To what extent can Ramsay MacDonald be considered a Traitor to the Labour Party?

AS and A Level Politics

There is no doubt that MacDonald was a traitor to his party but he wasn't a traitor to the

nation. He wanted to make what he considered the best decision in the long term for the good of

the nation as a whole, the debate is more about why MacDonald betrayed his party than whether

or not he did. There are two opposing theories on how MacDonald should be remembered, one

that suggests that MacDonald was not a traitor due to his long standing devotion to the labour

party. The differences he has made to it and it's profile over the years that he was leader, and that

the policy that divided the labour party was 'the best solution in the circumstances', and the

necessity for him to put nation over party left him little choice the view shared by Robert Pearce,

Austen Morgan, Marquand and Kenneth O. Morgan. MacDonald had a bad end even though he

did a lot for the labour party, he was unlucky to be involved at the time. Other historians such as

AJP Taylor, dismiss his decision to follow the idea of unemployment benefit cuts as a betrayal of

Socialist ideals, and believe he should have gone down fighting for Socialism, MacDonald put

country over party leading to a rift within labour thus he betrayed them. This debate is about

whether MacDonald should have put party over the needs of the nation. To resolve the argument

it is necessary to consider the economic climate and that there was no Socialist president on how

to deal with an economic disaster on this scale, therefore there was nothing that was a definite

solution. The issue that government was in the minority also dominates, with no possibility of

putting through radical socialist policy meaning that a compromise had to be reached that satisfied

all sides, thus a moderate policy.

Historians such as Marquand argue that MacDonald had not got a choice because of the

situation that he was put in. Marquand strong believer in the quest of the Labour party as he

became a Labour MP, thus he is not going to be as critical as many historians are over the

question of Ramsay MacDonald. His choice was to betray the socialist idea, or to betray the

nation that was waiting for a policy to improve their situation in Britain.

"accused of betraying his party, but if he had acted differently he would have

betrayed his whole approach to politics"

Not only was it a question of whether to betray his party of the nation, it was whether he should

betray himself and his conscience. Even though the proposals put forward to solve the economic

disaster negated the ideology of the Labour Party, he still was absolutely satisfied that the

unemployment benefit cuts were necessary in the interests of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

nation that was waiting for a policy to improve their situation in Britain.

"accused of betraying his party, but if he had acted differently he would have

betrayed his whole approach to politics"

Not only was it a question of whether to betray his party of the nation, it was whether he should

betray himself and his conscience. Even though the proposals put forward to solve the economic

disaster negated the ideology of the Labour Party, he still was absolutely satisfied that the

unemployment benefit cuts were necessary in the interests of the nation. MacDonald 'simply felt

that the party... were betraying the nation' without considering that the alternatives consisted of a

number of radical theories that wouldn't be passed. For MacDonald he felt that the only option

open to him was to put the 'national interest' above that of the parties ideology.

The labour party believed that their,

''Primary aim was to secure a better deal for the under

privileged, not impose sacrifices on those least able to bear them ''

therefore they consider that MacDonald betrayed the people at the base of the party and the

belief of socialism, the working class are the people who helped MacDonald get into office. To

impose such a harsh policy on the least well off, goes against everything that they believe in. There

is little doubt that MacDonald did betray the ideals of Labour, but he had the best intentions.

MacDonald saw that he had no choice,

"These included cuts in unemployment relief, and were held to be necessary to

balance the budget - thus restoring the confidence of the holders of the sterling and

preventing financial collapse."

he had to find a way of balancing the budget and the cut in unemployment benefit was the one

sure way of succeeding in this, "Few at the time denied that he was right" . However the majority

thought that they should follow a far more radical policy on principle, then,

"At best, they would have their majority, at the worst they would go

down fighting for the things they believe in."

They felt that if the policy of unemployment benefit was necessary then it should be introduced by

other parties, otherwise they would be betraying 'their people', the unemployed. The labour party

didn't want to put their name to a policy that went against the people that they were representing.

In their eyes he should not do anything to harm the base of their party even if it means loosing

office. They were the people who supported them in the election so they shouldn't be the ones

burdened when trying to save the economy. If Labour did make cuts in Unemployment benefit it

would mean that the Trade Unions would also stop supporting labour, something that MacDonald

had wanted from sometime.

"His decision to make the Labour Party a national rather

than a Trade Union or class party"

MacDonald had made it common knowledge in the past that he wanted Labour to become

independent from the trades unions allowing them to follow policy that they believed was in

their interests and not that of the unions. The issue that is prompted by this argument, is that if

MacDonald had had an ulterior motive he gained little from the outcome,

"If indeed he betrayed the labour party, his rewards were singularly few"

Written by AJP Taylor in his book, "British Prime Ministers and other Essays", Taylor is likely to

be critical of the Labour party in general due to his past involvement with them. He was once an

eager Labour supporter until he discovered that they had lied to him over significant event, leading

him to repel from the Labour Party and become a Liberal.

Marquand writes,

"A radical party requires, not merely high ideals and skilful leadership,

but intellectual coherence and a willingness to jettison

cherished assumptions in the face of changing realties."

