Abstract
It was not until 1918 that the Labour Party unequivocally espoused socialism when it adopted a new constitution and programme in that year. This was remarkably late for a society as industrially advanced and with such a large industrial proletariat as Britain. The reasons for this late espousal of socialism and the way in which various individuals, groups, and organisations guided and coaxed a rather suspicious and reluctant labour movement in the direction of socialism, is a story which belongs to the period immediately before that with which this study is primarily concerned.1 The adoption of the 1918 Constitution and Programme, Labour and the New Social Order, however, owes a great deal to the impact of the war. By the end of the war the left wing within the Labour Party, and in this context ‘left wing’ means socialist, was able to achieve an ascendancy at a time when there had also been a swing to the left.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
For the early period see Bealey and Pelling (1958); Beer (1940); Cole (1941); Pierson (1979), Pelling (1965); Poirier (1958); Reid (1955).
Hobsawm (1967).
On this see Abrams (1963). He applies the idea that the ratio of men under arms to those not has a strong effect upon the expectation and achievement of greater equality and social reform. The idea comes from Andreski (1968), where this ratio is termed the military participation ratio or MPR. Abrams, however, finds the situation to be more complex than the MPR thesis allows for.
Wrigley (1982), p. 88.
Even MacDonald at the Leeds convention in 1917 supported a resolution calling for the establishment of councils of workmen and soldiers’ delegates in order to coordinate working class action and secure the emancipation of international labour. Graubard (1956), p. 38.
Blewitt (1965), pp. 36–37.
For a discussion of this see Gallie (1984), pp. 237–41.
Cline (1975). The fact that they were prominent people of upper and middle class background did not, Cline argues, have any particular effect upon the party’s ideology or policies, as the recruits were divided themselves on such issues along the whole spectrum.
The statistical source used throughout this and following chapters are mainly Butler and Freeman (1963); Mitchell (1962); and Routh (1965).
Cook and Ramsden (1972).
Ostergaard (1954).
Miliband (1961), pp. 65–66 and 74.
Pigou (1947), p. 199.
Mitchell (1981).
Pigou (1947), p. 38.
Cole (1979).
LPCR (Labour Party Conference Report) 1920. pp. 181–83.
LPCR 1922, pp. 222–23.
Mowat (1971), p. 148.
For 1922 see LPCR 1923, pp. 263–64, and for 1923, LPCR 1924, pp. 192–93. Only minerals were mentioned in 1923 in the section on Land.
Lyman (1957).
Dowse (1960–61), p. 81. and (1966), pp. 102–103.
Lyman (1965).
Robertson (1980), and Webb (1961), p. 7.
On this decision, see Mowat (1956), p. 170.
Cowling (1971), p. 363.
Miliband (1961), pp. 105–106.
Renshaw (1982), p. 105.
Lyman (1957); Shinwell (1955), p. 94.; Middlemas (1965), p. 162.
Lyman (1959).
There were special reasons for this from 1927 onwards, namely the effects of the 1927 Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act.
Middlemas (1965), p. 223 and 285.
Brailsford et al (1926).
LPCR 1925, pp. 262–66.
Middlemas (1965), p. 193; Dowse (1960–61), pp. 91–92
Labour and the Nation, p. 6. Emphasis is added.
LPCR 1928, pp. 200–203 and 212–15.
Labour’s Appeal to the Nation, 1929.
Cole (1948), p. 213.
Coates (1975), p. 26; and Skidelski (1967).
For example, Coates (1975), p. 25.
Skidelski (1967).
Harrison (1970).
McKibbin (1975); Marquand (1969).
Quoted in Skidelski (1967), p. 273.
Runciman (1966).
Labour’s Call to Action; The Nation’s Opportunity
Stevens and Cook (1977), p. 112. They point out that Labour polled quite well but suffered defeat because of a flight of middle class votes to the National government and the collapse of the Liberals rather than the desertion of the working class.
Jupp (1982), p. 159.
In response to the ‘A Million New Members and Power’ campaign. See Stevens and Cook (1982), p. 115.
Dowse (1960–61,1966); Middlemas (1965), 244–71.
Middlemas (1965), pp. 272–84.
Morrison thought that a Labour government could and should socialise two major industries a year. See MacHenry (1938), p. 265.
Eatwell and Wright (1978), pp. 43–44.
NEC Minutes, December 19, 1931.
Finance and Trade Group Minutes, April 29, May 3, 12 and 18, June 7. Policy Committee Minutes, May 19. NEC Minutes, June 22.
There was a strong corporatist element in this report which was criticised by Laski for the NEC of the Labour Party. Carpenter (1976), p. 16.
Eatwell and Wright (1978), p. 50.
Laski (1932); Cripps (1933); Tawney (1933).
Bullock (1960).
Jupp (1982), p. 191–92.
For the debate on this and the resolution for the NEC based on the report see LPCR 1932, pp. 182–94.
LPCR 1932, p. 194, 211, 217–25 and 233–44.
LPCR 1932, pp. 214–15.
Morrison (1933); Donoughue and Jones (1973), pp. 182–88 and 211–25.
LPCR 1933, pp. 205–206.
Barry (1965), p. 324.
LPCR 1933, pp. 156–82.
For Socialism and Peace, p. 15.
LPCR 1934, pp. 158–65.
It is necessary to distinguish between those who supported a radical socialist programme at this time, but one to be implemented by normal parliamentary means without recourse to special powers and short of outright expropriation, on the one hand, from the more militant members and followers of the Socialist League, on the other. The term evolutionary socialists best describes the former, since the League leaned towards a revolutionary position.
Stevens and Cook (1977), pp. 115–116.
Cook and Ramsden (1972).
Shakleton (1982), p. 136.
The Labour Party’s Call To Power
LPCR 1935, p. 23.
LPCR 1936, p. 250.
LPCR 1937, p. 181.
LPCR 1937, pp. 184–85.
Eatwell and Wright (1978), pp. 51–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1989 Malcolm B. Hamilton
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hamilton, M.B. (1989). Labour Between the Wars. In: Democratic Socialism in Britain and Sweden. University of Reading European and International Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09234-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09234-5_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-09236-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-09234-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)