Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The identification of factions in the British Parliamentary Labour Party, 1945-1970 Woods, Pamela Bernardine 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 W65.pdf [ 5.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100080.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100080-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100080-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100080-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100080-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100080-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100080-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100080-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100080.ris

Full Text

THE IDENTIFICATION OP PACTIONS IN THE BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY LABOUR PARTY 1945 - 1970 by PAMELA BERNARDINE WOODS B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of Essex, England, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of P o l i t i c a l Science We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1975 In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purpose's may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th i s thes is for f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of P o l i t i c a l Science The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e June 2, 1975 i i A b s t r a c t Many s t u d i e s of the B r i t i s h Labour P a r t y have emphasised d i s p u t e s w i t h i n the P a r l i a m e n t a r y Labour P a r t y and attempted t o e x p l a i n them. There has, however, been no attempt to apply the concept of f a c t i o n a l i s m , w i t h c r i t e r i a d e t a i l i n g how a f a c t i o n might be i d e n t i f i e d , t o a study of the P a r l i a m e n t a r y Labour P a r t y over a p e r i o d of time. I t i s the aim of t h i s paper t o s u c c i n c t l y d e f i n e the term f a c t i o n ; t o e s t a b l i s h c r i t e r i a f o r the purpose of i d e n t i f y i n g f a c t i o n s , and to determine t o what extent p a r t i e s t o P a r l i a m e n t a r y Labour P a r t y d i s p u t e s could be i d e n t i f i e d as f a c t i o n s . Prom the d e f i n i t i o n of a f a c t i o n employed, s i x c r i t e r i a were e s t a b l i s h e d , a g a i n s t which to assess a group as a f a c t i o n . Employing h i s t o r i e s of the Labour P a r t y , b i o g r a p h i e s and autobiographies of contemporary Labour p o l i t i c i a n s and contemporary newspapers and j o u r n a l s , major d i s p u t e s d u r i n g the years 1945-1970 were i s o l a t e d and examined. I t was found t h a t there were f o u r p e r i o d s of i n t e n s e P a r l i a m e n t a r y Labour P a r t y d i s p u t e . A p p l i c -a t i o n of the s i x c r i t e r i a t o groups i n v o l v e d i n each d i s p u t e showed t h a t f o u r f a c t i o n s could be c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d . The p o l i c i e s expounded by three of these f a c t i o n s were i d e n t i f i e d as l e f t - w i n g . One f a c t i o n was i d e n t i f i e d as of the r i g h t - w i n g of the Labour P a r t y . A number of i m p l i c a t i o n s of f a c t i o n a l i s m i n the P a r l i a m e n t a r y Labour P a r t y were drawn. i i i Con ten t s Chap te r One I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Chap te r Two Keep L e f t and Keep ing L e f t 12 Chapter Three The B e v a n i t e s 24 Chap te r Pour The R e v i s i o n i s t s 43 Chapte r F i v e The T r i b u n e Group 57 Chap te r S i x C o n c l u s i o n s 75 B i b l i o g r a p h y 88 Acknowledgment I am deeply indebted to P r o f e s s o r s Arnold Beichman, K e i t h Banting and Ken Carty f o r t h e i r guidance and advice throughout the w r i t i n g of t h i s paper . I would also l i k e to thank my mother f o r f i n a n c i n g t h i s venture and to thank Anna Green, Jack Vowles and Howard Davis f o r the ines t imable support of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p during the academic year 19*74-1975. 1 Chapter One  Introduction Chapter One outl i n e s the main concerns of t h i s paper, defines the terms which w i l l be used throughout, and outlines the methodology to be employed. The h i s t o r y of the B r i t i s h Labour Party i n P a r l i -ament has been, i n part, a h i s t o r y of disputes and cleavages. The Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) has frequently aired i n p u b l i c i t s i n t e r n a l cleavages and disputes - disputes which have p e r i o d i c a l l y t h r e a t -ened to s p l i t and destroy the Labour Party."*" This paper w i l l address i t s e l f to assessing the extent to which disputes i n the Labour Party have been f a c t i o n a l i n nature. To do t h i s a model of f a c t i o n a l -ism w i l l be established. The model w i l l comprise a rigourouS 's d e f i n i t i o n of the term f a c t i o n and a l i s t of c r i t e r i a i n accordance with which a f a c t i o n may be i d e n t i f i e d . Major disputes within the PLP w i l l be analysed, through the a p p l i c a t i o n of the model, i n an attempt to assess the extent to which the PLP was f a c t i o n a l i s e d . The period 1945 to 1970 has been chosen. During these years the Labour Party held o f f i c e f o r two periods, 1945-1951 and 1964-1970, and was i n opposition from 1951-1964. Various students of B r i t i s h p o l i t i c s have emphas-is e d the cleavage-prone nature of the Labour Party and have sought to explain i t . Three major causes of cleavage have been emphasised. I t has been suggested that s o c i a l and occupational differences among Labour 2 IPs have l e d to c l a s s - r e l a t e d attitude d i f f e r e n c e s . There i s also a degree of uncertainty i n the Labour Party as a whole as to the l o c a t i o n of ultimate power.-F i n a l l y , the Labour Party's intense concern with 2 i d e o l o g y has "been seen as of major importance s i n c e many di s p u t e s w i t h i n the P a r t y are of an i d e o l o g i c a l 4 nature. I t i s not going too f a r to say t h a t f a c t i o n s are c r u c i a l to a study of the Labour P a r t y . However, there has been no attempt t o r i g o u r o u s l y d e f i n e the term f a c t i o n , t o r e f i n e the concept i n terms of c r i t e r i a t h a t can be e m p i r i c a l l y evaluated, and, from t h a t p e r s p e c t i v e , to c a r e f u l l y assess the degree and the form of f a c t i o n a l i s m w i t h i n the Labour P a r t y over a p e r i o d of years. This paper attempts t h a t t a s k on one l e v e l , but i s not concerned w i t h e x p l a i n i n g the emergence of f a c t i o n s w i t h i n the Labour P a r t y as a whole. I t seeks t o i d e n t i f y f a c t i o n s t h a t have a r i s e n w i t h i n the P a r l i a m e n t a r y Labour P a r t y . There are a v a r i e t y of d e f i n i t i o n s of the term f a c t i o n , but they a l l tend to emphasise common elements. A f a c t i o n may be def i n e d as a group of MPs, w i t h an i d e n t i f i a b l e l e a d e r s h i p , which i s d i s t i n c t l y separate from the r e s t of the P a r l i a m e n t a r y P a r t y , by reason of organised a c t i v i t y , and, which seeks t o promote, over a p e r i o d of time, f o r e i g n and domestic p o l i c i e s which the f a c t i o n p e r c e i v e s as d i f f e r e n t i n p r i n c i p l e from those espoused by others w i t h i n the P a r l i a m e n t a r y P a r t y . P a c t i o n s can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from i n t e r e s t groups because the members of f a c t i o n s are MPs wh i l e i n t e r e s t group membership i s not s o l e l y based i n Pa r l i a m e n t . P a c t i o n s can a l s o be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from ad hoc combinations of p o l i t i c i a n s i n agreement upon o n e . p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e at one moment i n time: a f a c t i o n promotes i t s p o l i c i e s over a p e r i o d of time. A f a c t i o n may a l s o be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from an i n t r a - p a r t y a l l i a n c e of MPs, a l l i e d t o work f o r the replacement of p a r t y p o l i c y on only one p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e . ^ The above d e f i n i t i o n of a f a c t i o n suggests s i x 3 c r i t e r i a by which f a c t i o n a l i s m i n the PLP may be i d e n t i f i e d : 1. the members of a f a c t i o n are MPs 2. the l e a d e r s can be i d e n t i f i e d 3. the f a c t i o n i s organised i n order t o promote i t s p o l i c i e s 4 . other members of the PLP are aware of i t s e x i s t e n c e 5. the f a c t i o n promotes a range of p o l i c i e s which the f a c t i o n p e r c e i v e s as d i f f e r e n t i n p r i n c i p l e from those espoused by others i n the PLP 6 . the f a c t i o n promotes i t s p o l i c i e s over a p e r i o d of time These c r i t e r i a should be considered i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l . 