How far do sources 1 and 2 support the view given in source 3 that the conservatives won the 1951 Election because of “a real detestation…. of Labour”.

Source 3 suggests that the reason that the conservatives won the 1952 Election was because of “a real detestation of...... Labour” however also shows that this wasn’t Labours fault, and that they weren’t a bad government, saying it was “illogical” for the people to dislike Labour as it wasn’t their fault it was simply a sign of the times, before the “prosperity returned”. The idea that it wasn’t Labours fault is mirrored in the thrust of both Source 1 and 2 is that the Labour defeat wasn’t due to Labour being a bad government, rather that they were unfortunate. For example Source 1 says it election was at the “worst possible moment” therefore it wasn’t because there was a hatred for them but rather they weren’t in a good situation to show the party at its best and therefore could encourage the support need to win the election. This is supported by Source 2 as it shows that it was the support of the liberals changing to conservative at the time which led to the loss of the election for Labour, saying “the comparative lack of Liberal candidates undoubtedly helped the conservatives”, and therefore disadvantaged Labour. However while Source 1 and 2 agree to a large extent saying at some points the extent same thing that the “Withdrawal of a large number of Liberal candidates” and the “comparative lack of Liberal candidates” being the reason the conservative party won. The purpose of the Source 2 and 3 show the extent to which they agree with Source 1, as Source 2s origin is that it was written by histories and therefore suggest that it is an factual piece of evidence and therefore true. While Source 3 origin, is written from the view of that of a conservative therefore would unlikely be kind to Labour had there not been a true reason. These add weight to Source 1 as it was written by a Labour and therefore be most sympathetic toward the parties’ loss. Also the fact that the purpose of the Source 1 was to justify there loss also shows how much they disagree as Source 2s purpose is suggests that it is trying to show what happened rather than be biased to one side, even though this contradicts origin.

Source 3 suggests that there was a large majority of people who were against the Labour party shown by the fact it mentions “a real” suggesting quite a few people while also it was a “middle class disenchantment with Labour” therefore suggesting that it was the whole middle class who felt that why and therefore are large part of the popularity of Britain. This is to an extent supported by Source 2 which demonstrates while not as largely as Source 3 implies there was a big change in the number of votes received by the Labour party. For example showing that in 1950 there were “more than 2.5 million votes” for the Liberals however “less than a quarter of a million votes” in 1951. But the around the same number votes therefore showing “the majority of former Liberal voters… this time voted for the Conservative Party. However Source 2 disagrees to an extent as it says that “Labour tended to accumulate its votes in large majorities” therefore suggesting that although they did not gain as many vote there were still areas where they had “large majorities”. Source 1 strongly disagrees that there was a large number of people with “ a real detestation of…. Labour”. Stating that it was a “neck-and-neck” and “indeed a close-run-thing” therefore showing that there couldn’t have been a large majority against the party as that could not have resulted in such a closely run race. Source 1 shows the extent to the disagreement through its nature as it was written in hindsight by a Labour member this suggests that he would be more likely to look back on it as a more favourable event than it may have actually been. Whereas the nature of Source 2 is different as although it is also written in