The 1945 Labour administration was the first time a Labour Government received a real mandate from the people to pursue its policies of democratic socialism. In 1945 Michael Foot first entered parliament. He was a dynamic backbencher who represented the local constituency of Plymouth Devonport until 1955.
I aim to study Foot"s early career as a backbench MP in Plymouth Devonport from 1945 to 1955, a time in his career that has been little studied. Between 1945 and 1955 there were four general elections and I aim to look at his electoral performance in them to see what factors caused his three successes and his eventual failure. I also want to look at Foot"s career from a Devonport perspective to ask how Foot dealt with his constituents" problems and, for example, what his role was in the post-war reconstruction of Plymouth in order to establish whether Foot was a good constituency MP.
I would like to thank Michael Foot for allowing me to interview him. I would also like to thank John Ingham, Phil Bryce and Ken Glanville for telling me all about their experiences with Michael Foot in Devonport and Doug Colton for writing to me about his memories of Foot in Devonport. Thamks also to Eddie for driving me to Plymouth and to Matthew for putting this online!
From 1945 to 1955 Michael Foot was Member of Parliament for the seat of Plymouth Devonport in South West England. Plymouth was a major city which had been heavily bombed during World War Two. The Devonport constituency was dominated by Devonport dockyards.
Despite being a famous Labour Party politician, indeed eventually leader of the Labour Party, surprisingly little has been written about Michael Foot. This is particularly true of his early career in Devonport. There have been two major biographies on Foot, Simon Hoggart and David Leigh, Michael Foot - A Portrait (London, 1981) and the more thorough Mervyn Jones, Michael Foot (London, 1994). The date of publication of Hoggart and Leigh"s book shows us much about the historiography of Michael Foot. There was no study of Foot when he became leader of the Labour Party so one had to be quickly produced. It is essentially a study as to how Foot became leader. It is reading material for those interested in current affairs in the early 1980s. Consequently there is a focus on his left wing credentials and his role in CND. There is a good amount of material on his early life before he entered parliament. However, when we reach his Devonport years we find that the book is almost entirely focused on London rather than on Devonport. Thus we have Foot and Westminster intrigue, Foot"s relationship with Bevan and his role in Tribune, but very little on Plymouth issues. Mervyn Jones had the benefit of writing after Foot"s political career was over. It is a far more scholarly work than Leigh and Hoggart"s biography and attempts to place Foot in the broader historical picture. However once again it suffers from a lack of attention to Devonport. Noticeably, there is a chapter entitled Ebbw Vale but no such one for Devonport. Once again there is also a London bias. There have also been a few short articles on Foot, notably in Kenneth Morgan, Labour People Leaders and Lieutenants, Hardie to Kinnock, (Oxford, 1987) but these too focus on his later career. Thus while the period 1945-1955 is rich in general historiography, it is very limited on Foot"s role in it.
In order to get a Devonport perspective I have used two local daily newspapers extensively: Western Morning News and Western Evening Herald. I used an amateur video Devonport Remembered (1991) in which Foot is interviewed by members of Devonport Constituency Labour Party (CLP). I also interviewed Labour Party members from Devonport who remember working with Michael Foot: Ken Glanville, John Ingham and Phil Bryce, while Doug Colton another Labour Party member, provided a letter detailing his memories of Foot"s time in Devonport. I also interviewed Michael Foot himself.
Historians differ in their views on the value of oral evidence. They note that people have particular problems in remembering dates, names and the sequences of events. There is a tendency to oversimplify events and to exaggerate their own role or their organisation"s role in these events. This unintentional inaccuracy is hard to guard against. Oral evidence also suffers from the fact that it is not contemporary - while all sources suffer from selectivity, oral evidence also has the additional problems of the selectivity of memory.[1] There are also particular problems with elite oral history. As Philip Williams said, "politicians subconsciously adapt their views about the past to fit a stance they had adopted later".[2] The interview with Foot does have the benefit that his career is now over but it is still necessary to guard against this problem. With the benefit of hindsight, Foot, knowing that he was the famous Bevanite who became Party leader in the 1980s, may well think of his early career as the inevitable lead up to that. Nevertheless, oral evidence is useful. It can flesh out history from the otherwise dry appearance given in other records. It can also give a unique insight into relationships and recreate atmosphere. In this case it is vital to illuminate areas not covered in documents. This information on local party activities is simply not available in any other format.
This dissertation will look at Foot in Devonport between 1945 and 1955. The first chapter will look at Foot"s background to see how this prepared him for life as Plymouth Devonport"s MP. Chapter Two will assess his electoral performance over the period - exploring the reasons for his surprising victory in 1945 and suggest why he then lost the seat in 1955. Chapter Three will then examine more closely the Plymouth connection before the conclusion suggests that Foot"s core values and beliefs are crucial to understanding his early career in Plymouth Devonport - a time that was beneficial to both Foot and his constituents.
This chapter will discuss Michael Foot"s background, his political philosophy and outlook and see how his experiences before 1945 prepared him for life as an MP during his Devonport years. "He is the sole survivor of a family which has been for many years represented in this House..." said Orr-Ewing as he began his response to Foot"s maiden speech in 1945.[3] It was something of a family tradition to be involved in public life and politics. His father, Isaac Foot, had been MP for Bodmin and Lord Mayor of Plymouth, his brother Dingle Foot was also MP in Dundee from 1931-45. In the 1945 election four members of the Foot family stood for parliament: Isaac and three of his sons Dingle, John and Michael. Throughout Foot"s childhood elections dominated, so that "electioneering must have been almost continuous when Michael was a boy."[4] The Foots were a family of achievers, an "overwhelming family, demanding, competitive, success orientated"[5] and so Foot"s decision to stand for parliament was in keeping with family expectations. The Foots were meant to succeed, although success alone was not enough, the Foots succeeded so as to do good. As Eva Foot would say to her husband Isaac, "Come along now, the world is waiting to be saved."[6] This is the atmosphere in which Foot grew up.
Politics was the obvious choice for Foot. Childhood was a training ground in radical left of centre politics. The house was filled with books, the quotations from which Foot would later use in his erudite speeches. The family"s religion of Methodism taught the ideologies of entrepreneurship, service and individual freedom, the same values which informed their politics. Religion also taught the art of oratory. Foot first learnt the techniques of public speaking from his father"s lay preaching. He then went on to develop his public speaking skills in the Oxford Union and especially on the debating tour to the United States where he and John Cripps represented Oxford University.[7] Foot was educated at Leighton Park, a public school run by Quakers, which flew the League of Nations flag and was unlike the majority of jingoistic public schools. It taught about internationalism and reinforced the values Foot had learnt at home. The Foot boys were expected to succeed and by 1945 Foot was already doing well in journalism earning in the region of £4000 a year when the average salary of an MP was £400.[8] Standing for parliament was not a good career move financially. However for the Foots financial achievement was not sufficient as they were also expected to serve, an idea Foot adhered to throughout his political career: "I will do everything I can to serve all the people."[9]
Foot was a radical. His family promoted figures such as Oliver Cromwell - the man whose statue Isaac Foot would salute. Foot soon adopted his family"s radical heroes as his own, while also supplementing the list with new figures he admired. In Debts of Honour[10] he expresses his admiration for Thomas Paine and William Hazlitt, in Loyalists and Loners[11] for William Lovett. These men (they mainly are men) generally did not accept the status quo. They were individuals and as unconventional as Foot was to become.