1. Membership: i t should be q u i t e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d t o determine whether the members of a f a c t i o n are MPs by refer e n c e t o l i s t s of Labour MPs p u b l i s h e d i n Labour P a r t y Annual Conference Reports. However, the t o t a l membership of a f a c t i o n may not be easy to d e t e c t . Those members of a f a c t i o n who p a r t i c i p a t e very f r e q u e n t l y i n a f a c t i o n ' s a c t i v i t i e s may be the only members who can be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h any degree of c e r t a i n t y . The members thus i d e n t i f i e d may represent only a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of a f a c t i o n ' s t o t a l membership. Since a f a c t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l l y a v o l u n t a r y , u n o f f i c i a l group, i t does not have a for m a l membership. There i s t h e r e -f o r e a problem of i d e n t i f y i n g the l e s s a c t i v e members, who may i d e n t i f y themselves w i t h a f a c t i o n , but who may not openly provide evidence of such i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . There are s e v e r a l ways i n which students of i n t r a -p a r t y groups have i d e n t i f i e d group membership, f o r example, a n a l y s i s of P a r l i a m e n t a r y P a r t i e s by means of s i g n a t o r i e s t o E a r l y Day Motions? s i g n a t u r e s to p u b l i c l e t t e r s of support f o r a group's p o l i c y on one 4 i s s u e and a n a l y s i s of v o t i n g f i g u r e s i n the House of q Commons. There are problems i n u s i n g such sources. MPs may agree on one i s s u e and s i g n an E a r l y Day Motion but they are not a l l n e c e s s a r i l y going t o agree on other i s s u e s . An MP may be motivated to s i g n a p u b l i e l e t t e r of support f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p o l i c y f o r reasons o t h e r than pure concurrence w i t h the p o l i c y ; f o r i n s t a n c e , he may regard i t as advantageous t o h i s pe r s o n a l career. Some MPs not normally a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a f a c t i o n may support a f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c y on one p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e by v o t i n g w i t h a f a c t i o n i n the Commons. Examination of Commons v o t i n g l i s t s may t h e r e f o r e provide evidence of MPs who sympathised w i t h a f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c y on one i s s u e , but v o t i n g l i s t s cannot be r e l i e d upon t o provide concrete proof of a f a c t i o n ' s membership. Examination of a s e r i e s of votes may demonstrate t h a t a number of MPs voted t o g e t h e r c o n s i s t e n t l y , but provides tenuous evidence of group membership. Nevertheless, examination of the v o t i n g l i s t s of a s e r i e s of votes may demonstrate t h a t a group of MPs acted t o g e t h e r , and thus p r o v i d e evidence of group a c t i v i t y . A f a c t i o n may be able to o b t a i n the support of v a r y i n g numbers of MPs on i n d i v i d u a l i s s u e s . The problems of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a f a c t i o n ' s membership l e d t o the d e c i s i o n t o i d e n t i f y member-shi p somewhat narrowly, through authorship of a r t i c l e s or pamphlets advocating a f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s . The author of s e v e r a l a r t i c l e s t h a t c o n s i s t e n t l y expounded a f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s was considered t o have i d e n t i f i e d h i m s e l f as a member of a f a c t i o n , and, by w r i t i n g a r t i c l e s , to have a c t i v e l y demonstrated h i s membership. Because f a c t i o n a l membership i s so narrowly d e f i n e d t h e r e w i l l be important gaps i n i n d i c a t i o n s of the extent of a f a c t i o n ' s membership. The gaps w i l l 5 i n c l u d e those members of a f a c t i o n who demonstrated a low l e v e l of f a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y and i n d i v i d u a l s who were not prone to express themselves i n w r i t i n g . The extent t o which a f a c t i o n can a t t r a c t a h i g h e r l e v e l of support at c e r t a i n moments i n time w i l l be demon-s t r a t e d by Commons v o t i n g f i g u r e s , i . e . the number of MPs who voted w i t h a f a c t i o n on an i s s u e . The i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n of membership used here w i l l be t e n t a t i v e . I n not d e a l i n g w i t h the e n t i r e membership of a f a c t i o n , t h i s study w i l l be concerned w i t h the o r g a n i s a t i o n of the most a c t i v e f a c t i o n a l members. 2. Leadership: The concept of l e a d e r s h i p i m p l i e s the e x e r c i s e of i n f l u e n c e i n s o c i a l c o l l e c t i v i t i e s , such as groups, communities or n a t i o n s . The e x e r c i s e of power and i n f l u e n c e means t h a t the l e a d e r s h i p m o b i l -i z e s the e f f o r t s of others toward goals w i d e l y h e l d among the group, or m o b i l i z e s people to do what they would not do otherwise. There are a number of sources of a l e a d e r ' s i n f l u e n c e which can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d a n a l y t i c a l l y . One source i s p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s : a l e a d e r may a t t r a c t f o l l o w e r s through the f o r c e and appeal of h i s person-a l i t y . There are other p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s t h a t a l e a d e r can use to m o b i l i z e a f o l l o w i n g , such are the s k i l l s and techniques of o r g a n i s i n g and the a b i l i t y t o a t t r a c t f o l l o w e r s through able and c l e a r analyses and proposals f o r group a c t i o n . These s k i l l s are those of a manager and an o r g a n i s e r . Both p e r s o n a l -i t y and acquired s k i l l s can be bases of a l e a d e r ' s i n f l u e n c e over a g r o u p . ^ Secondly, an i n d i v i d u a l may e x e r c i s e i n f l u e n c e by v i r t u e of the a u t h o r i t y of h i s o f f i c e or p o s i t i o n i n an o r g a n i s a t i o n . That i s , others may accept h i s d e c i s i o n s as b i n d i n g - not because of agreement or even p e r s o n a l respect - but because of a b e l i e f t h a t 6 they should defer t o the o f f i c e , r e g a r d l e s s of i t s i n c u m b e n t . ^ A t h i r d source from which a l e a d e r can a c q u i r e i n f l u e n c e over others i s through the e x e r c i s e of s a n c t i o n s . Sanctions are the a b i l i t y to reward or punish f o r compliance or non-compliance. They are v a r i e d and can i n c l u d e the e x c l u s i o n of f o l l o w e r s from a group, d e n u n c i a t i o n , or the withdrawing or awarding of o f f i c i a l p o l i t i c a l p o s t s . The most f o r m a l s a n c t i o n s w i l l l i e w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l s who h o l d a u t h o r i t y i n the P a r t y ; they w i l l have the power to exclude others from p o s i t i o n s i n the P a r t y , e.g. Cabinet p o s t s . However, l e a d e r s without such f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y may a l s o have some sanc t i o n s through person-a l endorsement of t h e i r f o l l o w e r s , or p u b l i c condem-n a t i o n of o t h e r s . " ^ This c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of a l e a d e r ' s sources of power makes i t p o s s i b l e t o suggest ways of i d e n t i f y -i n g l e a d e r s : 1. evidence of respect f o r the p e r s o n a l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l and of o r g a n i s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , by means of: (a) statements made by members of a f a c t i o n or by contemporary observers t h a t one or more i n d i v i d u a l s comprised the l e a d e r s h i p , or (b) the member or members of a f a c t i o n who are the most a c t i v e i n ( i ) w r i t i n g pamphlets or a r t i c l e s advocating a f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s , o r , ( i i ) o r g a n i s i n g meetings of the f a c t i o n ' s members, or, ( i i i ) maicing speeches concerned wholly or i n p a r t w i t h advocating the f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s 2 . Evidence of deference t o the o f f i c e of a member of a f a c t i o n 3. The e x e r c i s e o f , or deference t o , the use or p o s s i b l e use of s a n c t i o n s . 7 However, there are d i f f i c u l t i e s i n measmring p e r s o n a l i t y and f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y . I t w i l l he neces-aary to r e l y on p r i m a r i l y i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c statements made by i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d or by contemporary observers t o i n d i c a t e respect f o r p e r s o n a l i t y and deference t o o f f i c e . I t should be s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d to i d e n t i f y a l e a d e r who bases h i s l e a d e r s h i p upon organ-i s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , because of the marked frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n f a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . The measure-ment of power d e r i v e d from s a n c t i o n s presents problems too. I t may be easy to assess t h i s i n f l u e n c e i f t h e r e i s c l e a r evidence t h a t the s a n c t i o n s have been employ-ed. Even i f s a n c t i o n s were not e x p l i c i t l y used, others may have been i n f l u e n c e d by the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t they could be used, t h a t i s , some f o l l o w e r s may have adapted t h e i r behaviour to avoid the e x e r c i s e of s a n c t i o n s . This phenomenon of a d a p t a t i o n t o a n t i c -i p a t e d response produces d i f f i c u l t i e s i n making an e m p i r i c a l assessment of power r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the c o n c l u s i o n s one can draw about the i n f l u e n c e of a l e a d e r w i l l have to be q u a l i f i e d . 