Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Notes on contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Conventions and abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I The long perspective
- Part II Markets and society
- Part III Government and political parties
- 6 The Treasury and the City
- 7 The Liberals and the City 1900–1931
- 8 The Conservatives and the City
- 9 Labour party and the City 1945–1970
- Part IV The interwar period
- Part V 1945–2000
- Select bibliography
- Index
9 - Labour party and the City 1945–1970
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Notes on contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Conventions and abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I The long perspective
- Part II Markets and society
- Part III Government and political parties
- 6 The Treasury and the City
- 7 The Liberals and the City 1900–1931
- 8 The Conservatives and the City
- 9 Labour party and the City 1945–1970
- Part IV The interwar period
- Part V 1945–2000
- Select bibliography
- Index
Summary
The Labour party's relationship with the City of London in this period was complex and often troubled because of fundamental conflicts over aims and objectives. Occasionally these divergent aims were compatible with tactical alliances over the means to achieve these aims, but more often the conflicts were predominant. The party's objectives over this period may be summarised as ‘economic efficiency and social justice’. Of course, for Labour economic efficiency was seen in a very particular light. Labour's vision of an efficient economy was one in which the state played a significant role in setting economic priorities, regulating the market and influencing resource allocation. More specifically, efficiency was seen as delivered by high levels of investment in industry, economies of scale, state-sponsored technical advance and co-operative industrial relations, underpinned by full employment and ‘corporatist’ institutions. Social justice included ideals of both the ‘national minimum’ and equalities of opportunity and outcome, but in practice generally meant (alongside full employment) expanding state provision of welfare, especially in the areas of income support, health and housing.
The City, even more than the Labour party, was divided in its ideology and aims (though arguably less in this period than in subsequent decades), but it is perhaps fair to see the latter as predominantly twofold. Pride of place must go to the aim of maximising its autonomy, the ability to do its business and make profits with the minimum of state regulation.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2004
- 1
- Cited by