MacDonald therefore fills the ideal image of a radical leader, he confronts his party and knows

that there is no other feasible way to solve the problems. Although he became the "Architect of

his own downfall" , he knew that what he wanted was what was right at the time.

MacDonald did much for the Labour Party, he became an MP in 1906 and the first

Labour Prime Minister in 1924. Before 1929 MacDonald was regarded as one of the most

"dynamic and magnetic" and a "model for democratic socialists throughout the world" .

MacDonald is considered to be one of the three "founding fathers" of Labour, along with Keir

Hardie and Arthur Henderson. MacDonald formed a working alliance between the trades unions

and the Labour Party, he was an organiser and a strategist in the early years forming a

Progressive alliance between the Liberals and Labour, this helped almost all of the Labour MP's

elected in 1906 and many historians believe that without his arrangement the Labour Party may

never have made the,

"transition from being a party of protest to a party of power"

Another important factor in the success of MacDonald as a founder of the Labour Party is that he

was a compelling orator attracting much support and loyalty, at a time that gradualism was heavily

criticised MacDonald's popularity made sure that the labour party grew in strength. MacDonald is

also hailed as,

"the greatest intellectual asset of the movement"

a major political theorist of the Labour Party helping to lead them to glory, disclosing the steps to

socialism. His theories although gradualist were very creative and inspired many people to a new

and better socialism. MacDonald also gave Labour an international face and brought it into the

international circles making speeches at socialist protests and becoming friends with other socialist

leaders of the time, such as Lenin, Bebel, Jaures and Alder. MacDonald contributed much of his

life to the Socialist cause and made huge steps in making Labour a recognised force in today's

society. MacDonald's early advances for labour are often forgotten when the events of the crisis

is 1929 are brought into the picture he was unfortunate to be in leadership at this time. He had to

do what he felt to be the best in his own mind.

MacDonald was by no doubt a great socialist leader, but he betrayed socialism in the

later years of his career, torn between nation and party, conscience and popularity, right and

wrong in his mind, he chose the nation and to do the correct thing in his mind, thus betraying the

party that he had devoted so much to. He was unlucky to be in the situation that he was in, he

stood by what he believed was right and didn't give in. The rest of the Labour Party also saw that

they could not resolve the problems of the country they were a relatively young party, and many

had little experience in office. Although few believed that MacDonald was wrong in what he

wanted it was on principle that the cabinet voted against him. Believing that if the Labour Party

were to act, which they had to, they should go down fighting for socialism. Overall, MacDonald

was a founder of the labour Party and thus cannot be considered as a traitor. He couldn't find an

alternative and felt that the only opportunity that there was, was to implement the benefit cuts. He

did betray the socialist ideas but he did what he felt he had to do therefore he was a traitor to the

Labour party as a whole yet he was such an important factor in the success of the party that to

some extent he can be forgiven for his judgement of the situation.

Bibliography

AJP Taylor, English History 1914-1945, Oxford University Press, 1965

AJP Taylor, British Prime Ministers and other essays, The Penguin Press, 1998

David Marquand, Ramsay MacDonald, Jonathan Cape LTD, 1977

David Weigall and Micheal Murphy, A Level British History Study Guide, Letts, 1982

Robert Pearce, Britain: Domestic Politics 1918- 1939, Second Edition, Hodder and

Stoughton, 1992

Austen Morgan, J. Ramsay MacDonald, Lives of the Left, Machester University Press,

1987

Professor Kennith O. Morgan, New perspective Volume 1. Number 3., University of

Wales, March 1996

Word count, 1845

1 David Marquand, Ramsay MacDonal

2 Robert Pearce, Britain: Domestic Politics 1918-3

3 Robert Pearce, Britain: Domestic Politics 1918-3

4 Robert Pearce, Britain: Domestic Politics 1918-3

5 David Weigall, Micheal Murphy, A' Level British Histor

6 Robert Pearce, Britain: Domestic Politics 1918-3

7 Robert Pearce, Britain: Domestic Politics 1918-3

8 Robert Pearce, Britain: Domestic Politics 1918-3

9 AJP Taylor, British Prime Minister's and other Essay

10 David Marquand, Ramsay MacDonal

11 AJP Taylor, British Prime Minister's and other Essay

12 Kennith O. Morgan, New Perspectiv

13 Kennith O. Morgan, New Perspectiv

14 Kennith O. Morgan, New Perspectiv

15 Kennith O. Morgan, New Perspectiv

Teacher Reviews

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Dan Carter

17th of Sep 2013

3 Stars - This essay demonstrates strong command of the subject, wider reading and good critical vocabulary. A fair and appropriate conclusion is implicitly reached following ongoing evaluation throughout the essay. The weaknesses in the essay are in it's structure and organisation - there is little evidence of a logical plan: points do not logically follow on from each other, there is considerable repetition of general points and at times it lapses into narrative above analysis. Also the layout of the essay is confusing and the footnotes are not applied to the main body of the piece. The essay would be clearer with a definition of key terms and setting of historical context, a paragraph on the extent to which MacDonald cannot be considered a traitor, the counter-argument and an evaluation of both sides before a conclusion is reached.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn