• Home
• What is Sugar?
• The Project
• The Film
• The Blog
• Contact Us
• Comment
• Links

Blog Home >

The Litigious consequences of Mr Cube

Written by Ron Noon at 17:00 on Tuesday, July 21st 2009

THE LITIGIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF MR CUBE

Below the signature on Albert E Sloane’s letter from John Walker announcing the junking of the biennial Christmas parties, was an impertinent cartoon figure called Mr Cube, who fifty years earlier reached his apotheosis in an amazingly successful campaign resisting Labour party plans to nationalise the sugar industry. The iconic status of an animated sugar lump, armed with sword and shield of “free enterprise”, seared itself into the consciousness of a generation that grew up with his swashbuckling image and the bitter sweet messages projected onto packets of sugar.

Cube provided real “political food for thought” especially for housewives in that austere era of queuing and rationing, with warnings that nationalisation threatened “dear, dear, dearer” prices, and “State control will make a hole in your pocket and my packet”.  The most effective of his sound bites were “Take the S out of State” and the lapidary “Tate not State”, which allegedly agitated the deputy Prime Minister, Herbert Morrison into near apoplexy. The glittering campaign was all American turbo charged public relations, orchestrated by Tates PR consultants, the right wing propaganda group Aims of Industry.1

Before Mr Cube’s appearance on the “Kill Christmas letter”, I knew little about History’s most famous sugar lump but was prompted into conducting this research by a comment from Albert that by stealing Christmas from the Liverpool boys and girls from the whitestuff, Mr Cube ought be stripped of his sword and shield and made to wear a Scrooge hat with matching ball and chain! Not long after, I serendipitously discovered how after Cube’s first appearance in the Evening Standard on July 28th 1949, the command from Leonard Lyle, the President of Tate & Lyle, and a close friend of Opposition leader, Winston Churchill, was that he “must always be a knight in shining armour” and never “a psalm singing little bugger”! 2

Albert viewed him precisely as that. In fact towards the end of 1949 when Tates requested its employees to propose their own slogans for Cube’s sugar packets, this delightful lifelong socialist, who registered his first vote for Clem Atlee in India in June 1945, came up with the counter hegemonic slogan which needs rescuing from the enormous condescension of business history:  “Tate & Lyle have made a pile, give it to the rank and file”!

It is so often revealing how political “non-political” people eventually turn out to be and that applies to animated sugar cubes, with similar protestations. Mr Cube’s campaign to slay the socialist hydra will always epitomise political embarrassment and electoral set back for the most radical of Labour governments, as well as providing Tates with a logo that brought them considerable commercial and media benefits. Even when talk of sugar nationalisation was ancient history, Cube was still brandishing his sword of “free enterprise”, and holding aloft the company shield, on billboards, lorries, and millions of sugar packets and tins of Lyle’s Golden Syrup. Before Cube, Tates had no brand image, no mascot, no punchy catchphrases and very little of what advertisers today call “conceptual value added”. 

The exception was the “honeylike” Lyle’s Golden Syrup, where right at the front of the tin appeared an emblem of a dead lion festooned by bees, positioned above a biblical inscription, from Judges 14:18, alleging that “out of the strong came forth sweetness”. The source of sweetness was honey but that did not matter to family director Tony Tate who confirmed in 1968, “if you think this is honey, OK”!3 In the marketing world where historical veracity is not at a premium that is still OK, and Tates ever more alert to new sources of conceptual valued added, undertook an historic re-branding exercise at the beginning of the new millennium.

Supremely ironic was the fact that it was premised on the commercial euthanasia of a cartoon sugar lump and a Lazarus like re-launch of an old leonine emblem. The company web page notes that after 50 years of dedicated service, Mr Cube opted for retirement in 1999, (no reference there made to whether it was voluntary or compulsory and accelerated by the issuing of the “Kill Christmas” letter), and that his place has “now been taken by Lyle the Lion, who runs the ‘Cook with Lyle’ club”.

With the help of celebrity chef Gary Rhodes the club intends to provide children with recipes and great entertainment which akin to the national curriculum rules out any critical engagement with the nefarious history of the white stuff. “Smile, it’s Tate & Lyle” should not however be allowed to eclipse the fact that sugar has always been an intensely political product and despite company denials, State and Tate were inextricably linked from the end of the First World War onwards.

