Saturday, March 21, 2020

Why Churchill Lost the 1945 Election

Why Churchill Lost the 1945 Election In 1945 Britain, an event occurred which still causes shocked questions from around the world: how did Winston Churchill, the man who had led Britain to victory in the Second World War, get voted out of office at the moment of his greatest success, and by such an apparently large margin. To many it looks like Britain was supremely ungrateful, but push deeper and you find that Churchill’s total focus on the war allowed he, and his political party, to take their eyes off the mood of the British People, allowing their pre-war reputations to weigh them down. Churchill and the Wartime Consensus In 1940 Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister of a Britain who appeared to be losing the Second World War against Germany. Having been in and out of favor over a long career, having been ousted from one government in World War One only to return later to great effect, and as a long-standing critic of Hitler, he was an interesting choice. He created a coalition drawing on the three main parties of Britain – Labour, Liberal, and Conservative – and turned all his attention to fighting the war. As he masterfully kept the coalition together, kept the military together, kept international alliances between capitalist and communist together, so he rejected pursuing party politics, refusing to aggrandize his Conservative party with the successes he and Britain began to experience. For many modern viewers, it might seem that handling the war would merit re-election, but when the war was coming to a conclusion, and when Britain divided back into party politics for the el ection of 1945, Churchill found himself at a disadvantage as his grasp of what people wanted, or at least what to offer them, had not developed. Churchill had passed through several political parties in his career and had led the Conservatives in the early war in order to press his ideas for the war. Some fellow conservatives, this time of a far longer tenure, began to worry during the war that while Labour and other parties were still campaigning – attacking the Tories for appeasement, unemployment, economic disarray – Churchill was not doing the same for them, focusing instead on unity and victory. Churchill Misses Reform One area where the Labour party were having success campaigning during the war was reform. Welfare reforms and other social measures had been developing before World War 2, but in the early years of his government, Churchill had been induced into commissioning a report on how Britain could rebuild after it. The report had been chaired by William Beveridge and would take his name. Churchill  and others were surprised that the findings went beyond the rebuilding they’d envisioned, and presented nothing less than a social and welfare revolution. But the hopes of Britain were growing as the war seemed to be turning, and there was vast support for Beveridge’s report to be turned into a reality, a great new dawn. Social issues now dominated the part of British political life that was not taken up with the war, and Churchill and the Tories slipped back in the public’s mind. Churchill, a one-time reformer, wished to avoid anything which might fracture the coalition and didn’t back the report as much as he might; he was also dismissive of Beveridge, the man, and his ideas. Churchill thus made it clear he was putting off the issue of social reform until after the elections, while Labour did as much as they could to demand it being put into practice sooner, and then promised it after the election. Labour became associated with the reforms, and the Tories were accused of being against them. In addition, Labour’s contribution to the coalition government had earned them respect: people who had doubted them before began to believe Labour could run a reforming administration. The Date Is Set, the Campaign Fought World War 2 in Europe was declared over on May 8th, 1945, the coalition ended on May 23rd, and the elections were set for July 5th, although there would have to be extra time to gather the votes of the troops. Labour began a powerful campaign aimed at reform and made sure to take their message to both those in Britain and those who had been forced abroad. Years later, soldiers reported being made aware of Labour’s goals, but not hearing anything from the Tories. In contrast, Churchill’s campaign seemed to be more about re-electing him, built around his personality and what he’d achieved in the war. For once, he got the thoughts of the British public every wrong: there was still the war in the East to finish, so Churchill seemed distracted by that. The electorate was more open to the promises of Labour and the changes of the future, not the paranoia about socialism that the Tories tried to spread; they weren’t open to the actions of a man who had won the war, but whose party had not been forgiven for the years before it, and a man who had never seemed – up to now – entirely comfortable with peace. When he compared a Labour-run Britain to the Nazis and claimed Labour would need a Gestapo, people were not impressed, and memories of the Conservative inter-war failures, and even of Lloyd George’s failure to deliver post World War 1, were strong. Labour Win The results began coming in on July 25th and soon revealed Labour winning 393 seats, which gave them a dominant majority. Attlee was Prime Minister, they could carry out the reforms they wished, and Churchill seemed to have been defeated in a landslide, although the overall voting percentages were much closer. Labour won nearly twelve million votes, to nearly ten million Tory, and so the nation wasn’t quite as united in its mindset as it might appear. A war-weary Britain with one eye on the future had rejected a party which had been complacent and a man who had focused entirely on the nation’s good, to his own detriment.​ However, Churchill had been rejected before, and he had one last comeback to make. He spent the next few years reinventing himself once more and was able to resume power as a peacetime Prime Minister in 1951.

