s Programme of Action (London: Labour Party, 1934), p.28. 33 Alan Booth, ‘How Long are Light Years in British Politics? The Labour Party’s Economic Ideas in the 1930s’, Twentieth Century British History, VII (1996) 22. 34 Harris, Attlee, p.102–4. 35 274 HC Deb, 16 Feb. 1933, 1305. 36 265 HC Deb, 26 April 1932, 332. 37 286 HC Deb, 22 Feb. 1934, 628. 38 Ibid., 640. 39 Daily Herald, 10 Oct. 1932, C.R. Attlee Newspaper Cuttings File, National Museum of Labour History. 40 272 HC Deb, 25 Nov. 1932, 378. 41 267 HC Deb, 20 June 1932, 836. 42 Ibid., 640. 43 261 HC Deb, 10 Feb. 1932, 1589. 44 270 HC Deb, 7 Nov. 1932, 140. 45 277 HC Deb, 8 May 1933, 1303. 46 Ibid., 1324. 47 272 HC Deb, 25 Nov. 1932, 382. 48 Unsigned Memorandum, ‘Co-operative Societies and Income Tax’, Sept. 1931, Astor Papers, MS 1416/1/1/978. 49 George Gentry to Snowden, 5 Sept. 1931, Astor Papers, MS 1416/1/1/978. 50 A.V. Alexander, ‘Points to Elaborate to Sir Stafford Cripps’, n/d,Cripps Papers, MSS. CRIPPS 526. 51 277 HC Deb, 26 April 1933, 113–14. 52 278 HC Deb, 31 May 1933, 1952. 53 Golant, ‘The Political Development of C.R. Attlee’, p.252–3. 54 Attlee, The Will and the Way to Socialism, p.47. 55 Ibid., p.54. 56 Friday Group, Easton Lodge weekend, notes for discussion, 16–17 May 1932, Cole Papers, GDHC/D1/67/1/3. 57 261 HC Deb, 4 Feb. 1932, 301. 58 265 HC Deb, 27 April 1932, 463.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Discussing What Prime Ministers Are For
    Discussing what Prime Ministers are for PETER HENNESSY New Labour has a lot to answer for on this front. They On 13 October 2014, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield FBA, had seen what the press was doing to John Major from Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Black Wednesday onwards – relentless attacks on him, Mary, University of London, delivered the first British which bothered him deeply.1 And they were determined Academy Lecture in Politics and Government, on ‘What that this wouldn’t happen to them. So they went into are Prime Ministers for?’ A video recording of the lecture the business of creating permanent rebuttal capabilities. and an article published in the Journal of the British Academy If somebody said something offensive about the can be found via www.britishacademy.ac.uk/events/2014/ Government on the Today programme, they would make every effort to put it right by the World at One. They went The following article contains edited extracts from the into this kind of mania of permanent rebuttal, which question and answer session that followed the lecture. means that you don’t have time to reflect before reacting to events. It’s arguable now that, if the Government doesn’t Do we expect Prime Ministers to do too much? react to events immediately, other people’s versions of breaking stories (circulating through social media etc.) I think it was 1977 when the Procedure Committee in will make the pace, and it won’t be able to get back on the House of Commons wanted the Prime Minister to be top of an issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Recent Writings on the History of Great Britain from 1832 to 1868
    Some Recent Writings on the History of Great Britain from 1832 to 1868 THE PURPOSE of this review article is to try to provide some guidance for New Zealand sixth-form teachers involved with the University Entrance topic on Great Britain, 1832-1868. The syllabus directs the teacher to cover the following problems: 'Industrialisation and urbanisation; economic growth and economic fluctuations; the situation established by the 1832 Reform Act; social and administrative reform from the 1830s to the 1860s; the rise, achievements and fall of Peel; the occasions, goals and results of agitation; the revival and results of political reform in the 1860s; party government and party organisation' (University Grants Committee Handbook, 1975, p. 158). This is certainly an ambitious programme but it is one which provides • an opportunity for the teacher and the students to familiarize themselves with the sorts of issues which are dominant in modern historical writing. It is, therefore, somewhat disappointing that the topic is one of the least popular, being heavily beaten in the popularity contest by those topics covering what was often the major element in Stage III university courses in the 1940s and 1950s: diplomacy and nationalism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This may not be the best way to preserve a diet of serious history against the intellectual porridge known as social studies. It also seems strange that more interest cannot be generated in the very society from which New Zealand's own governing traditions emerge. The present discussion of those traditions in their original, early Victorian British context is marked by a great, not to say, bewildering variety of interpretations as well as by a rather self-conscious concern with method.