3 . O r g a n i s a t i o n : the extent t o which a f a c t i o n i s organised may be i n d i c a t e d by: (a) h o l d i n g meetings to d i s c u s s methods of p r e s s i n g the f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s (b) a r t i c l e s i n j o u r n a l s , newspapers, pamphlets or manifestoes produced by members of the f a c t i o n f o r the purpose of b r o a d c a s t i n g the f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s ( c ) a f a c t i o n ' s members may demonstrate t h e i r p o l i c y preferences by v o t i n g i n House of Commons vo t e s , f o r or against p o l i c i e s upon which the f a c t i o n has made p o l i c y statements. They can a l s o draw a t t e n t i o n t o the f a c t i o n ' s o p i n i o n s on a p a r t i c u l a r 8 p o l i c y by a b s t a i n i n g on v o t e s . Members of a f a c t i o n may a l s o be prepared t o f l o u t P a r t y d i s c i p l i n e i n order to express the f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s , t o the extent t h a t d i s c i p -l i n a r y measures are taken against them, e.g. withdrawal of the Whip."1"4 The extent t o which such d i s c i p l i n a r y measures are not d e s t r u c t i v e of the f a c t i o n may i n d i c a t e the degree to which the f a c t i o n i s prepared t o press i t s p o l i c i e s . 4. Seen by o t h e r s : t h e r e should be i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t MPs other than those a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a f a c t i o n i d e n t i f y i t as such, e.g. i n speeches, a r t i c l e s or i n autobiog-r a p h i e s and b i o g r a p h i e s . 5 . P o l i c i e s : a f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s , as o u t l i n e d by members of the f a c t i o n i n speeches or i n w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l may be compared w i t h p o l i c y proposals put forward by other members of the p a r t y , i n order t o e s t a b l i s h whether the f a c t i o n was promoting p o l i c i e s at v a r i a n c e w i t h other p o l i c i e s . A f a c t i o n should advocate s e v e r a l p o l i c i e s which i n d i c a t e t h a t the f a c t i o n has a wider view of s o c i a l purpose than an i n t r a - p a r t y a l l i a n c e or i n t e r e s t group, promoting o n l y one p o l i c y . 6. Duration: the minimum d u r a t i o n of a f a c t i o n has been a r b i t r a r i l y e s t a b l i s h e d at twelve months. A year seems t o be a reasonable p e r i o d of time w i t h i n which a f a c t i o n can form, organise and press i t s p o l i c i e s . The above c r i t e r i a w i l l be used as a standard a g a i n s t which examples of f a c t i o n a l i s m can be assessed. Such assessment w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y be rough, but should i n d i c a t e whether p a r t i e s t o PLP d i s p u t e s can be i d e n t -i f i e d as f a c t i o n s . Method and Sources The h i s t o r y of major d i s p u t e s w i t h i n the PLP d u r i n g 9 t h e y e a r s 1 9 4 5 - 1 9 7 0 w i l l he c o n s i d e r e d , i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r . I n a n a l y s i n g d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f s t u d y i t w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e d i s p u t e s c a n be i d e n t i f i e d as f a c t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m o d e l o u t l i n e d a b o v e . The emergence and d e c l i n e o f f a c t i o n s d u r i n g t h e t i m e p e r i o d u n d e r s t u d y h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h e t i m e s p a n s w i t h w h i c h t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s d e a l . C h a p t e r s two t h r o u g h f i v e w i l l c o n s i -d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g t i m e p e r i o d s : C h a p t e r t w o : 1 9 4 5 - 1 9 5 1 C h a p t e r t h r e e : 1 9 5 1 - 1 9 5 7 C h a p t e r f o u r : b r i e f l y w i t h 1 9 5 1 - 1 9 5 9 , i n d e t a i l 1959-1961 C h a p t e r f i v e : 1 9 6 6 - 1 9 7 0 C h a p t e r s i x : t h e c o n c l u s i o n s E a c h c h a p t e r w i l l be d i v i d e d i n t o two s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n w i l l d e a l w i t h a c h r o n o l o g i c a l n a r r a t i v e , t h e s e c o n d w i t h an a n a l y s i s o f t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e L a b o u r P a r t y was f a c t i o n a l i s e d i n t h a t p e r i o d . P r i m a r y s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n c l u d e d t h e T i m e s , t h e New S t a t e s m a n , T r i b u n e , an i n d e p e n d e n t w e e k l y p u b l i c a t i o n w h i c h t e n d s t o a l e f t - w i n g b i a s i n d i s c u s s -i n g p o l i t i c a l e v e n t s and S o c i a l i s t Commentary , a w e e k l y p a p e r w h i c h t e n d s t o a L a b o u r r i g h t - w i n g b i a s . L a b o u r P a r t y A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t s and H a n s a r d h a v e a l s o p r o v i d e d v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . S e c o n d a r y s o u r c e s i n c l u d e b i o g r a p h i e s and a u t o -b i o g r a p h i e s o f L a b o u r p o l i t i c i a n s , and i n some i n s t a n c e s t h e y h a v e p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n n o t a v a i l a b l e i n p r i m a r y s o u r c e s , e . g . d e t a i l s o f C a b i n e t m e e t i n g s . H i s t o r i e s o f t h e L a b o u r P a r t y and w o r k s c o n c e r n e d w i t h s p e c i f i c d i s p u t e s w i t h i n t h e P a r t y h a v e a l s o b e e n c o n s u l t e d . D e s c r i p t i v e w o r k s o f t h e P a r t y ' s s t r u c t u r e and o p e r a t i o n have p r o v i d e d u s e f u l b a c k g r o u n d d e t a i l s . 10 Footnotes to Chapter One 1. Margaret Stewart, Protest or Power? (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974), p. 8 2. Finer, Berrington and Bartholomew note that, i n terms of education, occupation and sponsorship (trade union or constituency) the PLP contains two d i s t i n c t groups, one "working-class" and the other "professional". Seyd has also pointed out that the differences i n s o c i a l and occupational backgrounds of Labour MPs have tended to exacer-bate i n t r a - p a r t y c o n f l i c t . S.E.Finer, H.B.Berrington and D.J. Bartholomew, Backbench Opinion i n the House of Commons (London: Pergamon Press, 1961), p. l b P a t r i c k Seyd, "Factionalism within the Conservative Party", Government and Opposition Vol. 7, No. 4, (Autumn 1972), p. 46b 3. According to both Haseler and Janosik, many disputes i n the Labour Party have been i n t e n s i f i e d by uncert-ainty as to the l o c a t i o n of ultimate power. While the leader of the Conservative Party i s normally the Party's f i n a l source of authority, the leader of the Labour Party i s not. Stephen Haseler, The G a i t s k e l l i t e s (London: Mac-mil l a n , 1969), p. 11; Edward G. Janosik, "Faction-alism i n the Labour Party", i n Richard Rose (ed.) Studies i n B r i t i s h P o l i t i c s (London: Macmillan, i m ) , P . m 4 . Rose and Unwin have argued that the Labour Party i s more concerned with ideology than the Conserv-ative Party. Richard Rose and Derek Unwin, "Social Cohesion, P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s and Strains i n Regimes", Comparative P o l i t i c a l Studies 2 (I960), passim 5. Richard Rose, "Parties, Factions and Tendencies i n B r i t a i n " , P o l i t i c a l Studies (February 1964), p. 37; J u l i u s Gould, A Dictionary of the S o c i a l Sciences (New York: the Free press)(19b5), p. 255; Michael Leiserson, "Factions and C o a l i t i o n s i n One Party Japan", American P o l i t i c a l Science Review (September 1968), p7""77o" 6. Rose, "Parties, Factions....", p. 50; Seyd, p. 465 7. Finer, Berrington and Bartholomew, passim. An E a r l y Day Motion i s a r e s o l u t i o n signed by a number of MPs of the same party which the signatories wish to have debated i n the House. 11 8. H a s e l e r , p . 217 9. J . Richard P i p e r , "Backbench R e b e l l i o n , Par ty Govern-ment and Consensus P o l i t i c s " , Parl iamentary A f f a i r s , (Autumn 1974), p . 390 10. Arnold S. Tannenbaum, "Leadership^, i n David L . S i l l s ( e d . ) , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Encyclopaedia of the S o c i a l  Sciences (New York: The Free P r e s s , 1969), p . 101 11. Les ter G. Seligman, "Leadership" , i n David L . S i l l s , p . 107 12. Robert L . Peabody, " A u t h o r i t y " , i n S i l l s , p . 473 13. I b i d . , p . 474 14. The term Whip r e f e r s to an informat ion sheet c i r c u l a t e d to MPs by i n d i v i d u a l s i n the PLP who are also c a l l e d Whips. The i n f o r m a t i o n sheets d i r e c t the MPs on the P L P ' s o f f i c i a l stance on i s s u e s coming before the House. The withdrawal of the Whip from an MP i s an expression of formal d i s a p p r o v a l . 