Introduction
Two general elections were held in the UK in 1974. During that time, there were three dominant political parties namely; Liberal, Conservative and the Labour party. The first election was held in February and the second one in October. In the first general election, the Conservative party won by a slim margin but was not enough to give it a conclusive majority in the House of Commons. In fact, the Conservative Party had 37.9% of the votes cast while the Labour Party had 37.2%.
In the second elections held in October, the Labour party emerged victorious garnering 39.2% of the votes while the Conservative Party came in second with 35.8% of the votes. Though we can say that the Conservative party did not lose the first elections per se, the argument still holds that the party lost the election since it did not occupy office as is the case with winning an election. The losing is cemented by the resigning of the incumbent Conservative Party leader Edward Heath.
Various authors and political analysts have come out to dissect the reasons as to why such a previously dominant party and an incumbent by then lost two general elections in the space of one year. In this paper, we critically take an incisive look at the various factors that could have contributed to the party’s failure of retaining its position in forming a government.
Why the Conservatives lost the 1974 general elections
The main failing of the Conservative Party was placed on its policies expressed in the party’s manifesto. In the party’s manifesto emphasis was placed on protecting Britain from external threats, protecting the environment, curbing the energy crisis, rewarding pensioners more handsomely, protecting the rights of the individual, reforming the local governments, seeking peace in Northern Ireland, protect and preserve the Sovereignty of Britain, restraining and strengthening of immigration laws, promoting the arts and music sector of the economy and finally improving education.
However, it is important to note some of these ideas were the same as those of other parties including the Labour Party as the major threat to the Conservative Party. However, differences existed on how to effect some of the recommended measures.
The Labour Party believed in developing education by introducing a national scheme of Nursery Schools and daycare facilities. This was meant to take care of the young children who were more often than not left unattended in education matters until a later age. The proposed program was also to take care of the older children in the range of 16 to 18 years through increasing the number of schools. Other institutions would be set up to take care of kids with special needs. The Conservative Party also pledged all of this but the main difference was their stand on grants and tax relief to fund public schools.
The conservatives firmly believed that providing grants and other forms of financial support to public schools would improve the situation while the Labour Party believed that any form of grants and charity towards public schools should be withdrawn. by a big expansion of educational facilities for 16-18-year-olds, by finally ending the 11+ and by providing additional resources for children in special need of help. They were to speed the development of a universal system of fully comprehensive secondary schools. All forms of tax relief and charitable status for public schools will be withdrawn. This is one of the policies that came to cost the Conservative party as the public seemed to favour the Labour party’s idea of abolishing grants and tax relief to public schools.
Another major difference that had even before the election set the parties on different paths was the issue regarding race and immigration. The conservatives had in 1971 managed to pass an act of parliament that called for more stringent rules in immigration laws. To the Labour Party, the laws though not directly related, promoted racism. According to the Labour Party’s manifesto of 1974, the party promised to review the law on nationality so that it was based on citizenship and eliminate discrimination on the basis of colour. In defending their stance the Conservatives argued that they were protecting the local British citizen from overcrowding the labour sector as it seemed by then that employment levels were declining.
The popular idea in regards to racism and immigration was to become one of the greatest differences between the two parties which according to Brown (1999) was the final nail to the Conservatives coffin in regards to the 1974 general elections. The electorate was as is expected consisting of both the sellers and the buyers. Therefore it was the idea of seeking a balance in finding favour with both parties that would win votes and support from either side.
Consumer protection by the government was high on the agenda for the two parties. However, there are many differences in the way that the two parties viewed on the best way of protecting the consumer. To the Labour Party protecting the consumer meant reducing the power of monopolies and nationalize some of the major companies in crucial industries. The targets, in this case, were the shipbuilding and mining sectors. However, the party took caution and renamed this process as socializing the industries.
Such a move was aimed at seeking favour with a larger consumer electorate. The Labour party on the other hand sought to strengthen the capitalist industries owned by individuals as a means of increasing the employment levels in the country. The move was also meant to seek the establishment of strong consumer trade unions that would protect the public. On the other hand, the Conservative Party was a bit sceptical about trade unions as to them they seemed to be one of the many avenues to fleece consumers.
1974 happened to the year when the 1970’s oil embargo was biting hard across the globe. Having been in power, the conservative Party was blamed for the hard economic times that we’re facing Britain by then. But contrary to common belief among the locals, the problem was not unique to Britain alone. What followed after was the upsurge in global prices of commodities thereby driving the cost of living high.
As is common, the Government in power in such times of crisis takes the blame with the opposition quick to take advantage and pint fingers at the government in power. This worked for the Labour Party. In their campaigns then, they emphasized the need to bring about a change in the way things were being done by the government in power. Their campaigns bore fruit as the desperate electorate loaded with the burden of increasing costs of living believed in the Labour Party’s promises of a better future with more bearable product prices. The conservatives failed in assuring the electorate of their capabilities in arresting the situation and thus lost.
The ability by the Labour Party in its campaigns to convince the electorate that a change in the custodian of the state was the only way forward was deemed to work. The Labour Party candidate Harold Wilson was often quoted saying ”Britain needs a new Government, and the Labour Party is ready with the policies essential to rescue the nation from the most serious political and economic crisis since 1945.” In his terms, he referred to the rising prices and housing costs. He was aware of the causes that had led to the crisis; oil shortage. As a politician, he did not play the ball in agreeing that some of the occurrences were beyond the British government’s help but could only dilute the situation but an absolute answer could not be found.