When Foot stood for Devonport he was a committed socialist. This was not an automatic consequence of his upbringing as the Foot family were Liberals. At Oxford, Foot was still defending the Liberal cause writing articles such as "Why I am a Liberal"[12]. He was also president of the student Liberal Society.[13] However it was about this time that he began to become more directed towards the Labour Party through his friendship with John Cripps and his reading of Bertrand Russell. The poverty Foot saw when he was in Liverpool in 1934, far worse than anything in the West Country, cemented his arrival into the Labour Party which he joined that year. Of course at the same time, the Liberal Party was disintegrating around him. Foot was pragmatic - it would have been inconceivable to join the Tories but Labour was a party which looked like it could win. With his conversion to socialism Foot found socialism in his liberal and radical heroes. He could paint Tom Paine as an early socialist: "And how men in all our modern parties might tremble at his proposals for land nationalisation; he wanted new laws for marriage and divorce, international arbitration, family allowances, maternity benefits, free education, prison reform, full employment."[14] However his early Liberalism remained a key part of his thinking throughout his parliamentary career, shown in his fierce commitment to free debate and parliamentary democracy. What Foot says of Bevan could equally be applied to himself: "Liberal economics had been exposed as sterile and self-defeating but the liberal virtues, protecting the right to heresy and free debate, retained an eternal validity."[15]
During the latter stages of the war Foot"s thoughts were focused on the post war world. While Guilty Men[16] (1940) is a dramatic condemnation of appeasement focusing on Churchill as the saviour of Britain, Brendan and Beverley[17] (1944) is virulently anti-Tory. In its epilogue there are two political speeches for a post-war election. The first "speech that could win"[18] is Churchillian in style: "I speak as leader of the Conservative Party, and I ask for your suffrages at the forthcoming election, when, after long trial and bloodstained triumph, the British people will once again exercise their ancient and indefeasible rights of popular appointment"[19], the other speech is full of hopeful socialist rhetoric. By 1944 Churchill was the symbol of the Tory Party"s monopoly on power and privilege and so a target for attack. Similarly in 1943, Devonport was already in Foot"s thoughts when he made Hore-Belisha a witness in The Trial of Mussolini, and made sure everyone knew his Devonport opponent had been presented with a "medallion inscribed with the words "for fortitude and valour"" by "the Prisoner"[20].
Foot effortlessly slid into his role as Member of Parliament for Devonport. He showed Barbara Castle around the Palace of Westminster on their first day: "I made my first contact with the Commons under Michael Foot"s wing".[21]He was at home in the impressive surroundings through which he had often walked before, it was as if "he had been an MP all his life."[22] He was also well equipped in the chamber. His maiden speech shows erudition: "We do not wish to play the part of Lepidus in this triumvirate of great nations"[23]and a well developed rhetorical style allowing for a touch of humour: "This Greek was not a professor. He was not a Communist. He was not a bandit. He was not even a Trotskyist. He was the Greek Foreign Minister."[24]Foot was a great orator with "the gift of words not merely to educate and convince but also to inspire."[25] Foot"s lifelong training, from listening to his father preach to debating at Oxford, shone through.
Foot believed in the Labour Party as the best way of effecting socialist change. This was why he stood to be the Labour MP for Devonport. Foot believed, "the deed (socialism) required an instrument and that instrument was the Labour Party."[26] Foot was on the left of the party something his middle class upbringing suggests. Schneer has shown that a "Labour Left" MP elected in 1945 was more likely to come from a middle-class than a working class family.[27] Despite his reputation as being a rebel he was more loyal to his party than many others on the left. This can be seen in voting grids on crucial rebellions or abstentions. In the appendix of Jenkins" book[28] one can compare Foot"s two stands against the government with Mikardo"s five. Loyalty was something Foot prized - Loyalists and Loners paints heroic portraits of loyal men. However he also believed in sticking to one"s principles hence his participation in some key left wing rebellions such as Crossman"s amendment in 1946. His belief in principles over power can also be seen in his stance at the time of Bevan"s resignation: "Foot is passionately in favour of Nye resigning. He is almost the only one."[29] This was typical of the Foot family - Isaac ruined his political career over his stand on Free Trade. In the main though, Foot preferred to be a constructive critic. He co-wrote the famous pamphlet Keep Left[30] in which he pressed the left wing case for progressing faster with more socialist plans. Thus "one suspects that Foot himself preferred to be a spur, a voice, exhorting the government to live up to its heritage, and the people to support it."[31] Like the majority of those on the left he "shared a heritage and a belief in the destiny of the larger party to which they belonged"[32] and so never in his career was he attracted to fringe left wing movements. Indeed he was hated by the Communists whose "hostility was not reserved for Attlee, Morrison and Bevin. It was equally directed against... Keep Left, and the supporters of the third way."[33] Foot was a left winger and a Bevanite but he was primarily a Labour Party member working to secure Labour victories in Devonport and the country as a whole.
There was more to life than politics for Michael Foot, a fact that pleased his constituents. He enjoyed sport, and at Conference in Morecambe, Nye Bevan and Mikardo"s brother Sidney took on Mikardo and Foot at snooker.[34] Foot was also a passionate Plymouth Argyle fan which we will see was an electoral asset in Devonport. Foot"s other abiding interests were history and literature: "There were half a dozen of us sitting round our table listening to a lively disputation between Michael Foot and Dick Crossman, with an obbligato by Leslie Hale, about some recondite point of 18th century history."[35] Brivati calls Foot "the best writer of prose to sit in the House of Commons since World War Two."[36] This was typical of left wing intellectuals. Brivati gives five reasons for Labour"s "literary dominance",[37] two of which seem particularly applicable to Foot. Labour, and perhaps even more the left of the party, was interested in the creation of a new society which could be best described through a literary medium. From 1945-1955 Foot wrote many pamphlets including Who Are the Patriots?, Still at Large and Full Speed Ahead. As we have seen he was also well known for the part he had earlier played in writing such works as the notorious Guilty Men. Another reason was that Labour intellectuals frequently had need of paid employment. This was true of Foot and during his time representing the constituency Foot wrote a weekly column for the Herald as well as contributing regularly in Tribune, of which he became co-editor in 1948. He also appeared on the television programme In the News. The effect of Foot"s non-parliamentary work was that he was in touch not only with local concerns but also with national issues and he gained a national profile. This national profile was attractive to Devonport constituents who liked having a prominent MP.
There can have been few men whose lives up to 1945 prepared them so well for life as an MP in their chosen constituency. Foot"s background was not only ideal for a career in left of centre politics but was also specifically good for someone wishing to be MP for the constituency of Devonport. Although his upbringing had really been a training in Liberal politics, the changes in society which had led to the rise of Labour and the further decline of the Liberal Party meant that Foot decided to switch his allegiance to Labour. The world still needed saving but the Liberals could no longer oblige, Labour could win and could make a difference. As we will see, Foot"s mix of socialism and Liberalism then shaped his Devonport years. For fighting elections in Devonport, Foot was particularly well prepared, as he had been trained in West Country politics and traditions. His birthplace was Plymouth so he had even been born in the right town. He also had the advantage of being adopted early as a candidate so he could get known in Devonport during the war. By July 1945 therefore, Foot was exceptionally well prepared to be Labour MP for Devonport.