12 Chapter Two Keep L e f t and Keeping L e f t Chapter two considers disputes a r i s i n g w i t h i n the PLP during the 1945 P a r l i a -ment. In 1946 there was disagreement over the PLP l e a d e r s h i p ' s foreign p o l i c y - disagreement that was demonstrated i n the House and i n the form of a pamphlet, Keep L e f t . There were also arguments over the c o n s c r i p t i o n p e r i o d to be i n t r o d u c e d , and over the n a t i o n -a l i z a t i o n of s t e e l . The n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n controversy was a forerunner of the pamphlet, Keeping L e f t . A f t e r b r i e f c o n s i d e r a t i o n of these i s s u e s there w i l l be an a n a l y s i s of the extent to which MPs associa ted with both pamph-l e t s can be considered a f a c t i o n . A f t e r the general e l e c t i o n of 1945 the PLP was u n i t e d as never before."'" I n t e r n a l d i s c i p l i n e was so good that , i n June 1946, Standing Orders f o r b i d d i n g MPs to vote against o f f i c i a l party d e c i s i o n s were p suspended. These Standing Orders were not reimposed u n t i l March 1952. The PLP remained u n i t e d u n t i l the autumn of 1946. On November 18, 1946, R . H . S . Crossman, then a young l e f t - w i n g backbencher, moved an amendment i n the House c r i t i c i s i n g the f o r e i g n p o l i c y of Ernest B e v i n , the Eoreign M i n i s t e r . ^ Grossman s p e c i f i c a l l y attacked B e v i n ' s p o l i c y of maintaining close m i l i t a r y l i n k s with the USA. Commenting on Crossman's amendment, Tribune maintained that , f o r severa l months a s e c t i o n of the PLP had been "uneasy" about B e v i n ' s f o r e i g n p o l i c y . Those expressing discontent had been l a b e l l e d " c r y p t o -communists" by "Labour l e a d e r s " , reported T r i b u n e . However, the a r t i c l e continued, Crossman's amendment 13 and the ninety PLP abstentions on the vote that followed, made i t c l e a r that disapproval of Bevin's f o r e i g n p o l i c y was not l i m i t e d to a few extreme deviants.^ The abstentions constituted 24$ of the PLP. During the next few months Tribune p r i n t e d a r t i c l e s which r e i t e r a t e d Crossman's c r i t i c i s m s of November 1946. During February and March 1947, Tribune c r i t i c i s e d the government's conscription p o l i c y . In March 1947 the government put forward a b i l l to introduce an eighteen month conscription period. Such was the disagreement among the PLP on the eighteen 5 month period that the government withdrew the b i l l . Tribune pointed out that the left-wing were not opposed to conscription but were concerned that the chronic manpower shortage be eased by quicker demob-i l i z a t i o n . ^ In May, a b i l l was passed which stated that there would be a twelve month conscription period. The government's decision to reduce the proposed term to twelve months was regarded by James M. Burns and Stephen Haseler as a concession to the l e f t of the 7 PLP. The New Statesman commented at the time that the government had i m p l i c i t l y accepted backbench c r i t i c i s m s of the " i n f l a t e d " s i z e of the Armed Forces, which B r i t a i n could not a f f o r d to maintain, by reducing the g proposed period f o r conscription. P o s s i b l y the success of the conscription r e b e l l i o n and the Crossman amendment of November 1946 were f o r e -runners of a more formal statement of left-wing discon-tent. In May 1947 a pamphlet e n t i t l e d Keep L e f t was written by f i f t e e n Labour MPs, among them Crossman, and advertised i n the New Statesman as a New Statesman p u b l i c a t i o n . Keep L e f t B r i e f l y , the main p o l i c y proposals i n Keep L e f t 14 were: 1. B r i t a i n should c o n s t r u c t a f o r e i g n policy-independent of t h a t of America, and concom-i t a n t l y , 2. work f o r a c l o s e r a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Prance and the r e s t of Europe. 3 . D e m o b i l i z a t i o n should be speeded up. 4. A M i n i s t e r of Economic A f f a i r s , r e s p o n s i b l e f o r n a t i o n a l economic p l a n n i n g should be appointed. q 5. B r i t a i n should c u r t a i l her imports. Some of Keep L e f t ' s p r o p o s a l s r e f l e c t e d Cabinet d i s a g r e -ement. Hugh Dalton , C h a n c e l l o r of the Exchequer, and S i r S t a f f o r d C r i p p s , P r e s i d e n t of the Board of Trade, had been advocating t h a t the Prime M i n i s t e r , Clement A t t l e e , appoint a M i n i s t e r f o r Economic A f f a i r s . B r i t a i n a c t u a l l y d i d c u r t a i l her imports i n the autumn of 1 9 4 7 * ^ M i c h a e l Foot maintains t h a t the authors of Keep L e f t a r r i v e d at t h e i r p o l i c i e s independently and t h a t t h e r e had been no Cabinet l e a k s . 1 1 A f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n of Keep L e f t , Tribune continued t o c r i t i c i s e Bevin's f o r e i g n p o l i c y , but began to g i v e g r e a t e r prominence to the i s s u e of s t e e l n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . Keeping L e f t The Cabinet h e l d d i f f e r i n g views on s t e e l n a t i o n -a l i z a t i o n w i t h Aneurin Bevan, M i n i s t e r of H e a l t h , " p a s s i o n a t e l y " attached t o i t , w h i l e A t t l e e and Herbert 12 M o r r i s o n , Lord P r e s i d e n t , were not so enamoured. M o r r i s o n was most concerned t h a t the Labour government should f o l l o w a p o l i c y of ^ c o n s o l i d a t i o n " r a t h e r than continue n a t i o n a l i z i n g more i n d u s t r i e s . 1 ^ At Morrison's i n s t i g a t i o n an enquiry was i n i t i a t e d i n t o the p o s s i b i l i t y of the i r o n and s t e e l i n d u s t r y a c c e p t i n g a Board of C o n t r o l , appointed by the government, i n r e t u r n f o r abandonment of n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . T h i s p r o p o s a l was 15 h o t l y contested by Bevan, Dalton and p o s s i b l y others i n the Cabinet, and as a r e s u l t i t was abandoned.^ In the autumn of 1947, a p e t i t i o n , signed by, what Foot terms, the overwhelming majority of Labour backbenchers, and a r e s o l u t i o n moved by a PLP meeting, demanded the n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of s t e e l at tha,t P a r l i a -15 mentary session. The eventual decision to n a t i o n a l i z e s t e e l was seen by the Times as "a ransom paid to r a d i c a l i n s i s t e n c e " . - ^ The 1949 act, allowing the government to purchase the assets of the i r o n and s t e e l companies without a l t e r i n g the industry's structure, gained approval i n the Lords, with the proviso that the date f o r n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n be postponed u n t i l a f t e r the next 17 general e l e c t i o n . D i f f e r i n g opinions i n the PLP over the n a t i o n a l i z -a t i o n of s t e e l was probably one of the f a c t o r s that prompted the pamphlet Keeping L e f t . Written by twelve Labour MPs, among them Crossman, Keeping L e f t was published i n January 1950, l i k e Keep L e f t , as a New  Statesman pamphlet. While Keep L e f t was mainly concern-ed with f o r e i g n p o l i c y , Keeping L e f t focused on domestic p o l i c y . B r i e f l y , Keeping L e f t suggested that B r i t a i n should progress toward a more s o c i a l i s t economy by incr e a s i n g the number of i n d u s t r i e s p u b l i c l y owned. Six main i n d u s t r i e s were i d e n t i f i e d as ready to be nation-a l i z e d : road haulage, s t e e l , insurance, cement, sugar and cotton. As part of a predominantly p u b l i c l y owned economy the government should introduce a wages p o l i c y , subject to negotiation with the General Council of the TUC. 1 8 The f a c t that Keeping L e f t s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned s t e e l as one of the i n d u s t r i e s to be n a t i o n a l i z e d emphasised i t s authors' concern that a Labour govern-ment might adopt some measure of p a r t i a l n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , 16 e.g. along the lines suggested by Morrison. Although Tribune applauded the pamphlet upon i t s publication, Tribune did not press Keeping Left's policies u n t i l March 1950. * During February Tribune was more concer-ned with attacking the Conservative Party, prior to the 1950 general election. On February 23, 1950, the electorate reduced Labour's overall majority of 146 to a majority of 5. The Keep Left MPs - a faction? For the sake of brevity the term Keep Left MPs w i l l be used throughout the following analysis. This term i s intended to refer to MPs associated with both the Keep Left and the Keeping Left publications. 