As previously stated, Labour was a relatively new “society”. At this point there was little in the way of principles that would allow Labour to stand for the lower classes over the Liberals. Nonetheless, after DLG didn’t allow Henderson to attend a socialist conference he resigned in August 1917. This allowed him to dedicate more time to the party itself. So in February 1918 they adopted a new constitution which outlined their socialist policies which appealed to the working class. The party, in this way gained a lot of support from the people, but also the trade unions as they promised to represent their interests. This links in with the advantage of Henderson having gained experience as the difference in ideals between Labour and the Liberals was illustrated when he wasn’t allowed to go to the Stockholm (socialist) conference. He resigned out of integrity for what he believed the party stood for. Without his involvement in the government because of the war this extreme situation – the coalition – may not have occurred. The written constitution is far more important to the growth of the labour party than experience Henderson gained, but both happened because of the war.
Another factor that affected the rise in prominence of the Liberals was the way in which the coalition began to show divisions. For Liberals, such as Asquith, the growth in power of the state during WW1 challenged their traditional values. For example conscription was seen as an assault on the freedom of the individual and an attack on civil liberties. In this way the Liberals lost track of their values for the sake of being in power. Many joined the Union of Democratic Control which was an anti-war pressure group. This showed publically that there were serious differences of opinions among the Liberals. Labour on the other hand was seen as patriotic to a point that stopped with Henderson’s resignation due to not being able to follow his socialist beliefs. After the armistice had been declared, in November 1918, all the ministers of Labour resigned from the coalition showing the unity that existed. The war divided the Liberals, yet Labour remained strong, because war time pressures allowed them to maintain unity and cohesion in the defence of working class interests. This downfall of the Liberals happened as a result of the war and as such the war greatly played to the advantage of Labour.
With Labour supporting the working class it was beneficial that the 1900’s saw the emergence of trade unions as they had common aims and supporters. With “general unionism” all types of workers were taken care of on the subject of pay and hours of work. Strikes were common, until the Taff Vale judgement was upheld in the House of Lords during a period of Conservative rule. The Liberals were also keen to side with employers on industrial disputes. It was because of this that the trade unions found Labour as ideal representation. During the war, union membership increased from 4.1 million to 6.5 million, and many more became associated with the Labour Party. In 1903 127 unions affiliated with Labour, this almost trebled membership. The consequences of this support were that theoretically Labour should have made financial gains, however because Osbourne judgement of 1909 they couldn’t until it was reversed with the Trade Union act of 1913. Trade Unions though were still a considerable strength that emerged because of the realisation that worker deserved protections as many were made to construct certain things for the war effort or fight for their country. On the other hand, Labour associating with Trade Unions was not always a positive thing. Union militancy, as well as the association with radical syndicalism views weakened Labours credibility especially in parliament. It can be suggested that the support from the Unions gained by Labour was merely an expression of the popularity they had gained with the working class rather than something that actually aided their growth in politics.
Labour stood for the working class men, most of which were unable to vote. So they couldn’t take advantage of this support. A general election was held in 1918 after the Representation of the People Act, which gave the vote to men over 21 and women over 30. This was done as recognition for the men who had fought and the women who had helped the war effort in factories. These reform helped Labour supporters to actually vote Labour. Without this it would not have mattered if the party had enough supporters to get in power if they weren’t able to vote. Nevertheless, these changes, though they benefitted Labour who got 21.5% of the vote, many of the new votes went to the Conservatives, who as a coalition had 33.3% of the votes. Almost a third of the extension of the franchise voted for Conservatives. This probably originated from their domination in the coalition and support for the war which gained servicemen’s votes.
Though the franchise had been extended taking advantage of this would require more Labour representatives at new constituencies. This happened with the overhaul of the federal structure where membership depended on being part of trade unions or socialist groups. The party was limited in the number of constituencies where they thought it was worse having representation. After Henderson’s resignation he helped develop this new Labour. Growth in local party branches was encouraged, which led to lots of individual membership. By 1924 only 19 constituencies lacked a branch of the Labour Party. Labour also consolidated the industrial Northern areas with the involvement of trade unions, which sponsored many winning candidates. This aspect of Labours rise had nothing to do with the WW1. It was the reason Labour gained the votes they did and became the third biggest party. However, without the reasons for people to vote for them that originated from the war the growth of the grassroots would have had little effect.
During the war the Liberals were in disarray because of the challenges to liberal values. Labours wartime differences of opinion were nothing in comparison to that of Asquith and DLG. This is down to the fact that less of a prominent role was given to individual leaders, therefore less harm was done through divisions at a higher level. Henderson often followed the consensus of his fellow party members which helped the party preserve its unity. Labour looked to be working for a common set of goals, which was good for their public image.
Labours unity was something that was in direct contract to the Liberals which went to Labours advantage as they were attempting to distinguish themselves from the Liberals. From 1906 to 1913 Labour still relied on the Liberal administration heavily to get trade union laws passed. However, the younger party, Labour, wanted a new identity and so created a constitution in 1918. This included common ownership of means of production – nationalism which was polar to the Liberals capitalist views. The confidence Henderson gained from being in cabinet was apparent in his electoral strategy of the 1924 election. Wherever, he thought Labour could win he would put a candidate up against a Liberal. That year Labour came into power with the support of the Liberals. Because of this Labour were unable to bring in any notable measures. So it could be said that Labour relied on the Liberals more than they wished due to their previous relationship and unwillingness to go into government with Conservatives.
It should be said that none of the reasons should be taken to mean that the rise of the Labour Party was an inevitable process. Without the war there is no reason to suppose that the Liberals would have been divided, or that the state would move so far towards controlling society, a development that undermined the Liberal Party’s traditional defence of the individual. Labour replaced them as the voice of the masses of working class. This foundation on the bedrock of class loyalty gave strength to which Parliament could not undermine.
by
bobwilkins (student)