The factors involved in Michael Foot"s electoral performance during the years 1945-1955 were varied and complex. During the years 1945-1955 there were four general elections. Nationally, Labour won in 1945 and 1950 but lost in 1951 and 1955. However, in Devonport Labour won three out of the four elections and only narrowly lost in 1955. (See table 1.) This chapter will assess the different factors which contributed to Michael Foot"s successes and eventual failure in the 1955 election.
Foot had three successful elections results in 1945, 1950 and 1951. However there were many difficulties to overcome in securing these victories. The make up of the constituency presented a real challenge. In 1945 Devonport was not meant to be a winnable seat - "the idea of a Labour victory in Devonport - nobody thought it was possible"[38] - and it remained a marginal seat throughout Foot"s Devonport years. The war changed Plymouth and the people of Plymouth making a Labour victory in Devonport a possibility but even during the election campaign of 1945 few, if any, expected victory in Devonport: "Right up to the day they said we haven"t got a chance of winning here".[39]There is a genuine tone of shock and surprise in the local newspapers of 6 July 1945: "By far the biggest upset of the night was Michael Foot"s victory in Devonport."[40] In July 1945 Plymouth returned three Labour MPs to Westminster but it was Foot"s victory that occasioned the most comment. As there was a Labour landslide across the country with Labour nationally securing 47.8% to the Tories" 39.8% one must ask why the victory was so surprising. Glanville identified the surprise factor in Devonport as being due to the dockyards.[41] The dockyards had never been associated with Labour but this time its workers" votes went to Labour. Foot ascribes this to the fact that the prestige of the Labour Party"s local leadership went up during the war in the dockyards, as the leaders of the dockyard trade unions who were acting so "skilfully and bravely"[42] were also local Labour Party leaders.[43] Those away on active service also voted Labour. Phil Bryce, at the time abroad, was a Communist who remembers hearing about Foot"s victory on the radio and excitedly reporting it to his comrades.[44] He speaks of the left wing educational networks mounted during the war. The "forces" radicalism" has been a theme of historiography and Hennessy agrees that "the tide almost certainly moved towards Labour"[45] although Kenneth Morgan has tried to negate its importance arguing only about 60% of servicemen voted owing to difficulties involved in postal voting so that those who did vote were only a small percentage of the total electorate.[46] However, in Devonport, the same leftward move was taking place amongst the men working in the dockyard and these men who were at home had no difficulty in voting. Most Devonport voters were in some way connected to the dockyard, in Plymouth as a whole 25% of people"s employment was dockyard related[47] and that figure would have risen sharply in Devonport.
Foot had to overcome the obstacle of a strong candidate in the 1945 election: Leslie Hore-Belisha, Devonport"s long serving MP. Foot was able to secure success because he attacked Hore-Belisha mercilessly. Beating Leslie Hore-Belisha made Foot"s victory all the more surprising as he was a famous opponent, indeed when he left government in January 1940 it was headline news: Daily Herald: "Belisha sacked", Daily Mirror: "Belisha: Anger is Rising" and Daily Express: "Great Belisha crisis grows".[48] He was a national figure, as R. J. Minney put it, "everywhere they talked of him and his beacons".[49] In 1945, Hore-Belisha stood as a National Liberal which could have presented a problem for Foot. However he publicly reiterated that he proposed to fight the election "on the assumption that Mr Hore-Belisha is a Tory."[50] This stance was made easier by Belisha speaking in support of various other local Tory candidates. Foot could therefore claim that "he is as much a Tory in Lithgarth as he is in Devonport."[51]Foot chose several points on which to attack Belisha personally: "We also did some furious attacks on Hore-Belisha during the election".[52] He attacked Belisha"s record as an ex-member of the Chamberlain government and therefore as an appeaser - indeed one of the Guilty Men. This allegation coming from Foot, co-author of the original work, was particularly hard hitting. He attacked Belisha"s record at the War Office as the man responsible for the supplying of the troops at Dunkirk. He tried to neutralise the Churchill effect by stressing that Hore-Belisha had not always been a supporter of Churchill. He emphasised that in 1942 "he was trying to kick Mr Churchill out of office."[53] He also made sure the electorate knew about Belisha"s meeting with Mussolini and his acceptance of a medal from the man, to try to associate him with the fascist dictators the country had just united to defeat. Hore-Belisha came out against the Plymouth Plan - "a very great mistake on his part"- and this is the factor that Foot highlights as key to his victory.[54] The victory was a talking point as Foot had not only defeated the man who in Devonport had been a "dockyard institution for twenty-two years"[55] but a national figure.
A new obstacle emerged as the years progressed and Labour was open to the accusation of failure to deliver. The election campaigns changed as in 1950 and 1951 Labour was fighting on its record in government. This was very different from the campaign of 1945 as shown by the questioner, who on the issue of equal pay, retorted to Foot, "You have had five years to do it in."[56] However while there was the problem of delivery in the election campaigns of the 1950s, Labour could emphasise the positive aspects of its record in government. Foot"s recurrent theme in the elections was the dockyards. He was proud of his achievements there and stressed the successes Labour had brought. The other issues he stressed were housing and the successful start to reconstruction in Plymouth - something Foot was very proud of and the electorate appreciated. Thus Foot"s role as a good constituency MP gained him votes. I will look in more detail at these major Devonport issues in Chapter Three.
Many of Foot"s selling points which indicate reasons for his 1945 victory in Devonport are highlighted in the description of Foot in the local press as "the keen young socialist of the distinguished Cornish Liberal family"[57] He was Labour (a socialist) at a time when the country was finding such ideas acceptable. He was young and seemed to be part of a fresh generation needed to build a new post-war Britain. His youth also stood in contrast to Hore-Belisha"s age. However it also shows us that the fact that Foot was a Foot was important. Foot believes this was instrumental in his adoption too: "they knew of course about my father and the reputation of the Foot family around there."[58] His family background is often referred to in the local press. In July 1945 a picture of three generations of Foots appeared in the Western Morning News.[59] Indeed a variety of Foots often appeared in the pages of the local press, all getting the family name known - the one giving free publicity to the other. It seems likely that his family"s Liberal credentials would have helped Foot.