1. Membership The seven MPs who contributed to both Keep Left and Keeping Left were: R.H.S. Crossman, Donald Bruce, Harold Davies, Leslie Hale, Ian Mikardo, Stephen Swingler, and George Wigg. The following MPs also wrote i n Keep Left: Geoffrey Bing, Michael Foot, Fred Lee, R.W.G.Mackay, Benn Levy, J.P.W. Mallalieu Ernest Millington and Woodrow Wyatt. The MPs associated with Keeping Left only were: Sir Richard Acland, Barbara Castle, Tom Horabin, Marcus Llpton and Tom Williams. The names l i s t e d above are those of twenty MPs associated with either or both pamphlets. Of these, Foot, Mallalieu and Mikardo contributed to almost every edition of Tribune during the 1945 Parliament. Another five MPs contributed sporadically to Tribune, namely: Castle, Crossman, Levy, Swingler and Wyatt. The opinions expressed by the MPs writing i n Tribune were consistent with the pamphlets* policies. As the large number of abstentions on the foreign policy debate i n November 1946 showed, the Keep Left MPs obtained the support of 17 other MPs on t h i s i s s u e . I t i s l i k e l y t h a t the twenty MPs named above represented o n l y the most 20 a c t i v e core of the Keep L e f t group. 2. Leadership Burns i d e n t i f i e s Crossman as the l e a d e r of the 21 Keep L e f t MPs. I n a d d i t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the a c t i v i t i e s of the' Keep L e f t MPs (see O r g a n i s a t i o n below), he a l s o d e t a i l e d the group's f o r e i g n p o l i c y p r e ferences i n the House i n November 1946. Foot, M a l l a l i e u and Mikardo may be considered p a r t of the group's l e a d e r s h i p because they r e g u l a r l y pressed the group's p o l i c y preferences through Tribune. There i s no evidence t h a t Crossman a t t r a c t e d f o l l o w e r s through the f o r c e of h i s p e r s o n a l i t y , nor t h a t h i s l e a d e r s h i p was based upon the a u t h o r i t y of an ^ o f f i c i a l p a r t y , post - he was a backbencher w i t h no obvious l i k e l i h o o d of r e c e i v i n g an o f f i c i a l post i n the near f u t u r e . He was not t h e r e f o r e i n a p o s i t i o n to use f o r m a l s a n c t i o n s , nor i s there any evidence t h a t he employed any other i n f o r m a l s a n c t i o n s . 3. O r g a n i s a t i o n The Keep L e f t MPs appear to have considered themselves organised. Foot wrote t h a t the Keep L e f t authors s t a r t e d what they c a l l e d a "Keep L e f t Group" 22 i n e a r l y 1947. Jennie Lee, wife of Bevan, wrote i n Tribune, t h a t the pamphlet Keep L e f t was the outsome of a number of MPs meeting c a s u a l l y i n the House. ^ I t i s probable t h a t s i m i l a r meetings preceeded the p r o d u c t i o n of Keeping L e f t . Burns a l s o noted t h a t the 24 Keep L e f t MPs met "weekly and r a t h e r openly.". The Keep L e f t MPs produced two pamphlets and a l s o wrote a r t i c l e s i n Tribune expounding t h e i r p o l i c i e s . Apart from w r i t i n g a r t i c l e s and pamphlets the Keep L e f t MPs appeared to be attempting to a t t r a c t a t t e n t i o n to 18 t h e i r p o l i c i e s i n the House. A l l twenty MPs appear to have abstained i n the vote following the debate on 2 5 f o r e i g n p o l i c y i n November 1946. Tribune r e f e r r e d to the left-wing MPs amongst the abstainers as "rebels" who were t r y i n g to demonstrate t h e i r opinions on 2 6 f o r e i g n p o l i c y . For two months a f t e r the abstentions Tribune continued, to r e i t e r a t e the viewpoint expressed 2 7 by Crossman i n the House i n 1946. S i m i l a r l y , Tribune pressed i t s viewpoint on conscription several times during February, March and A p r i l 1947. There i s l i t t l e evidence to suggest that the Keep Left MPs organised themselves to promote t h e i r p o l i c y on s t e e l n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n other than through thE production of Keeping L e f t and prominent a r t i c l e s 28 i n Tribune throughout 1947 and 1948. Apparently they did not need to. According to Foot, the majority of the Labour backbenchers and, i n the Cabinet, Bevan and Dalton, wanted the n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of s t e e l . p 4. The Keep L e f t MPs seen by others There i s some s l i g h t evidence that the Keep. L e f t MPs were i d e n t i f i e d as a d i s t i n c t group within P a r l i a -ment. Emanuel Shinwell,, a Labour MP at the time, r e f e r s i n h i s h i s t o r y of the Labour Party, to "the Keep Left movement".^ The New Statesman reported that Keep L e f t was not regarded by the PLP leadership as an "example of wicked r e b e l l i o n " . ^ " This statement in d i c a t e s that the leadership was aware of the e x i s t -ence of Keep L e f t , and i t s authors. A group of MPs do not have to be regarded as wicked rebels i n order to be i d e n t i f i e d as a f a c t i o n . I t has been noted that Keep Left r e f l e c t e d Cabinet arguments on import co n t r o l and on the question of appointing a M i n i s t e r of Economic A f f a i r s . Perhaps t h i s r e f l e c t i o n helps explain why the leadership did not regard Keep L e f t as r e b e l l i o u s . S i m i l a r l y Keeping L e f t r e f l e c t e d 19 Cabinet d i v i s i o n s on the s p e c i f i c i s s u e of s t e e l . 5. P o l i c i e s The Keep L e f t MPs expounded a range of p o l i c i e s which they p e r c e i v e d as d i f f e r e n t j f r o m those advocated by the PLP l e a d e r s h i p . T h e i r p o l i c i e s w i l l be d i v i d e d i n t o domestic and f o r e i g n p o l i c y : (a) Domestic. The Keep L e f t MPs d i d not d i f f e r from the m a j o r i t y of the PLP i n wanting the n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of s t e e l , although A t t l e e and p a r t i c u l a r l y M o r r i s o n were not e n t h u s i a s t i c about i t . However, where the Keep L e f t MPs d i d d i f f e r from the m a j o r i t y of the PLP was i n r e g a r d i n g s t e e l as only one of many i n d u s t r i e s t h a t should be n a t i o n a l i z e d . They advocated the n a t i o n -a l i z a t i o n of the m a j o r i t y of l a r g e f i r m s because they considered p u b l i c ownership a method of o b t a i n i n g an e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of wealth i n s o c i e t y . An e d i t o r -i a l i n Tribune proclaimed: The b a t t l e f o r s t e e l i s the b a t t l e between c a p i t a l i s m and s o c i a l i s m i n B r i t a i n . I t concerns the very found-a t i o n s of our s o c i e t y . 32 Tribune s t a t e d t h a t n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n was an important step on the route t o s o c i a l i s m . The b u i l d i n g of s o c i a l -ism was one of the P a r t y ' s p r i n c i p l e s . The P a r t y should stand by i t s p r i n c i p l e s and present them to the p u b l i c : no attempt should be made to deny them or t o "gloss over them". The PLP should s t i c k to i t s i n t e n t i o n s t o n a t i o n a l i z e l a r g e f i r m s , even i f t h i s proved to be unpopular w i t h the e l e c t o r a t e . I f the e l e c t o r a t e r e j e c t e d the P a r t y ' s p o l i c y of n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , which had been founded upon i t s s o c i a l i s t p r i n c i p l e s , then, §aid Tribune, " e f f o r t s must be redoubled t o o b t a i n converts i n time f o r the next election."^3 wage p l a n n i n g as advocated i n Keeping L e f t was an a d d i t i o n a l f e a t u r e of a predominantly p u b l i c l y owned and c o n t r o l l e d economy. 20 In contrast to the Keep L e f t MPs' opinions on n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , Morrison said; Labour should not stand f r r immediate, u n i v e r s a l n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n ; or f o r the use of economic controls merely f o r the sake of i t , or where no pu b l i c advantage i s served. Each case should be argued on i t s merits by both sides i n the controversy. 34 (b) Foreign. The Keep Left MPs f e l t that Bevin was t r y i n g to sust a i n a close m i l i t a r y association between B r i t a i n and the USA. They considered that close m i l i t -ary a s s o c i a t i o n with the USA would i n e v i t a b l y r e s u l t i n the d i v i s i o n of the world into two power blocs, 35 which would endanger c i v i l i z a t i o n . Instead of aiding i n the development of two power blocs, B r i t a i n should work f o r closer cooperation with France towards a more u n i f i e d Europe. A u n i f i e d Europe could i n the Keep Left MPs' opinion, act as a balance between Soviet and American spheres of influence. B r i t a i n ' s present close association with the USA was also hampering her i n taking any i n i t i a t i v e i n promoting disarmament t a l k s with the USSR. Association with the USA implied that B r i t a i n shared America's suspic-i o n of the USSR. 3 6 On the subject of conscription the Keep L e f t MPs did not d i f f e r very much from the PLP leadership. The Keep L e f t MPs were not opposed to conscription per:ee but did not want conscription f o r as long a;-period as eighteen months. 