Thursday, March 5, 2020

Understanding Fearful Avoidant Attachment Style

Understanding Fearful Avoidant Attachment Style Individuals with a  fearful avoidant attachment style desire close relationships, but feel uncomfortable relying on others and fear being let down. Fearful avoidant is one of four key styles of attachment proposed by psychologist John Bowlby, who developed attachment theory.   Key Takeaways: Fearful Avoidant Attachment Attachment theory is a theory in psychology that explains how and why we form close relationships to other people.According to attachment theory, our early experiences in life can cause us to develop expectations that affect our relationships throughout our lives.Individuals with a fearful avoidant attachment style worry about being rejected and are uncomfortable with closeness in their relationships.Having a fearful avoidant attachment style is linked to negative outcomes, such as a higher risk of social anxiety and depression as well as less fulfilling interpersonal relationships.Recent research suggests that it’s possible to change one’s attachment style and to develop healthier ways of relating to others. Attachment Theory Overview When studying the interactions between infants and their caregivers, Bowlby noticed that infants had a need to be in close proximity to their caregivers and that they often became quite distressed when separated. Bowlby suggested that this response was part of an evolved behavior: because young infants are dependent upon parents for caregiving, forming a close attachment to parents is evolutionarily adaptive.  Ã‚   According to attachment theory, individuals develop expectations about how other people will behave  based upon  those early attachments.  For example, if a childs parents are generally responsive and supportive when he or she is distressed, attachment theory would predict that the child would become a trusting adult. On the other hand, a child whose parents responded inconsistently or negatively might have difficulty trusting others upon reaching adulthood.   The 4 Attachment Styles Generally speaking, there are four different prototypical attachment styles that can explain our attitudes and beliefs about relationships: Secure.  Individuals with a secure attachment  style feel comfortable trusting others. They see themselves as worthy of love and support and are confident that others will support them if they need help.Anxious (also known as preoccupied or anxious-ambivalent). Anxiously attached individuals want to rely on others, but worry that others won’t support them in the way that they want. According to psychologists Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz, anxiously attached individuals typically have positive evaluations of other people but tend to doubt their self-worth, which causes them to seek out the support of others but also worry about whether their feelings for others will be reciprocated.Avoidant (also known as dismissing-avoidant). Avoidant individuals  tend to limit the closeness of their relationships and feel uncomfortable relying on other people. According to Bartholomew and Horowitz, avoidant individuals typically have positive views of themselves but believe that other people can’t be counted on. Consequently, avoidant individuals tend to remain independent and often try to avoid any form of dependence. Fearful avoidant.  Individuals  with a fearful avoidant attachment style have characteristics of both anxious and avoidant individuals. Bartholomew and Horowitz write that they tend to have negative views of both themselves and others, feel unworthy of support, and anticipate that others will not support them. As a result, they feel uncomfortable relying on others despite a desire for close relationships. Most people do not  fit the attachment style prototypes perfectly; instead, researchers measure attachment style as a spectrum. In attachment questionnaires, researchers give participants questions measuring both their anxiety and avoidance in relationships. Anxiety  survey items include statements such as, â€Å"Im afraid that I will lose my partners love,† while avoidance survey items include statements like, I  dont feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.† On these measures of attachment, fearful avoidant individuals  score highly on both anxiety and avoidance. Roots of the Fearful Avoidant Attachment Style If parents are not responsive to a childs needs, the child may develop a fearful avoidant attachment style. Psychologist  Hal Shorey writes that people with fearful avoidant attachment styles may have had parents who responded to their needs in threatening ways or who were otherwise unable to care for and comfort the child. Similarly, researcher Antonia Bifulco  found that fearful avoidant attachment is  linked to childhood abuse and neglect. However, some research suggests that fearful avoidant attachment style may have other origins as well. In fact,  in one study  conducted by  Katherine Carnelley and her colleagues, the researchers found that attachment style was related to participants’ relationships with their mothers when they looked at college student participants. However, among a group of older participants, researchers did not find the expected link between early experiences and attachment. In other words, while early life experiences do affect attachment style, other factors may also play a role. Key Studies Some research suggests that fearful avoidant attachment style is connected to  an increased  risk of anxiety and depression. In a study conducted by Barbara Murphy and Glen Bates at the Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, researchers compared attachment style and symptoms of depression among 305 research participants. The researchers found that fewer than 20% of participants had a fearful avoidant attachment style, but, among participants whom the researchers categorized as depressed, the prevalence of fearful avoidant attachment was much higher. In fact, nearly half of  participants categorized as depressed displayed a fearful avoidant attachment style. Other research has corroborated these findings.   