ABSTRACT
There was a general expectation that the outbreak of war would bring about an end to party government and its replacement by a crossparty coalition; the First World War had taught that nothing less than this was needed for the organization of the nation’s resources for victory. But it was not to be. Chamberlain responded to the expectation by offering places to the opposition Labour Party in a reconstituted government. The offer was genuine enough but Chamberlain was relieved when it was refused, for he did not relish the prospect of working with those whom he despised and whose criticism of his failed appeasement policy he could not forgive. Personal animus against Chamberlain was part of the explanation for Labour’s refusal but there was, too, a feeling that participation in a Chamberlain-led government would do little for them. It would not really amount to a power to influence policy and it would muffle Labour’s ability to project its own distinctive view on the war effort and war aims. “Constructive opposition” was how the Labour leadership described its chosen stance. This promised Labour political gains from advancing the argument that a successful war effort required socialist measures, while avoiding the odium that in the minds of many of its supporters would attach to working with Chamberlain.