6. Duration. Crossman's speech i n the House i n November 1946 appears to have been the i n s p i r a t i o n behind the emerg-ence of the Keep Left group i n early 1947. The actual date of the formation of the Keep L e f t group i s unclear: they are reported to have held meetings p r i o r to the 21 publication of Keep Left and were active i n pressing their views on conscription from February 1947, through Tribune. The steel issue arose i n the autumn of 1947 and the Keep Left MPs promoted their nation-alization policies throughout 1947 and early 1948. If February 1947 i s taken as the time at which the Keep Left MPs emerged as a distinct group, i t appears that they were active during 1947 and early 1948 but that their activity dropped off u n t i l January 1950. Keeping Left was published i n January 1950 and appears to have been an isolated attempt on the part of the Keep Left MPs to restate the policies on nationalization expressed i n Tribune during 1947 and 1948. The timing of the publication of Keeping Left, immediately prior to a general election, probably precluded both dissension within the PLP over i t s contents, and any activity i n the House that might have ensued to promote the pamphlet's policies. After the publication of Keeping Left, articles i n Tribune concentrated upon the forthcoming election rather than on promoting the pamphlet's ideas. It seems that the Keep Left MPs existed as a distinct group for a year, i.e. early 1947 to early 1948. However, the Keep Left MPs expressed their views from November 1946 (through Tribune and Crossman's amendment i n the House) to January 1950 (the publication of Keep- ing Left), a period of three years. It seems that the twenty Keep Left MPs can be identified as a faction. They had a leader i n Cross-man, a degree of organisation, and seem to have been identifiable to others as a group within the PLP. They articulated policies which they perceived as different from those of the PLP leadership for a period of three years, and were active i n promoting their policies for one year. 22 Footnotes to Chapter Two 1. Michael Foot , Aneurin Bevan Volume II (London: Davis Poynter , 1973), p . 17 2. Henry F e l l i n g , A Short H i s t o r y of the Labour P a r t y (London: Macmil lan, 1972), p . 109 : 3. James M. Burns, "The Parl iamentary Labour P a r t y i n Great B r i t a i n " , American P o l i t i c a l Science Review 44, (1950), pp. 855-71 ; — 4* Tribune November 22, 1946, p . 6 5. Burns, p . 865 6. Tr ibune , A p r i l 11, 1947, p . 1 7. Burns, p . 865; Stephen Haseler , The G a i t s k e l l i t e s (London: Macmil lan , 1969/), p . 20 8. New Statesman, A p r i l 12, 1947, p . 245. According to t h i s a r t i c l e the Cabinet , as w e l l as the back-benchers, had been d i v i d e d on defence p o l i c y f o r a w h i l e . 9. Foot , p . 90 10. I b i d . , p . 89-91 11. I b i d . 12. I b i d . , p . 219 13. By 1949 the Labour government had n a t i o n a l i z e d the Bank of England, c o a l , r a i l w a y s , canals , road haulage, cable and w i r e l e s s and set up p u b l i e corporat ions to run a i r l i n e s , e l e c t r i c i t y and gas supply 14. Foot , pp. 224, 226; P e l l i n g , p . 97 15. Foot , p . 225 16. Times, September 5, 1948, quoted by Foot, p . 227 17. P e l l i n g , p . 97 i 8 ' Tr ibune , March 10, 1950, p . 3 19. I b i d . 23 20. There were n i n e t y abstentions i n the vote on the debate on f o r e i g n p o l i c y i n November 1946 21. Burns, p . 862 ••' 22. Foot , p . 90 23. Tr ibune , May 9, 1947, p . 7 24. Burns, p . 862 25. Hansard, V o l . 430, c o l . 539* Hansard does not p u b l i s h the names of abstainers^ so i t can only be i n f e r r e d t h a t , i f an MPs name d i d not appear on the v o t i n g l i s t , that he abstained. H i s name may be absent f o r other reasons . too , e . g . i l l n e s s and therefore absence from the House. 26. Tr ibune , December 6, 1946, p . 2; December 20, 194b, p . 3; January 3, 1947, p . 1 27. For example, Tr ibune , December 6, 1947, p . 2; December 20, 1946, p . 2 28. I b i d . , J u l y 30, 1947, p . 7; August 13, 1947, p . 9; October 10, &947, p . 1 29. Foot , pp. 224-7 30. Emanuel S h i n w e l l , The Labour Story (London: Macdonald and C o . , 1963), p . 180 31. New Statesman, May 10, 1947, p . 329 32. Tr ibune , October 1, 1948, p . 3 33. I b i d . , March 10, 1950, p . 3 34. Herbert M o r r i s o n , Autobiography (London: Odhams Press L t d . , I960), p . 329 35. Crossman speaking i n the f o r e i g n p o l i c y debate i n the House, November 1946. Hansard, V o l . 430, c o l . s 525-538 36. Tr ibune , December 6, 1946, p . 2; December 20, 1946, p . 2; November 22, 1946, p . 2 24 Chapter Three  The Bevanites During the years 1951-1956 a number of l e f t - w i n g Labour MPs became known as the Bevanites . They expressed o p p o s i t i o n to some f o r e i g n and domestic p o l i c i e s of the Labour Par ty l e a d e r s h i p i n two pamphlets, One Way Only and Going Our Way? and through the weekly paper, Tr ibune . A f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the main disputes i n which the Bevanites were i n v o l v e d there w i l l be an a n a l y s i s of the extent to which the Bevanites were a f a c t i o n . In the autumn of 1950, Tribune began to express alarm at the cost of B r i t a i n ' s defence programme. While r e c o g n i s i n g that the present arms programme would be accepted by the Commons, Tribune was s t r o n g l y opposed to any increase i n arms expenditure . As. expenditure on rearmament i n c r e a s e d , so the B r i t i s h standards of l i v i n g would decrease, argued T r i b u n e . 1 Aneurin Bevan, M i n i s t e r of Health from August 1945 to January 1951, and M i n i s t e r of Labour from January 1951 to A p r i l 1951, had been instrumental i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a f r e e N a t i o n a l Heal th Service and had always s t r o n g l y opposed any suggestion that p r e s c r i p t -p i o n charges be l e v i e d . When Hugh G a i t s k e l l , Chancel lor of the Exchequer, proposed that defence expenditure be f u r t h e r increased at the cost of the t o t a l l y f r e e N a t i o n a l Heal th S e r v i c e , Bevan r e s i g n e d . ^ Harold Wilson, President of the Board of Trade and John Freeman, Under Secretary at the M i n i s t r y of Supply, res igned with Bevan. A l l three r e s i g n i n g M i n i s t e r s agreed that B r i t a i n was f i n a n c i n g a f o r e i g n p o l i c y , a k i n to that of the wartime c o a l i t i o n government, at 25 the cost of the s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . Tribune wholeheartedly endorsed the resignations and proceeded to attack G a i t s k e l l f o r causing d i s u n i t y within the PLP, maintaining that d i s u n i t y could have been avoided had G a i t s k e l l not encroached upon the National Health Service to pay f o r increased defence 5 expenditure. In J u l y 1951, Tribune published a pamphlet e n t i t l e d One Way Only i n which Bevan, Freeman and Wilson restated t h e i r argument that B r i t a i n did not need to spend so much on defence. On September 21, 1951, Tribune produced another pamphlet, Going Our  Way? which was attacked at the 1951 Conference by trades union leaders^ There were two reasons f o r t h i s attack and neither were r e l a t e d to any p o l i c y proposals made i n the pamphlet. 1. Going Our Way? attacked f i v e trades union repres-entatives on the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party (NEC) f o r voting f o r an NEC r e s o l -u t i o n which supported the defence increases. The pamphlet claimed that rank-and-file members of the f i v e unions had put forward resolutions to the Trades Union Congress (TUC) disapproving the defence increases. The f i v e representatives had voted f o r a p o l i c y which, s a i d Going Our Way? contradicted the expressed wishes of the trade union members 7 they represented. 2. The pamphlet appeared two days a f t e r Attlee had announced that a general e l e c t i o n would be held on October 25. Apparently, those associated with Tribune were unaware that Attlee was going to announce an e l e c t i o n when the pamphlet was auth-orized.^ The accusations against the trades union members of the 26 NEC p u b l i c l y proclaimed disharmony w i t h i n the Labour Par ty and d i d nothing to enhance the P a r t y ' s appeal to the e l e c t o r a t e . The t i m i n g of the pamphlet, jus t p r i o r to an e l e c t i o n , augmented r e a c t i o n w i t h i n the PLP against the Bevanites . Rampant Bevanism The defeat of the Labour Par ty at the 1951 general e l e c t i o n had three immediate and l a s t i n g e f f e c t s : 1. Bevan, Freeman and Wilson had no f u r t h e r need to continue v o t i n g with the party simply to keep the Labour government i n b e i n g . (During 1950-51 the government had a s lender major i ty of f i v e seats over a l l other p a r t i e s t o g e t h e r ) . ^ 2. Released from government o b l i g a t i o n s , G a i t s k e l l was f r e e to concern himself with a group of "new think#rs" or " r e v i s i o n i s t s " of Labour Par ty s o c i a l i s t i d e a s . 1 ( ^ 3. The PLP as a whole was re leased from t r y i n g to maintain u n i t y i n order to avoid defeat on the f l o o r of the House. During November and December 1951, Tribune c o n t i n -ued to p r i n t a r t i c les a t tacking the increase i n defence expenditure . When the Conservative government announ-ced that m i l i t a r y expenses were too h i g h , Tribune assumed a j u b i l a n t " t o l d you so" a t t i t u d e toward the PLP l e a d e r s h i p . 