    [Show full text]
  • The Communist Party of Great Britain Since 1920 Also by David Renton
    The Communist Party of Great Britain since 1920 Also by David Renton RED SHIRTS AND BLACK: Fascism and Anti-Fascism in Oxford in the ‘Thirties FASCISM: Theory and Practice FASCISM, ANTI-FASCISM AND BRITAIN IN THE 1940s THE TWENTIETH CENTURY: A Century of Wars and Revolutions? (with Keith Flett) SOCIALISM IN LIVERPOOL: Episodes in a History of Working-Class Struggle THIS ROUGH GAME: Fascism and Anti-Fascism in European History MARX ON GLOBALISATION CLASSICAL MARXISM: Socialist Theory and the Second International The Communist Party of Great Britain since 1920 James Eaden and David Renton © James Eaden and David Renton 2002 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2002 978-0-333-94968-9 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2002 by PALGRAVE Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE is the new global academic imprint of St.
    [Show full text]
  • Fabian Society
    SOS POLITICAL SCIENCE & PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION M.A POLITICAL SCIENCE II SEM POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: MODERN POLITICAL THOUGHT, THEORY & CONTEMPORARY IDEOLOGIES UNIT-III Topic Name-fabian socialism WHAT IS MEANT BY FABIAN SOCIALISM? • The Fabian Society is a British socialistorganisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow WHO STARTED THE FABIAN SOCIETY? • Its nine founding members were Frank Podmore, Edward R. Pease, William Clarke, Hubert Bland, Percival Chubb, Frederick Keddell, H. H. Champion, Edith Nesbit, and Rosamund Dale Owen. WHO IS THE PROPOUNDER OF FABIAN SOCIALISM? • In the period between the two World Wars, the "Second Generation" Fabians, including the writers R. H. Tawney, G. D. H. Cole and Harold Laski, continued to be a major influence on socialistthought. But the general idea is that each man should have power according to his knowledge and capacity. WHAT IS THE FABIAN POLICY? • The Fabian strategy is a military strategy where pitched battles and frontal assaults are avoided in favor of wearing down an opponent through a war of attrition and indirection. While avoiding decisive battles, the side employing this strategy harasses its enemy through skirmishes to cause attrition, disrupt supply and affect morale. Employment of this strategy implies that the side adopting this strategy believes time is on its side, but it may also be adopted when no feasible alternative strategy can be devised. HISTORY • This
    [Show full text]
  • The Attlee Governments
    Vic07 10/15/03 2:11 PM Page 159 Chapter 7 The Attlee governments The election of a majority Labour government in 1945 generated great excitement on the left. Hugh Dalton described how ‘That first sensa- tion, tingling and triumphant, was of a new society to be built. There was exhilaration among us, joy and hope, determination and confi- dence. We felt exalted, dedication, walking on air, walking with destiny.’1 Dalton followed this by aiding Herbert Morrison in an attempt to replace Attlee as leader of the PLP.2 This was foiled by the bulky protection of Bevin, outraged at their plotting and disloyalty. Bevin apparently hated Morrison, and thought of him as ‘a scheming little bastard’.3 Certainly he thought Morrison’s conduct in the past had been ‘devious and unreliable’.4 It was to be particularly irksome for Bevin that it was Morrison who eventually replaced him as Foreign Secretary in 1951. The Attlee government not only generated great excitement on the left at the time, but since has also attracted more attention from academics than any other period of Labour history. Foreign policy is a case in point. The foreign policy of the Attlee government is attractive to study because it spans so many politically and historically significant issues. To start with, this period was unique in that it was the first time that there was a majority Labour government in British political history, with a clear mandate and programme of reform. Whereas the two minority Labour governments of the inter-war period had had to rely on support from the Liberals to pass legislation, this time Labour had power as well as office.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • FSC Contents.Qxp
    Corbyn.qxp 21/01/2015 15:03 Page 10 10 Trident’s Farewell? The Politics The Agreement between the UK and the USA for Co-operation in the Uses of Atomic of Trident Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes, also known as the Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA), was signed in 1958. It allows the United States and the UK to exchange nuclear materials, technology and information. After many years, on 6 Jeremy Corbyn MP November 2014, the UK Parliament finally Julian Lewis MP debated the Agreement, although not its renewal, which fell due at the end of 2014. Few Members of Parliament attended this landmark debate, which revealed some of the politics of Trident nuclear weapons. The debate was secured by Jeremy Corbyn and Julian Lewis, who are on opposite sides of the discussion about upgrading Trident nuclear missiles for another generation. *** Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Labour): … Why do we have to debate something as fundamental as a mutual defence agreement with the United States in time allocated by the Backbench Business Committee? The answer is that Governments of all hues – this applies to my party, as well as the coalition Government and previous Conservative Governments – have been reluctant to have parliamentary debates on this subject … It is interesting that parliamentary scrutiny of the mutual defence agreement and nuclear weapons has been in short supply going back to the end of the second world war. The National The author was formerly Archives in Kew has a document, ‘Extracts Russian Ambassador to from a memorandum on the Atomic Bomb the Conference on from Prime Minister Clement Attlee, 28th Disarmament in Geneva.