Psychologists have found that individuals  with secure attachment styles tend to self-report  healthier and more satisfying relationships than insecurely attached individuals. In a study conducted by noted attachment researchers  Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver, researchers asked participants questions  about their most important romantic relationships. The researchers found that secure participants reported having relationships that lasted longer than avoidant and anxious participants’ relationships. Because fearful avoidant attachment style encompasses elements of both anxiety and avoidance, this particular attachment style can lead to interpersonal difficulties. For example, Shorey writes that people with a fearful avoidant attachment style want close relationships, but may pull away because of their anxieties and worries about relationships. Changing Attachment Style According to recent research, the negative outcomes of fearful avoidant attachment style are not inevitable. Individuals can utilize therapy to change relationship behavior patterns and cultivate a more secure attachment style. According to  the Greater Good Science Center, therapy  provides an outlet for understanding ones attachment style and practicing  new ways of thinking about relationships. Additional research has found that being in a relationship with someone who is securely attached can be beneficial to those with less secure attachment styles. In other words, people with less secure attachment styles may gradually become more comfortable if they are in a relationship with someone who has a secure attachment style. If two individuals who are not securely attached find themselves in a relationship together, it has been suggested that they may benefit from couple’s therapy. Healthier relationship dynamics are possible by coming to understand ones own attachment style as well as the attachment style of ones partner. Sources and Further Reading Bartholomew, Kim. â€Å"Avoidance of Intimacy: An Attachment Perspective.† Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 7.2 (1990): 147-178. rebeccajorgensen.com/libr/Journal_of_Social_and_Personal_Relationships-1990-Bartholomew-147-781.pdfBartholomew, Kim and Leonard M. Horowitz. â€Å"Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model.† Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61.2 (1991): 226-244. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6b60/00ae9911fa9f9ec6345048b5a20501bdcedf.pdfBifulco, Antonia, et al. â€Å"Adult Attachment Style As Mediator Between Childhood Neglect/Abuse and Adult Depression and Anxiety.† Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 41.10 (2006): 796-805. http://attachmentstyleinterview.com/pdf%20files/Adult_Att_Style_as_Mediator.pdfCarnelley, Katherine B., Paula R. Pietromonaco, and Kenneth Jaffe. â€Å"Depression, Working Models of Others, and Relationship Functioning.† Journal of Personality and Social Psychol ogy 66.1 (1994): 127-140. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8126643 Djossa, Erica. â€Å"Is There Hope for the Insecurely Attached?† Science of Relationships (2014, June 19). scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/6/19/is-there-hope-for-the-insecurely-attached.htmlâ€Å"The Experiences in Close Relationships Scale-Revised (ECR-R) Questionnaire.† http://fetzer.org/sites/default/files/images/stories/pdf/selfmeasures/Attachment-ExperienceinCloseRelationshipsRevised.pdfFraley, R. Chris. â€Å"Adult Attachment Theory and Research: A Brief Overview.† University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Department of Psychology (2018). http://labs.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htmHazan, Cindy, and Phillip Shaver. â€Å"Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process.† Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52.3 (1987): 511-524. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a7ed/78521d0d3a52b6ce532e89ce6ba185b355c3.pdfLaslocky, Meghan. â€Å"How to Stop Attachment Insecurity from Ruining Your Love Life.† Greater Good Mag azine (2014, Feb. 13). https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_to_stop_attachment_insecurity_from_ruining_your_love_life Murphy, Barbara, and Glen W. Bates. â€Å"Adult Attachment Style and Vulnerability to Depression.† Personality and Individual Differences 22.6 (1997): 835-844. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886996002772Shorey, Hal. â€Å"Come Here-Go Away; the Dynamics of Fearful Attachment.† Psychology Today: The Freedom to Change (2015, May 26). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-freedom-change/201505/come-here-go-away-the-dynamics-fearful-attachment