The company became traditional friends of the Conservative Party, a silent partnership which was only challenged by Atlee’s plans for nationalisation. The descriptions of Tate and Lyle as a privileged private monopoly engaged in political campaigning to reverse government policy, were sharply rebuffed by its directors, but this was as unconvincing as its international reputation for high efficiency and low costs was genuinely persuasive.

In the run up to the “dead heat” February 1950 General Election, the fight against increasingly unpopular Government policy was centred around the nationalisation of the refineries and Mr Cube proved a very adept friend of the Conservatives and their supporters in Fleet Street.  Anthony Hugill a member of the Company strategy team reminisced at the end of the 1970s how the campaign was “not Tate & Lyle’s, nor Lord Lyle’s, but Mr Cube’s”.4 This was remarkable in an era devoid of electronic and instant communication media, when mass communications meant the press and “BBC steam radio”.5

There were many other issues at stake in the Election battle and although it would be impossible to calibrate the precise psephological consequences of the fight for free enterprise sugar, a 1945 Labour landslide of 186 was reduced to 6 in February 1950 suggesting it was hardly uninfluenced by Mr Cube’s campaigning. But forty five years after that astounding result and the abandonment of Labour’s plans for nationalising sugar, a Tony Blair led Labour Party was posturing not towards its traditional union allies, but towards business friends including Tate & Lyle. This would have made Peter Mandelson’s grandfather, Herbert Morrison turn in his grave, but the zeitgeist was of a New and contemptuous of Old Labour party, busy exorcising the demon of nationalisation threats, which had hastened the birth of Mr Cube.

For me it is supremely ironic that an alliance was subsequently forged with arguably its greatest ever business foe, resulting in the first corporate donation from Tate & Lyle to the Labour party, just before the 1997 General Election. This was more than just a pecuniary measure of the transformation of the Labour Party in Albert’s lifetime. Neil Shaw the company chairman would tell the Committee of Standards in Public Life “how he began his love affair with Blair” and according to Stephen Hughes writing in Red Pepper, “he introduced Tony as a speaker at a meeting of Prince Charles’ Business in the Community, in early 1995”.6 Shaw who would later be replaced by ace American union buster, Larry Pillard,  noted “that his company had not always been a friend to Tate & Lyle, but that all this would change when the party’s new leader got rid of Clause IV”! 7

With echoes of Phillip Snowden and Montagu Norman, they embraced each other “like kindred lizards”. Blair even suggested that he ‘might use Mr Cube to help him destroy his party’s commitment to public ownership”. Was there ever really a prospect of this cartoon slayer of socialists being sub-contracted to Peter Mandelson, or appearing on the party’s headed notepaper as the symbol of a clauseless IV, free enterprise loving New Labour? My research to date including the account below has proved that in the too much taken for granted world of sugar, truth is often stranger than fiction:

“The story of a lump of sugar is a whole lesson in political economy, in politics and also in morality.” 8

In November 1952, the Solicitor General, Sir Reginald Manningham Buller QC, addressed the High Court of Justice on the political antics of a cartoon sugar lump which had brazenly challenged electoral law and Inland Revenue regulations. “The only question which falls for your Lordships determination is whether certain expenses incurred in a propaganda campaign against nationalisation of the sugar refining industry - a campaign which I think was generally known by   reference to Mr Cube - is an expense ‘wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the trade’ within the meaning of Rule 3a of Schedule D.“9

Mr Cube with his “huge eyes and a face able to depict any kind of emotion” 10 was a product of the fertile imagination of former Daily Express cartoonist, Bobby St John Cooper, and would say and get away with the most outrageous things.  According to Peter Runge, campaign strategist and later, President of the Industrial Society, he permitted Tate & Lyle, an imperial sugar company with plantations in Jamaica and Trinidad, to “concentrate on attacking the Socialist policy” of nationalisation “in a somewhat more dignified manner”. 11 Mr Cube’s cold war sound bites appeared on millions of sugar packets that landed on the nation’s breakfast tables, and galvanising other industries into protesting against meddlesome bureaucracy.12 This also sharpened the ideological divide between Labour and Conservative politicians over the role of the state in post-war economy and society.

The argument developed here is that just like the nefarious commodity which he animated in comic strip form, Mr Cube was deeply and irrefutably political and in December 1949 Sir Stafford Cripps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, reached the same conclusion that Herbert Morrison had reached earlier. The campaigning on behalf of the company founded by Sir Henry Tate, the wealthy Victorian philanthropist and patron of the arts, was political and expenditure for political purposes could not be deducted in computing profits for tax purposes. The adjudication was subsequently confirmed by HM Inspector of Taxes at the Board of Inland Revenue initiating a litigious chapter in the dazzling career of Albert’s “psalm singing little bugger”.

