Labour policy—false and true

by Lynden Livingston Macassey

The Labour Party, a Class Party

The Labour Party claims to be “the true national democratic party” in challenge of the old party system. It recommends itself to the electorate as “the party of the producers, whose labour of hand and brain provides the necessities of life for all and dignifies and elevates human existence,” “Producers have been robbed,” it says, “of the major parts of the fruits of their industry under the individualist system of capitalist production; and that is justification for the Party’s claims.”

The constitution of the Labour Party when examined definitely disproves the contention that the Party either is or ever can be, while that constitution lasts, a national democratic political party. By a political party one understands, according to our British traditions, a party whose members are united in support of common political principles, and not a party whose object is to advance its own material interests. Whatever the Labour Party may call itself, it is in fact a class party—that appears clearly from its history. Up to 1900, when the Labour Representation Committee was constituted, it was definitely Trade Unionist in its organization. In 1900, as has been shown, seven local Trades Councils were, for the first time, brought in along with three Socialist Societies, but they only accounted for 22,861 out of 375,931 affiliated membership. Between 1900 and the revision of the constitution in 1918, the Party was obviously still comprised, in the main, of industrial Trade Unionists. Individual members were, as has been explained, nominally introduced into the Party in 1918, by throwing membership open to members of Local Labour Parties and Trade Councils. It is impossible, because the Labour Party has not the figures itself, to give any comparison between the number of individual members of Local Labour Parties and Trades Councils who are not Trade Unionists and the 4,317,537 members of the affiliated Trade Unions in 1920. But one thing is quite clear—the individual member is wholly swamped by the Trade Unions’ membership and power. If the accounts of the Labour Party are examined for 1920, it will be found that of the total affiliation fees of £49,000, only about £1,382 is contributed by Trades Councils and Local Labour Parties, which include a certain number of individual members, and £524 from five Socialist bodies; so that practically the whole of the income of the Labour Party comes from the Trade Unions; they naturally exercise the right to dictate policy and run the Party machine. When it comes to the selection of the local Parliamentary candidate, if a Local Labour Party or Trades Council runs a candidate they must themselves provide for the whole expenses of the election, and that puts a serious difficulty in their way; on the other hand, if a Trade Union selects a candidate it is enabled, by means of its parliamentary levy, to pay the whole costs of his election. As a result, in the great number of cases, Trade Unionist candidates, with the financial backing of their Unions, are accepted as Local Labour candidates—true carpet-baggers in the real sense of the term, and probably wholly unknown to the district. One may learn from experience the basis on which the Trade Unions select candidates. It is considered a matter of prime importance by every Union to have members of its own in Parliament, and its first consideration is whether he is a sound and trusty member of his particular organization. As it is considered essential that only men should be selected by a Union who have an intimate knowledge of the working of the Union, the branch secretary or the district delegate or district secretary or a member of the executive or the general secretary of the Union is generally chosen, and he, it should be noted, is picked out, not for his political experience or enthusiasm, but as a trusty protagonist of his own trade body; he, therefore, goes into Parliament primarily to advance the industrial interests of his own particular Union and, so far as is compatible with that, of Labour in general. This needs clearly to be understood by the general public of this country. The Labour Party has no right to protest against those who would institute a campaign against it on the ground that the Labour movement, as at present constituted, is definitely class and sectarian in its objects. There is ample justification for that attack in the Labour Party’s own pamphlet Trade Unionism and Political Action. The Labour Party will not for a very long time, if ever, be a Party solely of individual membership; that would mean that the Party would have to cut itself off from the enforced contributions of affiliated Trade Unions, and rely upon the voluntary contributions of its individual members.