Foot"s victories can be explained by the fact that his local party was highly organised. A great deal of planning and organisation went into Devonport election campaigns: "Next week he (Foot) has before him a full programme of indoor and outdoor meetings and canvassing."[60] The Party produced the usual posters, election addresses and leaflets attacking their opponents such as the pamphlet Devonport Betrayed which attacked Hore-Belisha[61] but they also produced a special targeted leaflet on the dockyard.[62] The Party made sure there was a timetable of engagements ready at the beginning of each campaign. In every campaign Foot fought in Devonport, a large proportion of his time was spent addressing public meetings. At the start of the 1951 campaign the Party reported to the press that, " a complete series of meetings has already been arranged. There will be 22 in local schools besides other larger meetings."[63] Foot held public meetings in different locations right across the constituency from High Street Secondary Modern School, Stonehouse in October 1951 to the Berkertex Factory in Honicknowle in May 1955 but the most popular location was the dockyard. This was typical of campaigning at the time and McCallum and Readman"s survey of the 1945 election states that "most candidates reckon to address two or three meetings every day" and highlights the special meetings at "dock gates".[64] Foot was particularly suited to this type of campaigning - he enjoyed addressing public meetings and was an accomplished orator. John Ingham described how Foot would "speak for hours without a note in front of him and then suddenly he"d get out a piece of paper from his pocket and say, "I"ve got the very thing he said, right here" and it was blank, you could see from behind there was nothing on it!"[65] As elsewhere, the party did a lot of canvassing with Foot throughout the campaigns. As the papers reported, "candidates are busy pavement pounding".[66] Party workers remember Foot canvassing every day except Saturday afternoons when there was an obligatory lull to watch Plymouth Argyle play. Three men were especially instrumental in the campaigns, Harry Wright, Bert Medland and Harry Mason. Foot joked to party members about the enormous amount of effort involved in the pre computer age although luckily they "had Bert Medland as a computer"[67] while he calls Harry Wright "an extremely intelligent political organiser."[68]
Foot also used certain stunts in his campaigning. The story of the Cornish pasty is often recollected. Eva Foot baked a pasty and sent it to Michael Foot on the day before polling day and he produced it for all the audience to see at his eve of poll meeting. This stunt showed Foot"s West Country credentials. Foot recalls, despite the family"s Liberalism, it was tied with a socialist red ribbon.[69] In the 1945 election Foot also recalls how "we had people going around at the election asking that he (Hore-Belisha) should produce his Mussolini medal."[70]
Various
high profile figures came to Plymouth to speak in support of Foot
as Devonport was a marginal. David Owen"s testimony shows
the impact such a visit could have and why this could therefore
help the candidate. He remembers the day Aneurin Bevan came to
speak:
(We)
went off to the Exmouth Hall, Devonport to hear Aneurin Bevan,
the then Minister of Health, speak in support of Michael Foot.
The meeting was packed. Well over a thousand people were present,
some in a large overflow meeting downstairs and several hundred
standing outside in the rain and wind... I was allowed to squeeze
to the front. I watched spellbound as Bevan spoke for eighty-five
minutes without a script, freely quoting figures to strengthen
his argument and weaken his opponents.[71]
Bevan came to speak during all four election campaigns - his visit was usually the high point of the campaign. "For days before, the prospect of his coming had given a tingling, mounting excitement to the contest." Each of Bevan"s meetings was "jammed long before the scheduled time with great crowds overflowing outside"[72] with an "enthusiastic and good tempered audience."[73] An article in Western Evening Herald also mentions the speeches planned by Jennie Lee and Hugh Dalton,[74] in 1945 actor Bernard Miles spoke in support of Foot[75] and in 1950 there were "great crowds" to hear Donald Soper.[76]
Foot successfully defended his seat against Randolph Churchill in 1950 and 1951. Churchill was not as difficult a candidate to fight as might have been expected despite the fact that much was made of Randolph"s family connections. Indeed Winston Churchill came to Plymouth to speak in support of his son. Foot also believes that the Tories spent much more on the campaign than they reported (or legal election expense maximums allowed)[77]. However Churchill was brought in at the last minute to replace the prospective Tory candidate, as their central party liked the idea of having another Churchill in parliament. Randolph Churchill was therefore unable to work in the constituency in the lead up to the 1950 election. This last minute change of candidate would also have alienated some of Devonport"s local Conservatives. Randolph Churchill then completed the task of alienating his constituency workers so that it is said that by the end of the campaign he spent more time speaking to Foot and Jill Craigie than his own supporters.[78]
One reason for success in the 1945 election was Foot"s adoption as Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) for Devonport in 1938. This stands in marked contrast to many other Labour candidates in the 1945 election who were often found at very short notice. Foot was approached by members of Devonport CLP, led by Harry Wright, to ask if he would be willing to stand in Devonport. [79] Foot had already stood in Monmouth and wanted to repeat the experience and Devonport was not the only CLP which offered Foot the chance to stand again: "Mr Foot said there was no constituency he would rather represent. He had refused offers to contest other constituencies"[80]. Foot chose Devonport because as we have seen he had Plymouth connections. Foot thinks his early adoption probably did have an effect on his victory in 1945. He was able to visit the city during the war and become known there:[81] "Throughout most of the war I was living in London... although I went down quite often to Devonport during the period and saw what was happening."[82] He was also in "close contact"[83] with the local party during the period.
However in 1955 Foot lost Devonport. It is impossible to pinpoint one reason why Foot lost the 1955 election especially given the narrowness of the defeat - 100 votes - but one can suggest a variety of reasons why the percentage Labour vote fell. In the immediate aftermath of the defeat during the "atmosphere of doom and gloom"[84] emotions ran high with some members refusing to believe that Foot really had lost the seat and suggesting that a second recount would have changed the result. A hundred votes was just under 0.2% of the poll but Foot does not believe the result would have changed. The reasons for defeat in 1955 were not all Devonport based. There was a countrywide swing against Labour and the percentage vote recorded by the Foot reflected the countrywide percentage. (Foot 46.96, Labour 46.6). Nationally, Labour, with an ageing leadership and a manifesto that offered little more than consolidation was not inspiring.[85] National issues such as disillusionment with Trade Unions were important factors in Devonport too. However, Foot had won the seat in 1951 when the Labour Party lost nationally. It is therefore necessary to look at local variations in the Devonport seat.
The weather was a problem during the 1955 campaign. "The worst thing about this election is the weather. If we can beat the weather we can beat the Tories"[86] claimed Foot. There was not only bad weather throughout the campaign but more importantly it rained in Plymouth on polling day in 1955.[87] A rainy polling day was recognised as being disproportionately harmful to Labour. However there was also heavy rain in the evening of 1950,[88] an election that Foot did win. Turnout was a great concern to Foot in the 1955 election. He believed there was Labour support in the constituency but was concerned that Labour voters would not vote. Thus he used the tactics of supporting the right of people to vote to encourage them to do so: "Use your vote, says Michael Foot".[89] Foot had reason to be worried - the turnout for the 1955 election at 77.1% was a drop of 8.2% on 1951. That compares badly with Plymouth Sutton which saw a 6.5% drop and national turnout which fell by 5.7%.
An obstacle which became an increasing problem was the claim by opponents that the Labour Party was split as split parties do badly in elections. By 1951 Foot was spending an increasing amount of time refuting such allegations: "The Labour party is not split. We are running the party as we always ran it by democratic argument within our ranks."[90]However, by 1955 the press was referring to Foot as the "outspoken unrepentant Bevanite."[91] Foot"s opponents played upon this, emphasising Foot was a Bevanite, in 1951 Churchill called Foot Bevan"s "principal hatchet-man."[92] Churchill spoke of "Grade A and Grade B Socialists,"[93] Grade A being supporters of Attlee and Grade B of Bevan. When Foot and Middleton (Plymouth, Sutton) shared a platform they had to stress that they were "fighting the same battle... This is a united front."[94] Churchill always presented the Bevanites as the worst sort of Socialists: "The Bevanites, seeing trouble looming ahead sooner than others, left the socialists six months ago."[95] The Liberal candidate Mayne asked what was the use of electing Foot if he was "going to keep on kicking and shouting against his own party"?[96] This appearance of splits was harmful to Labour"s electoral performance.