1 1 In the e a r l y months of 195 2, the Bevanites , through Tr ibune , were expressing intense concern that the Conservative government might attack the s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . The PLP l e a d e r s h i p was attacked f o r approving the gover-nment defence plans and f o r too u n c r i t i c a l an approach to the government's f o r e i g n p o l i c y . Disapproval of the PLP l e a d e r s h i p ' s l i n e on defence was openly expres-sed i n March 1952. The PLP proposed an amendment i n a defence debate which e s s e n t i a l l y approved Conservative defence p o l i c y , but maintained that i t could not be 27 executed by a Conservative government. F i f t y - s e v e n Labour MPs abstained on t h i s o f f i c i a l Opposi t ion amendment and voted against the Conservatives so that they would not appear to support the government's 12 defence p l a n s . The f i f t y - s e v e n MPs, according to Tr ibune , comprised the Bevanites and other Labour MPs who disagreed with the Labour l e a d e r s h i p on t h i s s p e c i f i c i s s u e . 1 3 The immediate r e s u l t of the f i f t y -seven MPs' a c t i o n was the r e - i m p o s i t i o n of the PLP s tanding orders on d i s c i p l i n e , which had been i n _ 14. abeyance s ince June 1946. In October 1952, a d e c i s i v e attempt was made to c u r t a i l the Bevanites , to whom A t t l e e r e f e r r e d as a 15 "party w i t h i n a p a r t y . " A t t l e e submitted a r e s o l u t i o n to a PLP meeting which c a l l e d f o r the abandonment of a l l u n o f f i c i a l groups w i t h i n the PLP and also r e q u i r e d members of the PLP to cease making p u b l i c attacks on each o ther . This r e s o l u t i o n was endorsed by a m a j o r i t y of the P L P . 1 6 Of course, Tribune attacked the PLP d e c i s i o n to abandon a l l u n o f f i c i a l groups, but expressed i t s e l f 17 ready to accept the d e c i s i o n of the m a j o r i t y . A f t e r the o f f i c i a l disbanding of u n o f f i c i a l groups, Bevan Crossman, D r i b e r g , C a s t l e , Mikardo and Wilson c o n t i n -ued to meet. These s i x MPs were jo ined i n t h e i r meet-ings by Jennie Lee, wife of Aneurin Bevan, and Michael Foot , e d i t o r of T r i b u n e . The slow d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of the Bevanites On A p r i l 13, 1954, S i r Anthony Eden, the Fore ign Secretary , s a i d i n the House that the governments of B r i t a i n and the USA were consider ing the establishment of an o r g a n i s a t i o n to protec t the peace of South East A s i a and the Western P a c i f i c . A t t l e e asked Eden whether the new o r g a n i s a t i o n would be open to any n a t i o n to j o i n . Bevan regarded A t t l e e ' s quest ion as an expression 28 o f c o n c u r r e n c e w i t h t h e i d e a o f e s t a b l i s h i n g s u c h a d e f e n c e u n i t and i m m e d i a t e l y s t a t e d h i s o b j e c t i o n t o T O i t . * On A p r i l 1 5 , B e v a n a n n o u n c e d h i s r e s i g n a t i o n f r o m t h e Shadow C a b i n e t b e c a u s e he c o u l d n o t a g r e e on w i t h A t t l e e » s i m p l i e d a c c e p t a n c e o f E d e n ' s p r o p o s a l s . When B e v a n r e s i g n e d , W i l s o n was n e x t i n l i n e t o t a k e a s e a t on t h e Shadow C a b i n e t . A g a i n s t B e v a n ' s 21 w i s h e s he t o o k B e v a n ' s v a c a n t p l a c e . W i l s o n s t a t e d t h a t he a g r e e d w i t h B e v a n i n d i s a p p r o v i n g t h e p r o p o s e d S o u t h E a s t A s i a o r g a n i s a t i o n . H o w e v e r , he s a i d , he was a c c e p t i n g a s e a t i n t h e Shadow C a b i n e t f o r t h e s a k e o f P a r t y u n i t y . By t a k i n g B e v a n ' s p l a c e on t h e Shadow C a b i n e t , a g a i n s t B e v a n ' s w i s h e s , W i l s o n a p p e a r e d t o be 22 t u r n i n g h i s b a c k on B e v a n . W i l s o n ' s d e s e r t i o n o f t h e B e v a n i t e s a p p e a r s t o be t h e f i r s t s t e p t o w a r d t h e d i s i n t e -g r a t i o n o f t h e B e v a n i t e s as a c o h e s i v e g r o u p i n P a r l -i a m e n t . The s e c o n d s t e p i n t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e B e v a n i t e s o c c u r r e d i n M a r c h 1955. D u r i n g t h e e a r l y months o f 1955, T r i b u n e h a d b e e n e x p r e s s i n g c o n e r n t h a t B r i t a i n m i g h t u s e n u c l e a r weapons t o d e f e n d h e r s e l f . T r i b u n e r e g u l a r l y p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e s u r g i n g a r e d u c t -i o n i n d e f e n c e e x p e n d i t u r e and more d e c i s i v e moves t o w a r d i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i s a r m a m e n t . J On M a r c h 2, 1955, B e v a n o p e n l y e x p r e s s e d T r i b u n e ' s o b j e c t i o n s i n t h e H o u s e . B e v a n a s k e d A t t l e e i f t h e L a b o u r l e a d e r s h a d a g r e e d t h a t H y d r o g e n bombs w o u l d be u s e d " a g a i n s t any OA s o r t o f a g g r e s s i o n . " A c c o r d i n g t o D a l t o n , B e v a n 25 a p p e a r e d t o bS a t t a c k i n g h i s own f r o n t b e n c h . B e v a n s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t i n t e n d t o v o t e w i t h t h e P L P i n t h a t d e b a t e i f A t t l e e ' s p o l i c y was t o e m p l o y H-bombs t o d e f e n d B r i t a i n . A t t l e e ' s r e p l y t o B e v a n was t h a t he c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e mere p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e r m o n u c l e a r weapons as a d e t e r r e n t was a way o f p r e v e n t i n g a n o t h e r w a r . B e v a n and s i x t y - t w o o t h e r L a b o u r MPs a b s t a i n e d 29 i n the vote t h a t f o l l o w e d . The vote concerned whther or not B r i t a i n should r e l y upon the t h r e a t of u s i n g 27 thermonuclear weapons as a d e t e r r e n t to aggression. The o f f i c i a l PLP l i n e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e was t h a t , w h i l e i t accepted t h a t p o s s e s s i o n of n u c l e a r weapons could act as a d e t e r r e n t , i t d i d not regard the Conservative government as competent t o c a r r y out i t s defence 28 p o l i e y . The s i x t y - t w o Labour MPs who abstained on the vote d i d not i n c l u d e s i x MPs who had been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the Bev a n i t e s . Wilson, Crossman, Freeman, Stephen Swi n g l e r , L e s l i e Hale and Hugh Delargy voted w i t h the PLP. Foot a t t r i b u t e s the l a c k of cohesion among the Bevanites to con f u s i o n over which way they should 29 v o t e . The r e s u l t of Bevan*s open challenge to A t t l e e was the withdrawal of the whip from Bevan. Bevan disagrees w i t h h i s f o l l o w e r s I n 1956 Bevan was r e - e l e c t e d by the PLP -to the Shadow Cabinet and accepted the post of Shadow F o r e i g n S e c r e t a r y . T h e r e a f t e r he appeared t o cease openly advocating f o r e i g n p o l i c i e s t h a t d i f f e r e d from those of the l e a d e r s h i p . On September 27, 1957, Tribune p u b l i s h -ed i t s f i r s t statement f o r u n i l a t e r a l n u c l e a r disarm-ament. 3 1 At the 1957 Labour P a r t y Annual Conference, Bevan spoke against a r e s o l u t i o n which c a l l e d on B r i t a i n to renounce the t e s t i n g and manufacture of n u c l e a r weapons. The essence of Bevan's argument was t h a t , i f the Conference accepted t h i s r e s o l u t i o n , i t would a f f e c t B r i t a i n ' s p o l i c y towards her a l l i e s . B r i t a i n would i n f a c t appear to be d e s e r t i n g her a l l i e s . Bevan went on t o say t h a t , i n attempting t o n e g o t i a t e w i t h other n a t i o n s , a B r i t i s h F o r e i g n S e c r e t a r y would be on l y preaching sermons, i f B r i t a i n had no n u c l e a r weapons. Preaching sermons would not help to take away the menace of n u c l e a r weapons from the r e s t of the w o r l d . 3 ^ 30 I n commenting upon h i s speech the New Statesman maintained t h a t Bevan had made a pact w i t h the,, r i g h t wing of the p a r t y t o support i t s views. According to Foot, Bevan resented t h i s a c c u s a t i o n . C o n s i d e r a t i o n s of P a r t y u n i t y had i n f l u e n c e d Bevan 1s o p i n i o n s . ^  Bevan appears not to have shown such concern f o r p a r t y u n i t y p r i o r to t h i s , e.g. March 1955. A f t e r the Conference, Tribune continued to p u b l i s h a r t i c l e s advocating u n i l a t e r a l n u c l e a r disarmament. I n p r i v a t e t h e r e was a good d e a l of b i t t e r n e s s between the r e g u l a r c o n t r i b u t o r s to Tribune, i . e . Bevan*s e r s t -w h i l e f o l l o w e r s , and Bevan. V i c t o r y f o r S o c i a l i s m (Bevanism without Bevan) I n e a r l y 1958 V i c t o r y f o r S o c i a l i s m (VFS) emerged as an attempt t o r a l l y the former B e v a n i t e s , without the c e n t r a l f i g u r e of Bevan h i m s e l f . The main concern of the VFS was to s t i m u l a t e anti-H-bomb a c t i v i t y i n the c o n s t i t u e n c i e s , but VFS c r e a t e d very l i t t l e d i s t u r b a n c e w i t h i n the P L P . ^ According to Lord Windlesham, VFS was formed by a number of l e f t - w i n g MPs i n February 1957. The f o r m a l l y organised executive committee of VFS comprised S i r Frank Messer, M.P., p r e s i d e n t ; Stephen Swingler, chairman; A.E. Oram, M.P., vice-chairman and Ian Mikardo, chairman of the VFS Home P o l i c y Committee. Two other former Bevanites, Silverman and Frank 37 A l l a u n , were a l s o c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h VFS. I n March 1958, the Times r e p o r t e d t h a t PLP l e a d e r s had warned MPs connected w i t h VFS t h a t they should not break the P a r t y r u l e s which s t i p u l a t e d t h a t no u n o f f i c i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n s should e x i s t w i t h i n the Labour P a r t y . According t o the Times, VFS went out of i t s way to i n s i s t t h a t i t was not a p a r t y w i t h i n a p a r t y . The Times a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t the m a j o r i t y of Labour MPs saw no reason to be concerned about VFS' 31 a c t i v i t i e s e r u p t i n g i n t o c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the PLP. As VFS d i d not. i n v o l v e f a c t i o n a l c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the PLP i t s relevance f o r the purposes of t h i s study-i s minimal. The c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n i s one i n v o l v i n g the a c t i v i t i e s of Bevan and h i s f o l l o w e r s and the i s s u e of c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the PLP. The Bevanites - a f a c t i o n ? 