The labour minister had already shot down other policy, which had been suggested by Macdonald, suggesting in fact that the Labour Mps were being unreasonable “The Cabinet had rejected a revenue tariff as a method of balancing the books; they had not even contemplated accepting devaluation as an alternative.” It seems that the eventual idea of cuts was seen as a last resort after the Labour MPs had rejected any other policy. It is difficult to see how MacDonald could be seen as a betrayer at this point.
It would also seem that in fact the MPs were the ones who betrayed Macdonald after agreeing in cabinet meetings to accept the new policy. “Above all a number of them had at one point in the cabinet discussions accepted most of the programme of cuts… though when it cam to the crunch their courage failed them.” This shows that the party in fact had a lack of confidence in MacDonald. However the argument of the MPs that the policy was Conservative is a valid one as a socialist party applying these cuts would be against their basic beliefs. “…Their argument was that deflationary measures were in essence Conservative measures…”
Source B is primary and features the election results from the 1929 and 1931 general elections. The 1929 results show the popularity of the Labour party receiving a large 37.1% of the vote, however despite winning more seats the Conservatives still received a higher percentage of the vote and with the Liberal not siding with Labour either there was no majority. Then when you consider that two years later the Conservatives win 470 seats with 55% of the vote. This is arguably due to the Wall Street crash something, which was unpredictable but may have made it seem to the general public that the Labour government had been doing a poor job. However it is still important to realise that despite the government now being majority Conservative Labour still effectively have a major controlling force in Ramsay MacDonald who remained PM. In this position MacDonald was able to represent Labour ideology despite the massive Conservative majority.
Source C is another primary source. It is a cartoon drawn by David Low; he was known to be left wing, and also being an expert at representing public opinion. It important to note that this cartoon was drawn in 1930 before the national government was formed the idea of Ramsay MacDonald was following a route dictated by Tory and Liberal rails suggests that Labour had little power originally and as in the cartoon were excursionists who were along for the ride. It is clear from the image that it was believed that the three groups would need to work together to get anything done.
Written on the side of the tram is “concessions” and “accommodations” this sign represents the idea that Labour without a majority is forced to give in. in all this image shows that without support of the other parties Labour would be unable to force any policy through. By having the group of men carrying the stop look and listen flags it shows that MacDonald was seen to be safe, and a trustworthy PM.
Source D is a primary source from a Labour politician it would seem to be very much in favour of the idea that MacDonald was a great betrayer, however the writer of this source Charles Trevelyan would seem to be extremely left wing arguably reaching a point of Communism, “I never expected a complete breakthrough to Socialism in this Parliament” while this is not conclusive it suggests that while he may not have expected a breakthrough he did want one, this would suggest any slight leanings from MacDonald to the right would be to right wing for him. To further the idea that he may be a Communist he states, “The people are in just the mood to accept a new and bold attempt to deal with radical evils.” Seeming to want to incite revolution from above. As well as referring to those he is addressing as comrades.
Source E on the other hand written in the “Beatrice Webb Diaries in 1926 this source is primary not of great use, it talks about the character of Ramsay Macdonald but little of what is said here goes towards proving one way or the other that he was the great betrayer. However there is one point “He [MacDonald] is no longer intent on social reform- any indignation he ever had at the present distribution of wealth he has lost.” This does suggest that the author felt that MacDonald had forgotten his original ideology it could be seen that she viewed him to have already betrayed the Labour party long before his the issues of 1931.
Source F is secondary but was written by a history expert. “[MacDonald’s] most important contribution to the rise of Labour; the creation of an image, respectable yet radical, that enabled the Party to appeal beyond the ranks of its own faithful followers.” It can easily be seen that MacDonald was the man to make it be acceptable to follow Labour, it would seem hard for him to betray a party he made acceptable. Another point would be how much could Macdonald have betrayed his party when the Labour MPs of the 1930’s were viewed to have a policy of “MacDonaldism without MacDonald”
Finally source G, this source while secondary does seem to favour the MacDonald “MacDonald had always believed that Party loyalty could conflict with higher national or international loyalties and that it should come second if it did.” While a retrospective view it does suggest that MacDonald had always been open with his opinion and his views country before party and so when it came down to it should Labour have been shocked at his choice especially after 1914 which to MacDonald was seen as a precursor. “He has often been accused of betraying his party, but if he had acted differently he would have betrayed his whole approach to politics.”
Sources A-G don’t go very far to support the idea that MacDonald was the great betrayer of the Labour party. While evidence can be seen within them to support the idea the majority suggests to me that he was not. It seems that he was blamed for not being a Party politician something, which he had never claimed to be. The very fact that after he was ejected from the party they were seen to carry on with his policy would seem to show he did no betray the party.