The Labour Party prides itself on being the party of brotherhood—an admirable sentiment, one too seldom encountered in the industrial world to-day. We are entitled to test such a profession by examining to what extent the spirit of fraternity operates amongst the 122 different Trade Unions which are members of the Party. If any one part of the community is torn by internecine strife it most certainly is the Trade Union section. Consider for example the question of demarcation of work. If we take trades like those of the shipwrights and the joiners, they are separated by thin divisions; so much so that in one port shipwrights do work which in another port is done by joiners. If anywhere there is the least invasion by one trade into the work of the other the most unbrotherly struggles ensue, resulting almost invariably in one Union or the other calling their respective members out and so stopping work in the port. Time after time during the war I had the fitting out or refitting of urgently needed vessels held up by these kinds of fratricidal disputes. Again, take trades like engineers, members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and plumbers, members of the Plumbers’ Union—between them there is the most bitter animosity. Certain pipes on board ship are, according to the custom of the port, bent and fitted by the members of one Union, and certain other pipes, possibly of the same material but a little larger or smaller, or of the same size but of a different material, are bent and fitted by members of the other Union. After the Jutland fight, I had most vital naval repairs held up owing to the whole of the engineers in one large district going on strike because plumbers had been put on to bore a few holes in the outer casings of searchlights, as there were no available engineers to do the work. Instances might be multiplied indefinitely of this industrial enmity which is to form the basis of the new political brotherhood. We have again the perennial dispute between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the National Union of Railwaymen in respect of the men in the railway engineering shops, or the acrimonious controversy, growing in intensity, between the General Workers’ Union, representing the unskilled or semi-skilled men, and the Amalgamated Engineering Union. The former Union asserts the right of an engineering employer to promote its members from the job of general labourer “on the floor” to work semi-automatic or other similar machines “in the shop,” which without question the man is usually quite competent to do; on the other hand the Amalgamated Engineering Union, or its district committee, claims that no person, however competent, can be put on to work any of those machines unless he is a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and receives in respect of the work the prescribed rates of pay. So then we have this curious paradox that the Labour Party, which knows that there exists, and is quite incapable of extinguishing, this spirit of industrial hostility amongst the various sections of its Trade Union membership, still professes its ability to instil and enforce the spirit of social brotherhood throughout the whole electorate. “By their works ye shall know them,” The truth of the matter is that the sole cohesive political force which the Labour Party can exert, apart from the Trade Unions’ industrial compulsion on their members, are the promises of better times, less work, more time for leisure, more money to spend, by the abolition of what it calls the “capitalistic” or private employer, and the suggestion that thereby there will be some fund of money made available for distribution amongst the members of the Party.

The Party’s Want of Leadership

What about the Labour Party’s leaders? Labour undoubtedly possesses outstanding men of tried experience, ability and judgment, and others, untried as yet, but of equal capacity and ability. I had the good fortune during the war of serving at different times directly under the Right Hon. A. Henderson, the Right Hon. G. N. Barnes, the Right Hon. John Hodge, and the Right Hon. G. H. Roberts. I had also the opportunity of comparing their ministerial gifts with those of other Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of State. The Labour Ministers did not suffer from the comparison; their respective records are unsurpassed for foresight, decision, balance of judgment, statesmanship, organizing and administrative ability, power of evoking the loyalty of their departments and commanding the confidence of the public. The weakness of a Labour Government will assuredly not lie in the personnel of its Ministers if they lead—but will they be allowed to lead? So far the signs are not encouraging.

Nobody who has not seen the working of the Trade Union machine from inside has the remotest conception of the difficulties of the Trade Union leader, or of the tyranny to which he is subject. He is in the first instance usually a paid official of his Union, and if he takes or advocates any political or parliamentary action which is considered in any way to invade or infringe the trade rights and privileges of his Union, he will assuredly fall from office at the next Union election. Every leader must, therefore, keep one eye upon his own position and the other upon the political principle which he is disposed to advocate. This makes it exceedingly difficult for any Labour leader to take a strong independent line which may excite even the suspicions of ill-informed sections of his followers, still less their hostile opposition. I saw over and over again during the war how frequently large committees of Trade Unionist leaders would agree with the Government in London on the adoption of some measure—it may have been for the suspension of a trade custom in order to expedite production—and how it became quite impossible to obtain their active assistance afterwards to put the agreement into operation among their members, with the notable exception of some few whose sturdy independence I never ceased to admire. But these, unfortunately, perhaps as the result of their qualities, have little influence in political Labour.

There is another aspect: the great unwritten law of the Labour movement is solidarity at any price, and it frequently happens that the leaders, in order to avoid splitting the Party, will adopt, against their own better judgment, the proposals of extremists rather than face disruption. The action of constitutionalists in the Labour movement, in ultimately taking part in the recent formation of the Council of Action, notwithstanding their own earlier protests, is a case in point.

No political party is immune from intrigue or from cabals and conspiracies against its accepted leaders, but it is not an exaggeration to say that the Labour movement is more impregnated than any other movement in this country with those unlovely tendencies. You have only to follow the course of a branch committee or a district committee election, or the election of an executive committee-man or general secretary of a Trade Union, to realize the prevalence and power of personal jealousies. This is notoriously so in the political Labour world. Nothing cuts so deeply at the roots of independent leadership as incessant conspiracy and intrigue.