By 1955, Foot"s left-wing Bevanite credentials were well known and it was becoming increasingly difficult to present Foot as the inheritor of the Liberal mantle. This was in contrast to the previous elections when Liberal voters in Devonport could well have been attracted to Foot as his famous family had such a proud Liberal heritage. A key to Foot"s success in 1945 was that he seems to have been able to build a coalition between the core Labour voters, Liberals and ex-Liberals. In 1945, having a member of the Foot family in parliament looked to Liberals like more of a safe option than voting for Hore-Belisha, a National Liberal, who was looking ever more like a Tory. In 1950 and 1951 Liberal voters were still prepared to support Foot but it was getting increasingly difficult to play on his Liberal connections and by 1955, the year of Bevan"s resignation, it was clear that Michael Foot was no Liberal. A Liberal candidate stood in 1955 and the Western Evening Herald thought that this would be enough to save Foot as it was generally thought good for Labour for a Liberal to stand.[97] The assumption was that Liberal voters generally voted Tory. Although I would disagree that this rule was valid in Devonport in earlier elections, this may well have been the case in Devonport by 1955. Thus accepting this idea, we see that in 1955, the anti-Labour vote was split. Instead of Liberal voters all voting Tory they voted Liberal. Nevertheless this was only damage limitation for Labour. What is key to this election is that in Devonport Liberals were now not voting Labour.
Joan Vickers was a strong candidate and this was a reason for Foot"s failure in 1955. She was a harder opponent to challenge than Randolph Churchill. Vickers had no need to work as she came from a wealthy family and she could therefore spend a great deal of time electioneering in the constituency. "She canvassed pretty much every house in the constituency."[98] Foot, meanwhile, had to spend time in London attending to his duties as an MP and supplementing his income through journalism. Vickers also used the fact that she was female to her advantage. She spoke of the struggle of women to obtain the vote. She stressed policies such as maternity allowance and increased child allowance. She presented the end of rationing from the perspective of the housewife with the Conservatives giving you "freedom of the purse" after "6½ years under Socialist control".[99]
The change in boundaries was a crucial factor in Foot"s 1955 defeat. The 1955 election was fought on different boundaries from the 1951 election. Foot was well aware of problems this would cause him and forcefully contributed in the 1955 commons debates on boundary changes. Peverell, Tamerton and Trelawney wards which had been a part of Devonport from 1951 were removed and crucially Keyham ward which had been a part of Devonport in 1945, 1950 and 1951 was removed. This removal of working class areas made Devonport less winnable than ever before. Meanwhile St. Andrew and Drake wards were gained. In the municipal elections of 1955 where we can see a breakdown of results to ward level, Labour lost in both St. Andrew and Drake, securing 44.1 % to the Tories 55.9% in St. Andrew and only 28.3% compared to the Tories 61.4% in Drake.[100]
Foot"s insistence on talking about disarmament at the dockyards was a great problem and a major factor in his defeat. Much to the chagrin of his local party, he could not be persuaded to keep his views quiet.[101] He failed electorally therefore when, in the eyes of those he was representing, he ceased to be a good constituency MP. I will look in more detail at Foot"s role as constituency MP for Devonport in Chapter Three. His views on disarmament must have lost him many votes as so many of the people of Devonport relied on the docks for employment. Although it was not Foot"s intention that disarmament should lead to fewer jobs the two were so firmly linked in people"s minds that his views caused him considerable problems.
Foot"s socialism is key to understanding his victories and defeats in Devonport. Although Foot was not well known in 1945 his family was and this was a key to his success. His family"s Liberalism tempered his socialism in the eyes of the electors of Devonport. This was necessary as Devonport was not natural Labour territory. The extent to which Foot"s true beliefs were seen by the electorate remained key to his success or failure in elections.
He would not compromise on his core values and in a dockyard constituency Foot"s stance on disarmament was a crucial factor in his defeat of 1955.[102] When this core belief of Foot"s became clear to the electorate, despite the positive aspects of his tenure of office, they turned against him. While good campaigning could win votes and boundary changes lose them, Foot"s role as MP was crucial. As we will see in Chapter Three, for much of the time Foot"s values and the electorate"s coincided but in 1955, when Foot believed socialism meant disarmament and his constituents thought it meant unemployment, he lost.
There has been a tendency in historiography to concentrate on Michael Foot"s career from a London perspective. However the British parliamentary system works on a constituency basis and so this chapter will look at Foot"s role in Plymouth and discuss whether he was a good constituency MP. Michael Foot was a prominent constituency MP. Despite his other high profile commitments in London in journalism and on TV"s In the News he was also often seen in Plymouth. Constituents and party activists appreciated his presence in Plymouth and his well known support for Plymouth Argyle, where he was often recognised on the terraces, was popular with constituents.
Foot"s commitment to his constituents can be seen by the fact that he held regular weekly surgeries at 82 Royal Navy Avenue.[103] Castle claims that, "it was Labour MPs who initiated a new code: the weekly surgery in our constituencies to which local people could come with their worries and complaints."[104] Norton and Wood"s survey suggests this level of commitment was unusual and that "members appeared to be little troubled by their constituents" and estimates that one in three MPs held no surgeries and that many of those that did only held them infrequently.[105] Foot says that following the 1945 election, "MPs" postbags were bigger than ever before."[106] The majority of his casework was concerned with housing and employment.