Aims of Industry (AOI), Tates Public Relations (PR) agent, were known as “PR storm-troopers”, 13 and a Blitzkrieg was duly launched on the party manifesto Labour Believes in Britain, in April 1949. AOI believed in free enterprise and had been set up in 1942 when HG Starley of Champion Sparking Plugs Ltd called a meeting of top industrialists and warned them to be prepared to launch an offensive against socialism. It was sustained by contributions and support materialising from a variety of lucrative sources including Associated Electrical Industries, Cortalds, Doulton, English Electric, Ford Motors, Handley Page, Imperial Chemical, Rolls Royce, the Cement Marketing Foundation and of course Tate & Lyle.

Despite unprecedented PR, deploying the best and the slickest of American methods and techniques, Lord Lyle the company President, affectionately known to journalists as Lord Cube, a former Conservative MP and close friend of the leader of the Opposition, Winston Churchill, defiantly declaimed his protégé as non-political. His skills as an orator and his “earthy realism and wit” made him a formidable thorn in the side of Government ministers and as company biographer Phillip Chalmin suggests, he would if necessary resort to “demagogy and calumny” in defence of his industry.14 The Lord who reigned over Mr Cube, indeed he was described as his spiritual godfather, defiantly insisted that the campaign expenses were “wholly and exclusively laid out” for the legitimate purposes of defending the industry.

Such advertising was patently not designed to win votes for Labour and coincided with revived Conservative electoral fortunes. “Set the people free” a slogan canvassed by the Daily Express in the wake of significant Tory gains in the local elections of 1947 was readily translated into a “freedom agenda” by Churchill which undoubtedly benefited from the imprimatur of this champion of free enterprise sugar! So when the polls closed on February 23rd 1950 Mr Cube had not only conveyed his final “non-political” message along with the cornflakes on the nations kitchen tables but registered a largely understated contribution to the Conservative recovery from a Labour majority of 186 to just 6!

Few general elections according to HG Nicholas “have cast their shadows for so long before” and this supposedly non-political campaigning made significant electoral impact months before Clem Attlee’s “unusually long notice of dissolution” of Parliament on January 11th 1950. 15 The Tories claimed that this early announcement was deliberately timed “to embarrass all the private champions of industries threatened with nationalisation” who could no longer insist that “their propaganda was ‘outside’ the election"16 but it did not deter Mr Cube. Exasperated Government Ministers claimed that Tates were breaching the 1948 Representation of the People Act, and its strict rules on election expenses. 

Imposing a ceiling on electoral expenditures was intended as a means of checking private wealth unduly influencing public opinion. The Tariff Reform League at the turn of the century indulged in election mischief by supporting and carrying on intensive campaigns for select candidates and then claimed that because “they were not members of either the Liberal or the Conservative Party” their expenses could not be charged against the candidate”. Section 42(1) of the 1948 act was designed to prevent this chicanery by “restricting expenditure by ‘outsiders’ in support of a particular candidate at an election”. Chuter Ede the Government Minister speaking at the Committee stage of the Bill, reminded MPs that “anyone who has had experience of fighting an election, knows well what is aimed at”, 17 but by December 1949 the influence of “outsiders” like Tate & Lyle and Aims of Industry was unchecked.

Their free enterprise messages were indulged by a free press that portrayed the devoutly Christian Cripps, as a bully over the tax expenses issue. His colleagues, Deputy Prime Minister Herbert Morrison and Attourney General Sir Hartley Shawcross, both of whom had railed against the influence of big business propaganda and the breach of electoral law, confronted similar opprobrium. Their “scarecrow” tactics failed and even the stern warning to Tates and AOI delivered by Morrison a few days after Attlee had announced the election date, “to be especially careful” and if the law were in doubt to “err on the side of keeping it” 18 was blatantly ignored. Paradoxically Labour’s first Jubilee celebrations, planned for the second to the fifth of February 1950 were cancelled by Clem Attlee, and despite official denials it seems that “the expenses incurred might have been adjudged a form of election propaganda”. 19 That was why Mr Attlee not Mr Cube erred on the side of caution. No cases were brought either before or after the General Election and so the meaning and scope of 42(1) of the Representation of the People Act unlike Rule 3a of Schedule D, was not subjected to judicial appraisal.

