Must Labour lose?
Lessons from post-war history
in Labour and working-class lives
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.

ACCESS TOKENS

If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

This chapter explores what light can be shed on the party's present-day malaise by its wider post-war performance, which includes other low points, such as those of 1983 and 1992, as well as that of 1959. A short overview of Labour's post-war losses underlines the importance of two key determinants: disunity and poor leadership. Labour's history shows that while avoiding disunity is not a sufficient condition of regaining power, it is a necessary one. Internal strife and inadequate leadership have clearly cost Labour dear on numerous occasions, and both feature prominently on the list of contingent, avoidable factors that have contributed to the party's patchy record at Westminster elections. In the 1950s and 1980s especially, Labour seemed willing to prolong its internecine warfare without much regard for the electoral consequences.

Labour and working-class lives

Essays to celebrate the life and work of Chris Wrigley

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 65 27 0
Full Text Views 34 4 0
PDF Downloads 29 9 0