Foot took his constituents" concerns to Westminster. In parliament he often highlighted the problems that blitzed cities were facing. When he secured an adjournment debate in 1948 the subject he chose to raise was the "allocation of steel for blitzed cities"[107] as he wanted to ensure that there would be "no hold up in the rebuilding programme".[108] In this debate Bert Medland MP contributed at length. This shows that the Plymouth MPs worked closely together. Foot worked with the other MPs for Plymouth and the South West region more generally. When the subject of Dartmoor being used as a battle training area was raised Foot, Medland from Plymouth Drake, Charles Williams from Devon Torquay and Heathcoat Amory from Devon Tiverton all contributed.[109] Likewise when Middleton from Plymouth Sutton raised the question of war damage value payments both Medland and Foot spoke in support.[110]
Foot understood how important the dockyards were to his constituents. He always recognised their significance as the major employer in Devonport. In the 1950s when Labour was fighting on its record, Foot mentions again and again the achievements in the dockyards. Half a century later he still believed the dockyard reforms constituted a "splendid record of achievement".[111] One of the most important achievements at the dockyards concerned the provision of pensions. He formed the "Dockyard Group" a body of MPs which persuaded the Labour government to expand the list of established dockyard employees. The number of established posts available for Admiralty workers increased from "something under 10 000 to 30 000" while "in addition the practice of making deductions from pay on establishment... ceased."[112] Reflecting on the period, Thomas Stanbury, a Labour Party member said, "One thing I am sure of, hundreds of people from the dockyard owe their pensions to the help they got from Michael."[113]Even after such successes Foot kept up the pressure in parliament. In 1951 he asked if there was any chance of all naval pensioners receiving an increase in pensions equivalent to that recently awarded to men who left the Service after 1 September 1950.[114] Glanville is sure that the dockyard workers realised that it was Foot who had got them the reforms they had desired[115]and an article from 1951 in the Evening Herald seems to support this view. Foot was at a meeting when in a "spontaneous" move Mr Jack Geaton stood up to praise Foot. He explained how he had worked at the dockyards for 43 years and during Hore-Belisha"s time in office nothing had been done on the issue of establishment. When Foot arrived the age for the established list was raised to 64 and "thousands" benefited. He went on to compare Foot"s successes to Belisha"s failures and to say "Mr Hore-Belisha said he had done the best he could. That best was very small."[116]
Foot tried to help with the issue of the maintenance of employment at the dockyard which was always a problem for the people of Devonport. In 1945 Foot reiterated to the people of Plymouth how during emergencies and at times of war, the dockyard took on more workers and then at calmer times laid them off again. This was exactly what had happened after World War One and people feared a repeat of this. Foot wanted to try to alleviate this problem through "reorganisation and overhaul".[117] Foot was in favour of changing the kind of work the dockyard did so asked "whether consideration has been given to extending the use of the Royal Dockyards on commercial work."[118] This would not only provide more stability but also fitted in better with his stance on disarmament. In parliament Foot approached the issue from the perspective of national security, that he approved of the use of the Plymouth docks for non military purposes in times of peace so that there was a skilled "pool of labour"[119]available should war be declared. Thus at the dockyard Foot was "fighting for things other than war".[120] He encouraged more private work rather than navy work. He supported "repayment work" for example repairing ships that had been damaged during the war.[121] He was very critical when there was a cut in the provision for repayment work: "I am sure that fact makes the Admirals very happy, but it does not make me very happy."[122] He promoted work which used the skills of the dockyard workers in a way which did not involve armaments, for example in making metal window frames for steel houses.[123]
Housing was an issue of great concern to his constituents and one Foot consequently spent a great deal of time on. Speaking from experience Foot says, "The housing shortages caused more anguish and frustration than any other of the nation"s manifold post-war problems; all over the country the need was desperate and every MP and every local councillor was being besieged by the endless queues of the homeless."[124] In Devonport Foot says, "overwhelmingly, housing was the issue".[125] He had a great deal of casework around housing.[126] During his time as MP a lot of pre-fabs were put up and this made Foot popular with his constituents because people were "grateful for the houses".[127] This can be seen in the local election results on the new housing estates such as in Ernesettle ward where Labour performed consistently better than the Tories.[128]
The most important issue in Plymouth after the war was focused around the Plymouth Plan for post war reconstruction. Here Foot understood his constituents" desire to see a new Plymouth speedily built. At the 1945 election Foot said Devonport wanted someone who would "fight the profiteers, get houses for the people and the building of a grand and beautiful city."[129] Plymouth suffered tremendous destruction in the early years of the war. From Brittany the Luftwaffe launched 31 raids on the city. The centre of Plymouth was obliterated by "wave upon wave of Nazi aircraft dropping 1,249 tons of high explosive and 6,722 incendiary bombs."[130] Foot understood how his constituents felt as in his visits to Plymouth during the war he had seen "what a horror it was and how bravely the people of Plymouth were standing up to it."[131] Plymouth was the first city to consider reconstruction and the country"s leading town planner Sir Patrick Abercrombie was brought in to advise city engineer J. Paton Watson.[132] The Plymouth Plan, written by Paton Watson and Abercrombie, was published in 1943. Its publication in 1943, significantly earlier than other plans for blitzed cities, gave Plymouth an advantage. From the start it was decided to build a radically new Plymouth rather than to rebuild the city on its original plan. The "Plan marked a fundamental turning point"[133] and Foot calls the reconstruction a "tremendous achievement" of "democratic socialism in action".[134] The Plymouth Plan was an important issue in the 1945 election campaign and Foot was an enthusiastic supporter of it. Foot attacked the Tories, "they said by these utterances that they have no intention of real planning to aid blitzed cities."[135] He could say with confidence that Labour was committed to radical planning as it was a manifesto commitment to "acquire land for public purposes wherever the public interest so requires."[136] When Foot was elected the combination of a Labour Government, three Labour MPs in Plymouth and a Labour controlled City Council helped to speed the Plan along. Chalkley argues that "the Labour controlled council was keen to implement the Plan quickly."[137] However "central government approval was also necessary before the city could borrow the money to fund its construction work"[138] and this was where Foot was important. Foot supported the council in their plans for the rebuilding of the city and liaised especially with Bert Medland MP.[139] He helped to arrange the compulsory purchase of the land in the city centre. Foot and Medland went to the Treasury and told the ministers that they had already bought the land and signed the contracts. It was therefore too late to go back on what they had done so Plymouth got the money.[140] Chalkley acknowledges that "generally, the government was sympathetic to Plymouth"s case."[141] Certainly the rebuilding of Plymouth was very fast and because they already had a plan they were able to get ahead. Foot also recalls the excitement the reconstruction generated.[142] Foot was concerned about not only building houses but with building communities thus the reconstruction of schools, factories and libraries were of vital importance to him. [143] Foot spent a good deal of parliamentary time contributing to debates on blitzed cities and reconstruction.
Foot"s time as an MP was beneficial for those constituents involved in trade unionism. Trade unionism was very active in the dockyards where there was a strong working class trade union tradition.[144] The docks were union orientated though belonging to a union was not compulsory. Foot"s victory played a part in breaking down anti-union feeling in the Admiralty.[145] Some of Foot"s staunchest Labour party allies came from the dockyard. The skilled boiler makers" union provided a training ground for Harry Wright, Bert Medland and Harry Mason. Foot was concerned that the unions were fully involved in the decision making processes - when there was a change in policy on demobilisation Foot asked that "in view of the concern that has arisen in the case of some of these new merit awards, would the Civil Lord undertake to give the closest attention to any representations made by the trade unions on the matter?"[146] Labour were generally believed to support the trade unions" best interests so when Hore-Belisha questioned Labour and Foot"s commitment to supporting the rights of trade unionists, he was able to dismiss the attack as the "latest red herring" which was "too comical for words."[147]
However on the question of disarmament Foot was not at one with his constituency and as we have seen this was key to his election defeat in 1955. Disarmament talks were going on both nationally and internationally during Foot"s Devonport years. Foot was in favour of disarmament and as we have seen although he was warned not to mention the issue by local party members, he ignored their advice and made his views very public. Disarmament worried many of the people of Devonport, not only the naval personnel, as a lot of Devonport"s other employment was also affected either directly or indirectly by the dockyard. Disarmament also worried the trade unions who feared that it would mean a loss of jobs. Lemin notes that people "had the stupid idea he was trying to destroy their jobs."[148] Soldiers are heroes in Guilty Men. Foot and his colleagues talk of an "army doomed before they took the field,[149]the book says that, "the men of Dunkirk needed no snow suits. Their requirements were of a heavier nature."[150] Again and again they hammer home that there were "insufficient tanks and airplanes to protect them..." [151] Thus in the 1940s, as Foot was so anti appeasement, it was easy to paint him as pro armaments. Therefore in the 1945 election there was no problem with the dockyard vote. However by 1950 the charge of pacifism was being levelled against Foot.[152] He was talking openly about disarmament. His constituents thought he was more concerned with his personal beliefs than with their concerns and so he was losing their support.