Aims of Industry was a non-profit making PR organisation selling private enterprise ideals while cunningly registered as an educational body! Together with another PR group, The Economic League, they persistently refuted Labour allegations that they were political. This actually helped secure admission of its speakers and films to schools, churches and even armed forces study groups! For right wing propaganda to be purveyed as a legitimate educational project was especially galling to Socialists desperately needing to win the battle for hearts and minds at a time when common cause and common sacrifice was impossible to recreate as vindication for a post-war world of “unnecessarily” prolonged austerity and shortage. Sydney Finer writing in 1956 suggested that AOI and similar groups were only non-political “in the technical sense…that they are not affiliated to the Conservative Party nor do they subscribe to or receive subventions from it”. 20 They were “Specialized Propoganda Organizations of private Capital”, unfettered, unlike Government, by the “constitutionalist” dilemma over what to advertise and its financing from a restricted and constantly scrutinised public purse. Politically active client companies like Tates were always able to deny their politics precisely because of the success of this combative propaganda. 

AOI were dubbed “underground Tory organisations” but this was technically incorrect. The Home Secretary Chuter Ede speaking in the House of Commons in December 1949 referred to a letter he had received from 48 Guilford Street, the Luton office of AOI which was “the side entrance to 58 Bute Street, a Tory Office”. 21 A search for AOIs telephone number educed “the statement from directory inquiries that this organisation is not known to them” but “it is possible to obtain them by ringing Luton 4500 which is the same number as the Tory Office”! 22 The Tories unlike Labour’s later problems with “deep entryist”  Trotskyist organisations, wisely left the side door open to covert friends. 

Brandishing the sword of free enterprise and appealing directly to housewives for whom food and consumption issues were of far more importance than the abstract battle for production and export markets, Mr Cube was lauded for standing up to bullying Government Ministers. The stoicism and selflessness that was disproportionately borne by women in mediating post-war austerity measures meant that they were more interested in their point in the interminable queues than Government points about the need to prioritise exports, and investment in production. As Ina Bargielowska’s work on austerity demonstrates, for many foodstuffs including sugar, pre-war consumption levels were only reached in the 1950s after the abolition of rationing and controls. 23

Food and consumption matters have been eclipsed in the historiography of the period by production issues and too much emphasis on the economy’s “Commanding Heights”. This has downsized the significance not only of Mr Cube’s campaigning but a commodity, which as its sullied history verifies, is arguably the most political of all foodstuffs. The insistence that sugar refining was not one of the economy’s commanding heights also ignores the fact that housewife dissatisfaction and low “food morale” translated much more quickly into the politics of everyday experience than say the much more vaunted politics of steel nationalisation. This is what Peter Hennessy was keenly aware of in researching Never Again: Britain: 1945-1951. Rationing meant “a very boring diet” and “the pleasure that an occasional ‘off ration’ treat must have brought” was as understandable as “how an entire nation could become obsessed with food”. 24

The ire of Labour leaders helped rather than hindered Mr Cube’s campaign endowing him “with the sympathy always reserved for the mechant animal defending himself against a bullying Leviathan”. 25 Rogow points out that of the twelve national morning and evening newspapers “with a total circulation of almost 19 million” there were two with a circulation of almost six million “that were reliably committed to the Government’s support”. 26 They were incensed and claimed that the Company was using its monopoly position “to force the housewife to buy Conservative and anti-Government slogans”.27 Tates despite the representation of “free enterprise sugar” and Mr Cube’s persuasive rhetoric was in reality a tariff protected private monopoly that had benefited disproportionately from Winston Churchill’s 1928 budget.
Before Britain was forced to abandon free trade policies one of the 20th century’s greatest political line dancers and free trade imperialists, was instrumental in securing for the refiners price discrimination against imports of refined sugar. (Five years before his Damascene conversion he stood unsuccessfully as a Free Trade Liberal in Leicester West!) Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, Phillip Snowden was so incensed he accused Churchill of being in the pockets of the refiners! A sympathetic company biographer Phillipe Chalmin argues that in 1949 “it controlled - directly or through its influence - the British sugar economy”. 28

The help of a largely Conservative press in bloodying Labour’s nose in February 1950 was recognized by Anthony Hugill, who like Peter Runge was a shrewd strategist in the campaign. His gratitude was extended to Government adversaries as they were the ones responsible “to a very great extent for the sudden and overwhelming success of Mr Cube”! Some of their assertions “on sugar refining” and “election expenses” had informed the public “to an extent which we could never have achieved without their aid, and all of this without having to pay them any plugging money”!

