The rise of the Labour Party had more to do with class consciousness than socialism. Discuss.

Authors Avatar

Tony Marsden – Somerville College – PPE

BPG, John Davies.

The rise of the Labour Party had more to do with class consciousness than socialism. Discuss.

At the 1900 election, 15 individuals stood as Labour Party candidates, and 1 stood as Independent Labour. The Independent Labour candidate was not elected, only two of the other Labour campaigners entered Parliament that year (Keir Hardie and Richard Bell), and in all Labour candidates took just 1.3% of the total vote. At the 1918 election, Labour fielded 395 candidates, returned 68 Members of Parliament, and picked up 22.3% of the total vote.  

This period clearly heralded the rise of the Labour Party, as a Parliamentary force to some extent but to an even greater degree as a popular party among the electorate. Two popular theories attempt to address how this surge in popularity came about. The first holds that the advent of socialism was swelling in electoral appeal, as a popular remedy for the continuing social ills of Edwardian Britain. The second theory suggests that socialism had little relevance alongside the factor of class consciousness and identification amongst the working class voters of the time.  

In assessing the validity of the two theories, it is most helpful not to look at the two theories separately and then conclude which has the greater merit. Rather, more is to be understood from looking at the nature of Labour Party politics at the same and then highlighting those factors which would appear to have contributed the most toward the rise of the Party.

The Labour Party did not become known as the Labour Party until 1906. Its origins are found in the 1900 Labour Representation Committee (LRC). The LRC was established by a special Trade Union Congress (TUC) conference, which convened amongst socialists and trade unionists to decide on how best to generate new parliamentary representation of labour. It was ultimately agreed that the LRC be set up, supported financially through affiliation fees. Its leader was to be the most prominent of the Independent Labour Party’s politicians, Ramsay MacDonald.

Upon improved electoral success in 1906, following which election the LRC had 30 MPs elected to Parliament, the LRC was renamed the Labour Party.

What is important about this initial conception of the LRC and the Labour Party is that the TUC’s moves at the time were motivated principally by fear of the unions’ vulnerable legal positions. The overwhelming majority of unions wished to operate without obstacles under a system of free collective bargaining, and were not collectivist or in favour of state intervention.

This position had been under threat for some time, but at the turn of the century it was a greater threat than ever. Lord Halsbury – Lord Chancellor in all Conservative governments between 1895 and 1905 – had appointed a great number of anti-trade unionist judges and an increasing number of cases affecting the unions’ status were being decided in court. Thus, it seemed that the unions’ immunity from being charged reparations for labour disruptions was growing ever-more fragile.

The Liberal Party had most of the working class vote until World War One, but the trade unions questioned its ability and even willingness to protect union interests. For financial and social reasons, local Liberal associations would only accept Labour candidates if it was absolutely necessary – as was the case in those constituencies where one industry, usually mining, was overwhelmingly prevalent.

Join now!

It wasn’t just the need for political protection of the unions’ legal positions that led to the LRC’s creation, however. There is a view that rapid industrialisation and increasing world competition homogenised and radicalised the working class around this time, and made the foundation of an independent working class party inevitable. Pressures were placed upon the labour force to compete with foreign markets by improved productivity, seeing an increase in use of technology and a decrease in craftsmanship, with the beauty of the finished product of much less importance. Eric Hobsbawm describes the urban proletariat of this time as, ‘the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay