It is commonly assumed that the First World War caused considerable social and political upheaval. Changes in the industrial sphere and a compression of the class structure are generally identified as the major causes of a change in Labour's strength and position. In reality, while there were some changes, there was not a complete rupture with the past. Social and economic conditions did not create a homogeneous working class, or a uniform class experience (Section I). Workers were not discontented with an oppressive state (as some Marxist historians would have us believe). They did not display a sense of oppositional class unity. Neither did participation in the war effort transform the British working class (Section II).

Nonetheless, there was the potential for social/political discontent during the war, and parties could not afford to let their political position slip. Labour attempted to maximise its prospects by supporting the military and industrial changes which Governments argued were necessary to win the war, while insisting at the same time that these changes should not adversely affect domestic living standards and liberties. Many Labour proposals for the home front reflected traditional Liberal concerns. However, while Labour's support for the provision of public housing, and its concern that the burden of war should fall on the rich were ‘moral’ issues which built on pre-war (Liberal) campaigns for economic justice, it had developed concrete proposals (nationalisation, the capital levy) which improved its credibility as a reforming party.