Michael Foot was a good MP for party activists. He spent a good deal of time engaged in local party activities. He was an active campaigner who focussed on Plymouth issues when campaigning in Devonport. Foot was clearly a hit with Devonport Labour Party. He managed to strike a great rapport with his constituency party and constituency workers, so much so that in 1991 some members were referring to him as the "only Labour MP for Devonport"[153] and at the turn of the century party members still call him a "great MP for Plymouth".[154] That he understood the needs of activists is shown by Ron Lemin"s comment, "when he lost the seat in 1955 I believe I was more upset than he was."[155] Foot"s speech on his defeat was exactly what his activists needed to hear, he thanked his supporters for what they had done and told them, "The people of this constituency are the best in the world. We will come back and fight again, and we will win!" [156]
Away from election time, Foot kept in close contact with his CLP attending not only constituency wide meetings but also ward meetings in which he played a "very active role".[157]Fundraising is an essential part of any local party"s activities and Foot often helped out. His presence at fundraising events was a good way to boost turnout. He attended the obligatory dinners and dances. In the 1940s and 1950s Devonport CLP organised summer outings to Calstock where members took part in sports and games.[158] There is a picture of such an event in Hoggart and Leigh"s biography showing Foot engaged in a tug-of-war.[159] Party members also recall football matches and inter-ward competitions in which he took part.[160] Doug Colton calls him an "inspiring figure" who led him to play an active role in the Labour Party for the next 51 years.[161]
As long as Foot"s views and his constituents" views were not fundamentally opposed, Foot proved to be a good constituency MP. He cared about his constituency and visited it often. He was aware which subjects were of concern to his constituents - housing and dockyard pensions - and he spent much time on these issues, despite the fact that they were not of great personal interest to him. On the issue of the Plymouth Plan, Foot and his constituents were in agreement. They wanted a speedily rebuilt city and he believed that this was democratic socialism in action. Here his help was very useful. However, at certain times - notably on disarmament - his beliefs came before his constituents. As we have seen this was a crucial factor in his 1955 election defeat. In 1955 Foot no longer seemed to be a good constituency MP for those many Devonport constituents associated with the dockyard.
Foot"s background made him into a democratic socialist imbued with liberal values. This is crucial to an appreciation of his career in Devonport as his understanding of socialism is apparent in all that he did. When studying both his electoral performance and his role as a constituency MP his core values and beliefs are constantly apparent. By 1945, Labour Party politics was the obvious choice for Foot. He had acquired the skills to be a good MP through his upbringing where electioneering and public speaking were prioritised. In 1945 the Labour Party combined Foot"s liberalism with his newly acquired socialism in a package that appealed to the electorate. Foot used the build up to the 1945 election to prepare for the campaign. He was focussed on the post-war world. When in parliament, Foot got a reputation as a left winger and a Bevanite but, in the main, he also remained faithful to his constituents" concerns.
The two main issues in Plymouth from 1945-55 were the post-war reconstruction and dockyard employment/disarmament. On the key issue of post-war reconstruction Foot and his constituents were in agreement. Foot was a great believer in the Plymouth Plan. He, like his constituents, believed reconstruction was a priority. Foot thought the Plymouth Plan was "democratic socialism in action". Plymouth did get ahead of other blitzed towns and this is due in part to the fact that Plymouth had such a committed man as Foot as one of its MPs. Disarmament was the key issue on which Foot and his constituents were divided. Here Foot put his own beliefs before those of his constituents. He thought that the socialist ideas of internationalism were incompatible with rearmament. In a dockyard constituency disarmament was hugely unpopular as it was believed that it would lead to unemployment. Here we see the importance of Foot"s socialism. He had his constituents" support for socialist reconstruction but he lost the support of his constituents, because of his socialist beliefs on disarmament, and this was a key factor in his loss of the 1955 election.
Foot"s decision to contest Plymouth Devonport is significant. At the time of his adoption the seat looked unwinnable and throughout the period it remained a marginal. However Foot still decided to fight elections there and indeed after his defeat in 1955 he stayed on as prospective candidate and fought again in Devonport in the 1959 General Election. This is testimony not only to his deeply held belief in the importance of loyalty but also to the importance of the Plymouth connection to Foot. Plymouth was Foot"s birthplace and he had a deep affection for the city. As the city was rebuilt along the lines laid out in the Plan he grew attached to the new city he was instrumental in building.
Foot"s Devonport years were beneficial for Plymouth and beneficial for Foot. Plymouth gained from Foot. He brought significant benefits to the city notably in speeding along the Plymouth Plan. It could be argued that fighting Devonport was a bad career move for Foot. It led to defeat in 1955 so that he was out of parliament for four years until 1959, whereupon he compounded the problem by standing again in Devonport so that he was kept out of parliament for another year until 1960 when he stood in Ebbw Vale. However I would argue that standing in Devonport was not damaging to Foot. Of course, we can see with the benefit of hindsight that Foot went on to rise through the Labour ranks eventually becoming leader of the opposition. In a landslide victory there are many surprise wins and in 1945 one such one was Devonport. The victory immediately raised Foot"s profile. As MP for Devonport Foot learnt the tricks of the trade, developed his left wing political ideas and became well known across the country. While not in parliament Foot was still politically engaged and a time out of Westminster politics allowed him more freedom to express his ideas. There is also a tendency amongst the English to mistrust those who want something too badly. In his time outside Westminster, Foot proved he could cope without the title of MP. Having earned these credentials he was offered Ebbw Vale, one of the safest seats in the country. Foot could probably have got a safer seat than Devonport in 1945, but never an Ebbw Vale. Ebbw Vale meant Foot could say what he wanted from then on.
Foot"s Devonport years were a vital part in his political development. In his decisions we can see that his socialist principles came first even at the expense of winning elections but because Foot went through this period in Devonport, when he eventually became MP for Ebbw Vale, there was far less need to make such difficult decisions.