    [Show full text]
  • In a Rather Emotional State?' the Labour Party and British Intervention in Greece, 1944-5
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE 'In a rather emotional state?' The Labour party and British intervention in Greece, 1944-5 AUTHORS Thorpe, Andrew JOURNAL The English Historical Review DEPOSITED IN ORE 12 February 2008 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10036/18097 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication 1 ‘IN A RATHER EMOTIONAL STATE’? THE LABOUR PARTY AND BRITISH INTERVENTION IN GREECE, 1944-45* Professor Andrew Thorpe Department of History University of Exeter Exeter EX4 4RJ Tel: 01392-264396 Fax: 01392-263305 Email: [email protected] 2 ‘IN A RATHER EMOTIONAL STATE’? THE LABOUR PARTY AND BRITISH INTERVENTION IN GREECE, 1944-45 As the Second World War drew towards a close, the leader of the Labour party, Clement Attlee, was well aware of the meagre and mediocre nature of his party’s representation in the House of Lords. With the Labour leader in the Lords, Lord Addison, he hatched a plan whereby a number of worthy Labour veterans from the Commons would be elevated to the upper house in the 1945 New Years Honours List. The plan, however, was derailed at the last moment. On 19 December Attlee wrote to tell Addison that ‘it is wiser to wait a bit. We don’t want by-elections at the present time with our people in a rather emotional state on Greece – the Com[munist]s so active’.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain and Europe
    Britain and Europe ROBERT COOPER Forty years after Britain joined Europe both have changed, mostly for the better. This story does not, however, begin in 1972 when the negotiations finished and were ratified by parliament, nor in 1973 when the UK took its place at the Council table as a full member, but ten years before with the first British application and the veto by General de Gaulle. Sometimes, going further back still, it is suggested that if Ernest Bevin’s ideas for West European cooperation had been pursued,1 or if Britain had decided to join talks on the Schuman Plan,2 or to take the Spaak Committee seriously,3 things might have been different. But the truth is there was no Robert Schuman or Jean Monnet in Britain, and no readiness to think in radically new terms. Had the UK been present at the negotiations that led to the European Coal and Steel Community, the outcome for Britain would probably still have been the same, precisely because the vision was lacking. The decision on the Schuman Plan was a close-run thing—the idea of planning for heavy industry being in accordance with the ideas of the Labour government. But British ideas were very different from those of the French or the Americans, who were thinking in terms of supranational bodies—indeed, for Monnet this was a cardinal point. His approach was supported by the Benelux countries, which were already setting up their own customs union. Bevin had an ambition to lead Europe, but it is not clear where he wanted to take it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of the Attlee Government and the Post War Consensus
    The Legacy of the Attlee Government and the Post War Consensus In 1945 Labour won a landslide election victory. It was the first time in its history that Labour had been able to form a government with a majority in the House of Commons. The new government, under Clement Attlee as Prime Minister, introduced a range of policies that set the agenda for post war British politics. These policies included: The creation of nationalised industries and the mixed economy. Between 1946 and 1951, several industries including coal, iron and steel, gas, electricity, the railways, road haulage and telephones were brought under state ownership (“nationalised”). This amounted to 20% of British industry and 10% of the workforce. But there was no attempt to go further, with most industry remaining privately run. This is called “the mixed economy”. Underpinning this change was a commitment by the government to ensure full employment. No one wanted a return to the “Hungry Thirties” with its mass unemployment and poverty. The creation of the welfare state. The experience of the 1930s with its inequalities (“the haves and the have nots”) and the sacrifices made during the war years to ensure victory meant that there was a determination to secure a better future for the British people. The government was committed to introducing universal state benefits, affordable housing and a National Health Service. Between 1946 and 1951: 1. A series of measures ensured universal (for all) child benefits, unemployment benefits, old age pensions, and extra benefits for the destitute 2. A massive house building programme, partly to replace houses destroyed in the Blitz and to clear Victorian slums.