Harold and Labour’s main selling point unlike the Conservatives was that they were promising change to the electorate to the very dire situation. Out of desperation, the electorate bought the Labour’s ideas. However, it must be noted and credit is given where due that though the Tories as the Conservatives are fondly known lost the two elections narrowly. This pointed to something bigger; the party had support only the marketing of the party and more so the timing. Otherwise, the situation would have been completely different.
In regards to the timing of the elections apart from the slackening global economy due to the world energy crisis, Britain was losing its global political position gradually. In the early 1970’s Edward Heath, a Conservative as the British Premier had seen the worsening of the situation of the war in Northern Ireland. Between 1970 and 1974 Britain was plagued by a stagnant economy and a declining international political position. Patriotism crusaders were quick to point and blame the government in power due to the falling popularity of the country. Joined by the Labour’s the labelling and blaming of the Conservative government was to have a greater effect than earlier thought.
One thing that is undeniable in any given election be it in political parties or other areas is the personality of the candidates. For once, the incumbent Conservatives led by Edward Heath were according to Heclo (1974, pg 229) supposed to have an advantage over their rivals. Why? Because he argues that the party had a proven track record though not anything extraordinary to show for unlike the case with their rivals.
Having accomplished in registering Britain to the European Community today known as the European Union, Heath had other minor accomplishments to boast of only that he didn’t know how to formulate them into winning ideas. In politics, it is important to be convincing so as your ideas seem to have life and are capable of cultivating confidence from the electorate and other stakeholders such as investors both local and foreign.
In doing this Heath could not match Harold. In fact, Owen (1988, pg 118) refers to Harold’s speeches as a winning strategy and not only as a campaign highway. Another personality issue linked to having caused the Conservatives the chance to form a government was Heath’s three-day work week to conserve energy, and pacify the effect of striking miners. This plan did not work out in his favour. It backfired and put the government and the country into more trouble.
As one of the world’s superpowers and a force to reckon with (as shown during the Second and First World War), Britain’s relationship with the outside world is paramount in determining the way forward in terms of world peace and development. As such the issue of foreign policy took centre stage in selling the party’s manifestos and ideas during the two general elections. Though the ideas and policies bought forward by the rivals were viewed to protect the sovereignty of Britain and maintaining her influential position in global politics not any of them would work as efficiently as the other.
Therefore the task rested in finding the most appropriate combination with the least possible repercussions. In their manifesto, the Labour Party submitted that the way Britain relates with other countries in the world is very crucial as states were increasingly becoming more and more economically and politically interdependent. The energy crisis that had plagued the world in the last two years prior to the elections was a pointer to the need for better cooperation with other countries to avert a repeat of such a case.
The Labour Party accused the Conservative government of failing to curb the energy crisis which had been created intentionally by the oil-producing countries in order to hike world oil prices. In the long run, the Labour motivated the Electorate in finding fault with the Conservative government for failing to curb the crisis. In their manifesto thus, the Labour party promised to forge more cordial relationships with Commonwealth member countries and oil-producing countries so as to court them to increase oil supply to ease the prices.
In the unedited version of the Labour Party 1974 manifesto, it is written ”The same is true if the world is to succeed in solving the problems of inflation, of poverty, of economic growth and full employment. We are more than ever in one world. Labour’s foreign policy is, therefore, dedicated to strengthening international institutions and to world co-operation in all fields, including trade and currency.” Contrary to this, the Conservatives’ foreign policy was not that convincing. In the 1974 Conservative manifesto, this is what the party promised the electorate, ”In the last two years there has been a dramatic rise in the world price of almost all the essential raw materials and foods which we have to import from overseas.
Many of these prices have doubled in the past year alone, making it impossible to stem the rise in the cost of living. Now on top of these increases comes the huge increase in oil prices, which in turn will affect the cost of almost everything that we produce or buy in this country.” Though this might have been the reality, it was not what the already suffering citizen would love to hear under any circumstances. The Labour knew that the trick lay in promising a good future though the probability of it happening was slim it was still workable. In the long run, their method worked to their advantage.
Conclusions
The Conservatives have lost two general elections narrowly in the space of one year felt really offended. The moral from the narrow losses led to the party reorganizing itself with high levels of success. This was demonstrated with the following general elections where the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher formed the government whose uninterrupted term was a very significant show of the might of the Conservatives. Therefore in my opinion and as analysts have shown, the Conservatives lost the elections not because it was the weaker party in terms of numbers but due to timing and other external forces.
References
Brown, M. (2007) Politics in the face of a crisis. London: OUP.
Owen, K. (1999) The making of a leader. London: Penguin.
Heclo, Mian et al. (1977) The Conservative Party: Down but not out. New York: Prentice Hall.
Raymond, C. (2006) Labour vs. Tories: A tale of two rivals. London: Macmillan.
Ramsden, J. (1980) The Making of Conservative Policy. London: Longman. Web.
Heath’s biography. Web.
Conservative Party. Web.
Labour Party’s. Web.
Labour Party’s unedited 1974. Web.