| Year | Candidates | Result | % Votes | Lab Maj. |
| 1945 | Michael Foot, Labour | 13 395 | 54.1 | 2 013 |
| Leslie Hore-Belisha, National | 11 382 | 45.9 | ||
| 1950 | Michael Foot, Labour | 30 812 | 50.6 | 3 483 |
| Randolph Churchill, Conservative | 27 329 | 44.9 | ||
| Alfred Cann, Liberal | 2 766 | 4.5 | ||
| 1951 | Michael Foot, Labour | 32 158 | 51.9 | 2 300 |
| Randolph Churchill, Conservative | 29 768 | 48.1 | ||
| 1955 | Michael Foot, Labour | 24 721 | 47.0 | -100 |
| Joan Vickers, Conservative | 24 821 | 47.2 | ||
| A. Russell Mayne, Liberal | 3 100 | 5.9 |
A group of MPs, Keep Left (London, 1947)
Cassius, Brendan and Beverley (London, 1944)
Cassius, The Trial of Mussolini (London, 1943)
Cato (Foot, Peter Howard and Frank Owen) Guilty Men (London, 1940)
Foot, Aneurin Bevan 1897-1945 (St Albans, 1975)
Foot, Aneurin Bevan 1945-60 (London, 1973)
Foot, Debts of Honour (London, 1981)
Foot, Loyalists and Loners (London, 1986)
House of Commons Debates, volumes 420-442, 1945-1955
Scotland Andrew, A Handbook of the Plymouth Plan (London, 1943)
Watson J.P., A Plan for Plymouth (Plymouth, 1943)
Plymouth Library, Handwritten Records, Local Election Results 1945-1955
"Let Us Face The Future - General Election Manifesto 1945" in, Iain Dale (ed.) Labour Party General Election Manifestos, 1900-1997 (London, 2000)
"Let Us Win Through Together - General Election Manifesto 1950" in, Iain Dale (ed.) Labour Party General Election Manifestos, 1900-1997 (London, 2000)
"General Election Manifesto 1951" in, Iain Dale (ed.) Labour Party General Election Manifestos, 1900-1997 (London, 2000)
Labour Party, "Forward With Labour - General Election Manifesto 1955" in, Iain Dale (ed.) Labour Party General Election Manifestos, 1900-1997 (London, 2000)
Castle Barbara, Fighting All the Way (London, 1994)
Crossman R.H.S., The Backbench Diaries, ed. Janet Morgan (London, 1981)
Dalton Hugh, The Political Diary of Hugh Dalton, 1918-40, 1945-60, ed. Ben Pimlott (London, 1986)
Gaitskell Hugh, The Diary of Hugh Gaitskell 1945-1956, ed. Philip M Williams (London, 1983)
Minney R.J. (ed.), The Private Papers of Hore-Belisha (London, 1960)
Walker Patrick Gordon, Political Diaries, ed. Robert Pearce (London, 1991)
Dalton Hugh, High Tide and after, Memoirs, 1945-60 (London, 1963)
Lee Jennie, My Life With Nye (London, 1980)
Mikardo Ian, Back-Bencher, (London 1988)
http://sca.lib.liv.ac.uk/collections/Owen/book/PART1.DOC (extract from Owen, Time to Declare (London, 1991) online Owen Collection at Liverpool University)
Western Morning News
Western Evening Herald
Devonport Remembered (amateur video of Foot"s speech to Devonport CLP), 1991
Interview with Michael Foot, 14 Feb. 2002
Interview with Ken Glanville, 10 Dec. 2001
Interview with Phil Bryce, 10 Dec. 2001
Interview with John Ingham, 10 Dec. 2001
Letter from Doug Colton, 6 Dec. 2001
Berrington Hugh B., Backbench Opinion in the House of Commons (Oxford, 1973)
Brayshay Mark (ed.), South West Papers in Geography, Post War Plymouth: Planning and Reconstruction. Essays marking the 40th Anniversary of the 1943 Plan for Plymouth (Plymouth, 1983)
Brivati Brian, "Labour"s Literary Dominance", in Brian Brivati and Richard Hefferman (eds.), The Labour Party: A Centenary History (London, 2000)
Campbell John, Nye Bevan and the Mirage of British Socialism (London, 1987)
Catterall Peter, "Oral History" in Peter Catterall and Harriet Jones, Understanding Documents and Sources (Oxford, 1994)
Childs David, Britain Since 1945: A Political History (London, 1997)
Clarke Peter, Hope and Glory (London, 1997)
Craig F.W., British Parliamentary Election Statistics 1918-70 (Chichester, 1971)
Dell Edmund, A Strange Eventful History Democratic Socialism in Britain (London, 2000)
Dowse Robert E., "The MP and his surgery", Political Studies, 11 (1963)
Endacott Andy, 300 years devotion to duty: Plymouth dockyard (Saltash, 1992)
Fisher Rory, "The Fabian Interview", Fabian Review, (Spring 2000)
Foote Geoffrey, The Labour Party, Political Thought - A History (London, 1986)
Gill C., Plymouth A New History 1603 to the present day, (Newton Abbot, 1979)
Goodman Geoffrey, "Jill Craigie : A Woman of Some Importance", Tribune (2000)
Guthrig Sylvia, From Plymouth Dock to Devonport (Plymouth, 1995)
Hennessy Peter, Never Again - Britain 1945-51 (London, 1992)
Hoggart Simon & Leigh David, Michael Foot: A Portrait (London, 1981)
Jenkins Mark, Bevanism Labour"s High Tide (Nottingham, 1979)
Jones Mervyn, Michael Foot (London, 1994)
Kavanagh D., The Politics of the Labour Party (London, 1982)
McCallum R.B. and Readman Alison, The British General Election of 1945 (London, 1968)
Milne R.S. and Mackenzie H.C., Straight Fight: A Study of Voting Behaviour in the constituency of Bristol North-East at the General Election of 1951 (London, 1954)
Morgan Kenneth, Labour in Power (Oxford, 1989)
Morgan Kenneth, Labour People Leaders and Lieutenants, Hardie to Kinnock, (Oxford, 1987)
Morgan Kenneth, The People"s Peace: British History Since 1945 (Oxford, 1999)
Munroe Ronald, "The Member of Parliament as a representative: the view from the constituency" Political Studies, 25 (1977)
Norton Philip and Wood David M., Back from Westminster: British Members of Parliament and their Constituents (Kentucky, 1993)
Richards Huw, The bloody circus: the Daily Herald and the Left (London, 1997)
Schneer J., "Hopes Deferred or Shattered: The British Labour Left and the Third Force Movement" Journal of Modern History, 56 (1984)
Schneer J., Labour"s Conscience The Labour Left 1945-51 (London, 1988)
Scutt Winfrid, Plymouth - The Making of a City (Plymouth, 1989)
Thorpe Andrew, A History of the British Labour Party (London, 1997)
Tiratsoo N., Reconstruction, Affluence, Labour Politics (London, 1990)
Williams Philip M., "Interviewing Politicians: The Life of Hugh Gaitskell" Political Quarterly, 51 (1980)
[1] Philip Williams quoted in Peter Catterall, "Oral History", in P. Catterall and Harriet Jones (eds.), Understanding Documents and Sources (Oxford, 1994), 25-28, at 25.
[2] Ibid., 26.
[3] House of Commons Debates, (413) 342.
[4] Simon Hoggart and David Leigh, Michael Foot - A Portrait (London, 1981), p.22.
[5] Ibid., p.26.
[6] Ibid., p.17.
[7] Mervyn Jones, Michael Foot (London, 1994), p.34.
[8] Ibid., p.96.
[9] Western Evening Herald (WEH), 24 Feb. 1950.
[10] Michael Foot, Debts of Honour (London, 1981).
[11] Michael Foot, Loyalists and Loners (London, 1986).
[12] Jones, Foot, p.27.
[13] Ibid., p.27.
[14] Foot, Debts of Honour, p.159.
[15] Foot, Aneurin
Bevan 1945-60 (London, 1973), p.22.
[16] Cato, Guilty Men (London, 1940).
[17] Cassius, Brendan and Beverley (London, 1944).
[18] Ibid., p.57.
[19] Ibid., p.57.
[20] Cassius, The
Trial of Mussolini (London, 1943), p.51.