Why Did Labour Win The 1964 Election?

‘The Conservatives’ inability to economically modernise Britain was the main reason why Labour won the 1964 election.’ Assess the validity of this statement (45)

The 1964 election changed the British political landscape forever as a thirteen-year Conservative dominance crumbled at the hands of Harold Wilson and his youthful Labour Party. Historians, such as Rowe, postulate that there are a plethora of reasons to why Labour won the 1964 election, most prominently because of the Conservatives’ inability to economically modernise Britain. Contrastingly, other historians such as Lynch uphold the opinion that there are other factors responsible for Labour’s victory, including Labour’s prominence in areas of politics where the Conservatives lacked
Indeed, a major reason for Labour’s victory was because Harold Wilson advocated a campaign for economic modernisation of Britain so the nation did not fall behind the excelling economies of European rivals such as West Germany. Economists raise the significant point that economic modernisation looks at the internal dynamics of a nation while referring to social and cultural structures and the adaptation of new technologies. The Conservatives failed in every social and economic aspect of this theory, as shown in 1963, as unemployment reached approximately 800,000 making a mockery of Macmillan’s, ‘never had it so good speech.’ The inability of the Conservative Party to economically modernise Britain led not only to their downfall in the 1964 election, but also to the collapse of Britain’s economy during this era. Economists point out that as a result of Conservative mismanagement of the economic sectors, Britain faced financial hardships, including a huge balance of payments deficit, which undeniably caused higher levels of inflation, causing the cost of living for ordinary British people to rise. Moreover, the economic boom of the late 1950s and the, ‘Age of Affluence,’ had reached its end, with great saturation in the markets for consumer goods. Inevitably, poor
Indeed, they polled 49.4% of the vote in 1959 but only 43.6% in 1964, a telling contribution to their defeat. Although some political analysts concur that the Liberal Revival did contribute somewhat to this landslide destruction in opinion polls, Marr concludes that the exemplifying reason for the Conservative downfall was weariness and a lack of spirit after thirteen unbroken years in government. Indeed, the Conservatives were viewed as, ‘out of touch,’ by the electorate and were plagued with various sex scandals, involving several key politicians. One such scandal was the Vassal Affair, where a civil worker within the Conservative Party was sought out to have been a Soviet spy. This greatly tarnished Macmillan’s ability as leader as he failed to spot a perpetrator at the heart of the Conservative establishment. Marr also brings to our attention the Philby Case, but more notorious was the Profumo Affair, in such a high ranking individual within the Conservative Party was caught to liaising in sexual relations with a lady with ties to the Soviet Embassy. In the heat of a Cold War environment, this was another grave security risk and provided satirical TV and radio shows with comical content for weeks as details of the case poured out of national newspapers. Moreover, the Argyll Case tarnished the reputation of the Conservative Party once and for all as