AOI claimed that British industry had received press publicity worth more than £1,800,000 or 93,178 column inches. “But it has n’t cost a tenth of that amount. News about the achievements of private enterprise and the failures of nationalization and State control has been of sufficient value to editors for them to have given it space in their columns free”. 29 Free newspaper column inches helped increase the number of features on sugar from 200 in August to 1800 at the end of 1949. And then “just to cock a snook at Mr Morrison and his colleagues, Cube appeared on packets timed for delivery over Christmas 1949, wearing a paper cap lifting a glass and saying ‘Whatever the Party, we wish you a merry Christmas”! 30. Fifty years later, on the threshold of his own retirement, Mr Cube donned his scrooge uniform and departed from public engagements as the “psalm singing little bugger” that had given his imprimatur to the junking of Christmas in Liverpool Love Lane! 

In December 1949 he appeared as the knight in shining armour whose seasonal greetings were conveyed in an austere political climate. For those however who argued that there was an alternative to this policy of continuing austerity, Mr Cube was the proxy voice. He symbolised the fact that there is always far more to food than nutrition! Indeed the government’s nutritional adviser commented early on in the post-war period that “because meals, have become so much more unattractive…people will not eat sufficient to eat their daily energy requirements”.31 It is that psychological context and the reminder that sugar was both a fact and a metaphor for the sweet things in life conspicuously absent, despite improved vital statistics, that provides the key to understanding the politics of food discontent.

Bargielowska reminds us that although there was no objective evidence of under-nourishment “perceived deprivation was intense”. 32 A cameo of this early predilection towards the good life as the sweet life was the experiment in de-rationing sweets. When carrots were sucked by children as sweets, Pathe News recorded the events in April 1949 that were designed to “put the fun back into being young” with its film footage of tiny tots queuing in anticipation of sweet shops opening up with their de-rationed goodies.

“Tots mouths have watered a whole lifetime for this great day. For years they’ve been cheated by the hard facts of world economy, from the unrestricted orgies, once accepted as the birthright of every child. But now hundreds and thousands are back by the billions, sherbert and gobstoppers and aniseed balls, lollipops and chocolate bars. And now for the Tummy Ache of a lifetime.” The anticipated epidemic of tots tummy aches was prevented by killjoy Food Minister John Strachey who did not build up sufficient stocks to meet the pent up demand and failed “to take into account considerations such as the present high cost and shortage of tobacco, the cut in our meat ration and our dull diet”. 33 The disappointing result was that unlike France, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg,  Poland, Switzerland and Eire, Labour Britain botched the experiment in assuaging dietary severity with sweets. Consequently when “treats” like sweets were re-rationed the sweet fightin’ icon of free enterprise was a permanent reminder to contemporaries that there were choices and policy differences between the political parties.

Tory historians need to acknowledge their ideological debts to their class warrior, Mr Cube, because in the wake of the People’s War and the pronounced egalitarian shift in political culture, the Labour landslide of July 1945 symbolized more than a huge majority and electoral devastation for the Conservatives. Viscount Hitchingbrooke pronounced it a “philosophical disaster”, boding ill for a party visibly stained by privilege and rank, and haemorrhaging from an almost terminal sense of decline. They had been routed and the fear “was not that the Conservative Party had missed its turn - any politician can live with that - but that it would never get another”.34 Their revival was largely orchestrated by the administrative reforms introduced by Party Chairman Lord Woolton, formerly Sir Frederick Marquis and a great success as wartime Minister of Food.

This former Chairman of Liverpool Departmental store group, Lewis’s, was affectionately known as “Uncle Fred” to rank and file conservatives and vital though his organisational changes and sensitivity to housewife issues were to Tory revival, his success was boosted by the ideological spring cleaning of policies and the launching of a political education movement by Rab Butler and his young men of “ideas”. But despite the fact that organisational and policy changes were very important in restoring the Conservatives electoral capabilities, the transformation was more than just psephological and organisational. It was cultural and ideological and could only have been enhanced by the anti-nationalisation campaign of Mr Cube and Aims of Industry. 

