To What Extent Is It Fair to Say That Attlee's Government Had Failed to Transform Britain by 1951?

890 Words4 Pages
To what extent is it fair to say that Attlee's government had failed to transform Britain by 1951? By 1945, the Second World War was over and the Labour government was voted in to government. The Conservatives had dominated the wartime coalition government, causing a great shock when Labour won with a majority of 146 seats over all parties in the 1945 election. During Clement Attlee's role as Prime Minister between the years 1945-1951 he made some great changes to Britain, such as the welfare state and the NHS. However, it is usually debated how much Clement Attlee actually transformed Britain. Many people believed that Attlee's government failed to transform Britain by 1951. Firstly, some people believe that the Labour government failed to look ahead; they spent too much time trying to solve the social and economic problems of interwar Britain rather than planning for a post-war world. For example they didnt encourage investment into new machinery or methods, nor did they try and modernise the constitution. Many believe they should have devoted scarce resources on industrial recovery rather spending them on the National Health Service. Focusing on post-war times by investing into modernization would have greatly changed Britain, it would have created more efficient production methods which would have satisfied the rising consumerism of the British public. Failing to modernize meant that Britain wasnt growing industrially. Secondly, the Attlee government failed to make attempts to move towards the EU which was beginning to spread across the English Channel. The labour party even declined invitations into the European Union. The government preferred to maintain faith in the Commonwealth and the British-USA relationship. This, again presented the resistance of the Attlee government in moving forwards by creating relationships on the world stage. Joining the
Open Document