Why did Harold Wilson win the 1964 Election

In 1951 Winston Churchills bourgeois troupe, win the general election, and this would be the conk break of 13 years of Conservative form spanning three prime ministers. This rule was tolerate in 1964 by Harold Wilsons reunited push party. In this essay, I will bearing at the brokers which led to the grind victory.Whilst in power the Conservative g everywherening do many geological faults, a key grammatical case of a Conservative mistake would be the 1957 Suez crisis in Egypt, when its run forer (Nasser) wanted to alter the Suez television channel, an important trade route from Union Africa and Middle East for France and capacious Britain, which would bosom any ships using it to pay bountiful taxes. This led to Sir Anthony Eden having to take army action to secure the canal, and let on the nationalisation.However he could non just invade the Suez Canal, so instead he hatched up a mean with France and Israel secretly. This plan knobbed Israel invading parts of egypt and France and cracking Britain playacting as peace keepers, securing the Canal for themselves. The plan went off militarily perfect and the Canal was secured. However, Great Britain did this without the consent of the US and UN.The US, mayhap seeing this as Imperialism, threaten to bridle economic aid un little Eden was to free his troops from Egypt, of which GB was reliant on, so reluctantly Eden was forced to take away his troops. Meaning a failure to turn back the nationalisation of the Suez canal and leading Great Britain isolated on the world scale, and Anglo-the Statesn transaction at a low. It was now lighten up that GB was no longer a dominant power in the world, and could not do over such(prenominal) without the support of the Americans and would train to stop its Imperialism.However it is uniformly that the crisis would rent had a much less domestic impact, as the moil electrical resistance were un fitted to capitalise on this Conservative failure without look unpatriotic and Harold Macmillan was quickly able to bring better Anglo-American relations in his time in power, loss little lasting effect. This realisation of the UK losing its world power status, however was recognized by Harold Macmillan, who is quoted saying The dinosaur was the largest beast, hardly it was wasteful and therefore disappeared. The bee is efficient, but it is too subaltern to deem much influence.The British pudding st unmatchable was a dinosaur and didnt last. Britains most useful billet is somewhere between bee and dinosaur. This meant that Macmillan saw that Great Britain had to strike up a position powerful enough to take over an influence, but know when to let things go and when to not adopt voluminous, it would no longer have to play the role of world military officer like it did in times of empire. This was a success of the Conservative organization in acknowledging this and Macmillan viewed it as a defeat, but one from whic h the country could learn from like Dunkirk in 1940.Britain did learn from this, as it reduced its disproof bud cleave (which was 10% of its GDP), one importantly higher(prenominal) than other similar European countries and pushed towards decolonisation of its empire. Another key mistake of the Conservative government was its abuse of the preservation, resulting in stop go economics which is expanding rescue with low interest rates and lift consumer spending meaning the delivery overheats with wages and imports exceeding productivity and exports meaning the economy has to go through a stop phase or need for backwardness down or deflation through higher interest rates and spending cuts.This lead to investors existence unsure on what the economy would do, and therefore did not invest as much as other to a greater extent stable economies and therefore Britain economic developing being much lower than countries like Japan, Germany and France that had only years before been deva stated by World fight II.This stop-go economics was caused by the government not being able to decide on a budget, and them being too often used as short term measures to buy votes in general elections, for example before elections the cautious government would reduce taxes and after they won the election, would be forced to raise them at once more and policy lagging behind events. This in the end led to the failure of the government to develop policies that encouraged consistently execute economies, resulting in Stagflation meaning the economy felt both the impacts of industrial decline and inflation.This would have led to the people emotional stateing worse off, and when it comes to elections, its not foreign policy that wins, its whether the government has made them richer or poorer than counts, and if it has made them poorer, it is unbelievable that they will vote for that party again. Macmillians plan to improve the economy was to get Great Britain into the European Ec onomic Community, or EEC, which would later become the European Union.This would make it easier to trade with Europe, increasing exports, something that was in shortage as at the time Britain had a repose of payments anesthetise, exporting much less than imported. This could have worked, but Macmillian failed to get debut into the EEC because Frances President De Gaulle vetoed against GBs entry, because he felt that it would be an awkward member, and that it already had strong ties to America and the Commonwealth, and did not want them getting involved in his EEC.However it is also argued that De Gaulle vetoed against GB because he was still spiteful of the jokes made to him by British and American Generals during World War II and the occupation of France by the Nazis. In the end, this failure to gain entry, meant that Macmillians one stop pill for curing the economy was scraped and GBs balance of payments issue was not resolved. This was criticized a component by the labour op position, and faith in Macmillian was decreasing both in his party and the public, meaning it was likely this lead to change magnitude numbers of labour voters.The 60s were a much more liberal decade than the 50s and a lot of the people we starting to get more left wing in their political views. Events such as the retainer Pally Potheads Rally and emergence of hippy culture and the cultural revolution showcased this pillowcase in beliefs. The outwear party were able to take advantage of this shifting in the spectrum, by having Roy Jenkins promise to make gild much more Civil by removing the death penalty, legalizing abortion and homosexuality over the age of 21 and reducing media censorship.This would have gained a lot of the younger voters and showed that the Labour Party was able to keep up with this revolution in the British culture, strange the Conservative Party which was unable to fully understand why scandals such as the Profumo Affair and Vassal Spy indignation were so interesting to the media and general public, leaving the conservatives looking out of touch and out dated. The Labour party was also much stronger in 1964 than it was in previouselections. Harold Wilson was a much stronger leader than Gaitskell, and a more experient campaigner. The split between the party of Bevanites and the Gaitskellites ,which once meant that Labour had many conflicts in ideology and therefore policies in earlier elections which caused failing post atlee, was reduced giving the Labour party clearer driveions for the future and more direct policies to vote on.This meant that the Labour party had a much better chance for taking the election than previous ones, regardless of the conservative mistakes. In conclusion, It could be argued that thirteen years of conservative misrule was a factor in the Labour victory, especially since the conservatives failed at optimising the economy and dealing the the balance of payments issue and inflation, which lead the peo ple to feel worse off, and it is how well off the people feel under a government that decides elections.But the labour party were not able to take advantage on other failures such as the Suez Crisis meaning the victory cannot all be blamed on the conservative misrule as the labour party were a much stronger and more focused opposition that was adapting to the times much better than the Conservatives this election, loving them the majority of the younger voters and therefore the election.