So when the Maxwell Fyfe Committee on Party Organisation published its recommendations for a reconstituted Advisory Committee in May 1949 a political educational campaign to proselytise the virtues of free enterprise over public ownership was well under way and the powerful illustrative ally for the Conservatives and their free enterprise allies in Fleet Street, was the ubiquitous Mr Cube. This is an important reminder to historians genuflecting to a latent “Bustskellism” amongst the political parties that the battle over the role of the state and consumption issues, reflected a far from consensual society and a two party system that had been re-energised by the furore over nationalisation. Nobody had perceived any problems with their sugar and syrup and according to Peter Hennessy “all the manifesto did was to stimulate a quite brilliant political advertising campaign” in which Mr Cube not only “brought political argument to every breakfast table in the land” but was “almost certainly my first encounter with politics”. 35
How ironic then that in November 1952, two and a half years after the start of his “pure spectacle of excess”, a leading judge in the High Court of Justice, professed not to know of him? Justice Harman displayed that studied and anachronistic unfamiliarity with public events and personalities, stoically favoured by many in the British Judiciary. After Buller’s opening comments he acknowledged “I am in duty bound to say, who is Mr Cube?“36 He professed to having “no judicial knowledge of him at all”, but on December 18th after listening to all the evidence of Mr Cube’s alleged transgressions, he delivered his judgement in favour of the Respondents, Tate & Lyle, and awarded costs against the Appellant, H.M. Inspector of Taxes. The most serious charge was the one which he absolved Mr Cube and his aristocratic patron of. “The case had nothing to do with politics”! That would not have fooled the business journal, Scope, which argued that “the deceptively frank avowal of political disinteredness” was “as much ritual as throwing spilt salt over the left shoulder”! 37

A further Crown appeal against the High Court of Justice decision was heard in the Supreme Court of Judicature, leading ultimately to the final Court of Appeal in the House of Lords in June 1954. The quintessential circumspection of the British Judiciary prevailed and the final legal chapter in the story of Mr Cube resoundingly closed with an even sharper denial of any political motive. Labour MP Peter Shore sagely observed the fact that “propaganda for free enterprise reaches the public in a most effective way, for it does not appear to be propaganda or to have any connection with politics”. 38 That was why their Lordships found in favour of Mr Cube. What has politics to do with their wigships? If the P word is used to describe the English Judiciary it has to be as unwitting as that of a sugar lump, albeit one shuffled off into retirement at the end of the last millennium by a Celebrity chef and a born again Lion!

Ron Noon 18.07.06

1 Ron Noon Goodbye Mr Cube History Today October 2001
2 Antony Hugill Sugar And All That: A History of Tate & Lyle (1978) page 59
3 Antony Hugill Sugar And All That: A History of Tate & Lyle (1978) page 59
4 Hugill A (1978) Sugar and All That: A History of Tate & Lyle p.159

5 Ibid p.161
6 Simon Hughes Sticky Fingers Red Pepper June 2002
7 ibid
8 Auguste Cochin quoted in Moreno Fraginals The Sugar Mill
9 Lord Lyle of Westbourne Mr Cube’s Fight Against Nationalisation (1954) page 212,213
10 Antony Hugill loc cit page 157
11 Lord Lyle loc cit page 29
12 Tate and Tates were the popular terms for the company.
13 The Advertisers Weekly September 1949
14 Chalmin P (1990) The Making of a Sugar Giant: Tate & Lyle 1859-1989 p.247
15 HG Nicholas The British General Election of 1950 p.72
16 ibid page 77
17 ibid page 20
18 ibid page 79
19 ibid page 77
20 S.E.Finer The Political Power of Private Capital The Sociological Review 1956 4
21 H.H.Wilson Techniques of Pressure- Anti-Nationalization Propoganda in Britain Public Opinion Quarterly Summer 1951 page 232
22 ibid page 232
23 Ina Zweiniger-Bargieolowska (2000) Austerity in Britain:Rationing, Controls, and Consumption 1939-1955
24 Hennessy P Never Again:Britain 1945-1951 page 50
25 HG Nicholas op cit page 73
26 AA Rogow The Labour Government and British Industry 1945-1951 op cit page 137
27 ibid
28 Chalmin loc cit page page 238
29 HH Wilson op cit, p.229
30 Hugill op cit page 171
31 Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska op cit page 83
32 ibid page 82
33 Notes on Current Politics ed The Conservative Research Department No.18 26.9.1949.
34 Bill Schwarz “The tide of history. The reconstruction of Conservatism 1945-51” page 150 in The Attlee Years ed Nick Tiratsoo (1991)
35 Hennessy P Never Again:Britain 1945-1951 page 388
36 Lord Lyle of Westbourne loc cit page 212
37 Rogow op cit page 148
38 Kandia page 67