    [Show full text]
  • A Socialist Schism
    A Socialist Schism: British socialists' reaction to the downfall of Milošević by Andrew Michael William Cragg Submitted to Central European University Department of History In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Professor Marsha Siefert Second Reader: Professor Vladimir Petrović CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2017 Copyright notice Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies by any process, either in full or part, may be made only in accordance with the instructions given by the Author and lodged in the Central European Library. Details may be obtained from the librarian. This page must form a part of any such copies made. Further copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the written permission of the Author. CEU eTD Collection i Abstract This work charts the contemporary history of the socialist press in Britain, investigating its coverage of world events in the aftermath of the fall of state socialism. In order to do this, two case studies are considered: firstly, the seventy-eight day NATO bombing campaign over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, and secondly, the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević in October of 2000. The British socialist press analysis is focused on the Morning Star, the only English-language socialist daily newspaper in the world, and the multiple publications affiliated to minor British socialist parties such as the Socialist Workers’ Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). The thesis outlines a broad history of the British socialist movement and its media, before moving on to consider the case studies in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Orme) Wilberforce (Albert) Raymond Blackburn (Alexander Bell
    Copyrights sought (Albert) Basil (Orme) Wilberforce (Albert) Raymond Blackburn (Alexander Bell) Filson Young (Alexander) Forbes Hendry (Alexander) Frederick Whyte (Alfred Hubert) Roy Fedden (Alfred) Alistair Cooke (Alfred) Guy Garrod (Alfred) James Hawkey (Archibald) Berkeley Milne (Archibald) David Stirling (Archibald) Havergal Downes-Shaw (Arthur) Berriedale Keith (Arthur) Beverley Baxter (Arthur) Cecil Tyrrell Beck (Arthur) Clive Morrison-Bell (Arthur) Hugh (Elsdale) Molson (Arthur) Mervyn Stockwood (Arthur) Paul Boissier, Harrow Heraldry Committee & Harrow School (Arthur) Trevor Dawson (Arwyn) Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Basil Arthur) John Peto (Basil) Kingsley Martin (Basil) Kingsley Martin (Basil) Kingsley Martin & New Statesman (Borlasse Elward) Wyndham Childs (Cecil Frederick) Nevil Macready (Cecil George) Graham Hayman (Charles Edward) Howard Vincent (Charles Henry) Collins Baker (Charles) Alexander Harris (Charles) Cyril Clarke (Charles) Edgar Wood (Charles) Edward Troup (Charles) Frederick (Howard) Gough (Charles) Michael Duff (Charles) Philip Fothergill (Charles) Philip Fothergill, Liberal National Organisation, N-E Warwickshire Liberal Association & Rt Hon Charles Albert McCurdy (Charles) Vernon (Oldfield) Bartlett (Charles) Vernon (Oldfield) Bartlett & World Review of Reviews (Claude) Nigel (Byam) Davies (Claude) Nigel (Byam) Davies (Colin) Mark Patrick (Crwfurd) Wilfrid Griffin Eady (Cyril) Berkeley Ormerod (Cyril) Desmond Keeling (Cyril) George Toogood (Cyril) Kenneth Bird (David) Euan Wallace (Davies) Evan Bedford (Denis Duncan)
    [Show full text]