1. Membership I t i s d i f f i c u l t to s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i d e n t i f y every MP a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the Bevanites. Those MPs named below represent o n l y the most a c t i v e members of the group. Regular a r t i c l e s appearing i n Tribune between 1951 and 1956 i d e n t i f y twelve MPs as Bevanites. The twelve are: A l l a u n , Bevan, C a s t l e , Crossman, Delargy, D r i b e r g , Freeman, Hale, Mikardo, Silverman, Swingler and Wilson. Foot, e d i t o r of Tribune, may a l s o be considered a Bevanite, but he was not an MP d u r i n g these years. As the f i f t y - s e v e n Labour a b s t e n t i o n s i n March 1952 and the s i x t y - t w o abstentions i n March 1955 show, the Bevanites could a t t r a c t the support of a number of other MPs. I t i s p o s s i b l e t o say t h a t the maximum number of Bevanites was s i x t y - t w o and the 40 minimum the twelve i d e n t i f i e d above. 2. Leadership During 1950 and 1951 Tribune was d e c r y i n g i n c r e a s e s i n defence expenditure. When Bevan r e s i g n e d i n 1951 he was c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o the d i s a p p r o v a l of the Labour l e a d e r s h i p ' s p o l i c y expressed by h i m s e l f and Tribune. Bevan*s r e s i g n a t i o n i n 1951 was the f i r s t of s e v e r a l occasions upon which he was prepared to a t t r a c t the h o s t i l i t y of the l e a d e r s h i p by d e c l a r i n g openly h i s o p p o s i t i o n to the l e a d e r s h i p ' s p o l i c i e s . H i s open defi a n c e of the Labour l e a d e r s h i p seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t he was the l e a d e r of the group. I n March 1952, f i f t y - s e v e n Labour MPs abstained on the o f f i c i a l 32 O p p o s i t i o n amendment i n the defence debate. The Daily- H e r a l d r e p o r t e d t h a t Bevan l e d the a b s t a i n e r s . ^ 1 I n A p r i l 1954 Bevan r e s i g n e d from the Shadow Cabinet over the proposed establishment of a South East A s i a Treaty O r g a n i s a t i o n . This was h i s second r e s i g n a t i o n from an o f f i c i a l PLP post, and demonstrates t h a t Bevan was prepared t o do more than simply w r i t e a r t i c l e s i n Tribune and c o n t r i b u t e t o the pamphlets, One Way Only and Going Our Way? to express h i s d i s a p p r o v a l of the l e a d e r s h i p ' s p o l i c i e s . I n March 1955, Bevan, than a member of the Shadow Cabinet, disagreed openly w i t h A t t l e e i n the House. This may be seen as another i n d i c a t i o n of h i s defiance of the Labour l e a d e r s h i p . Bevan a l s o had a great a b i l i t y t o r a l l y the rank-42 a n d - f i l e Labour supporters to him. Rank-and-file support was demonstrated d u r i n g the e a r l y 1950s, when c o n s t i t u e n c y Labour P a r t y delegates to the Annual Conference c o n s i s t e n t l y r e t u r n e d Bevan top of the p o l l f o r the c o n s t i t u e n c y s e c t i o n of the NEC. W i t h i n Parliament Bevan evinced a q u a l i t y of l e a d e r s h i p t h a t gained him the respect of h i s f o l l o w e r s i n the PLP. Foot r e f e r s to Bevan as "the outstanding P a r l i a m e n t a r y debater on the Labour b e n c h e s . " ^ The term "Bevanite" f i r s t gained currency i n the autumn of 1951. Used t o r e f e r to Bevan's f r i e n d s i n P a r l i a m e n t , i t was employed by Labour MPs out s i d e Bevan's c l o s e c i r c l e of a s s o c i a t e s and i n d i c a t e s t h a t others i d e n t -i f i e d him as the l e a d e r of the g r o u p . ^ Bevan's l e a d e r s h i p appears t o have been based on h i s p e r s o n a l i t y and P a r l i a m e n t a r y debating s k i l l s . Bevan h e l d Shadow Cabinet posts from 1952-4 and h i s f o l l o w e r s may have d e f e r r e d t o h i s o f f i c i a l P a r t y p o s i t i o n . H o l d i n g Shadow Cabinet posts meant t h a t he may have been able t o employ s a n c t i o n s , but there i s ho evidence t h a t he ever d i d . 33 3. Organisa t ion In h i s biography of Aneurin Bevan, Foot s tates that the Bevanites met r e g u l a r l y from January 195 2 u n t i l At t lee outlawed u n o f f i c i a l groups i n October 1952. At the meetings they discussed methods of a t tacking the Conservative government's p o l i c i e s from t h e i r own s tandpoint . They also considered P a r l i a -mentary t a c t i c s , which Foot does not d e t a i l , by which they could press t h e i r opinions more f o r c i b l y than the 45 Labour e x - M i n i s t e r s could t h e i r s . The Bevanites organised through Tribune to p u b l i c i s e t h e i r p o l i c i e s and produced two pamphlets, One Way Only and Going Our Way? which r e i t e r a t e d arguments presented i n Tr ibune . Tribune was i d e n t i f i e d by Arthur Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union as a medium of p u b l i c i t y f o r the Bevani tes . Deakin s a i d : I t seems to me that the paper, can only be regarded as a medium of p u b l i c i t y f o r a d i s s i d e n t element who constant ly seek to challenge d e c i s i o n s which have been reached i n a democratic manner w i t h i n the Movement. 46 On s e v e r a l occasions Tribune p r i n t e d a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n by Labour MPs who h e l d views i n o p p o s i t i o n to those expressed by the Bevani tes . In May 1951, C . A . R . Crosland defended the Labour government's d e c i s i o n to impose p r e s c r i p t i o n charges; i n December 1951 Hugh G a i t s k e l l also wrote defending the p r e s c r i p t i o n charges; i n October 1952, Denis Healey contr ibuted an a r t i c l e that attacked T r i b u n e ' s ant i -American s t a n c e . ^ In p u b l i s h i n g the opinions of those who s t r o n g l y disagreed with Bevanite p o l i c y proposals , Tribune i l l u s t r a t e d p o l i c y d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the PLP i n d e t a i l , and thus h i g h l i g h t e d and exacerbated i n t r a -34 par ty cleavages. As Tribune was on sa le i n the c o n s t i t u e n c i e s i t proclaimed widely the disputes on p o l i c y that were conducted between the Bevanites and the Labour l e a d e r -s h i p . Tribune may be seen as a means f o r r e c r u i t i n g support f o r the Bevanites outside Par l iament . Extra.-Par l iamentary support f o r the Bevanites was evinced at the Labour Par ty Annual Conferences of 1952, 1953 and 1954, when s i x of the seven seats on the e o n s t i t u -ency s e c t i o n of the NEC were f i l l e d by Bevanites , namely: Bevan, C a s t l e , Crossman, B r i b e r g , Mikardo and W i l s o n . The Bevanites claimed t h a t , because they enjoyed a la rge amount of support from const i tuency delegates to the Annual Conferences, they were r e p r e s -entat ive of the Labour Party r a n k - a n d - f i l e . They t h e r e -f o r e considered that the Parl iamentary l e a d e r s h i p should take Bevanite opinions i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n when 4o f o r m u l a t i n g p o l i c i e s . The Bevanites needed to prove that they represented r a n k - a n d - f i l e o p i n i o n , because, w i t h i n Par l iament , they represented a small m i n o r i t y . The dearth of support f o r the Bevanites i n Westminster i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the 1952 Shadow Cabinet e l e c t i o n r e s u l t s . While the NEC i s e lec ted by delegates to the Labour Par ty Conference, the Shadow Cabinet i s e l e c t e d by the PLP. The twelve Labour MPs who rece ive the most votes i n the p o l l f o r the Shadow Cabinet are e l e c t e d . In the 1952 Shadow Cabinet e l e c t i o n s , Bevan was the only Bevanite to secure a seat , although 49 Wilson , Dr iberg and Cast le also r a n . J 4. The Bevanites seen by others A t t l e e r e f e r r e d to the Bevanites as a "party 50 w i t h i n a p a r t y " , as also d i d P a t r i c k Gordon Walker. Emanuel S h i n w e l l , a Labour MP i n 1952, has r e f e r r e d to the Bevanites as a " f a c t i o n " that wis " v i r t u a l l y a 51 second O p p o s i t i o n to the Shadow Cabinet.""^ G a i t s k e l l 35 d e s c r i b e d "Bevanism" as a "conspiracy", w i t h Bevanaas i t s l e a d e r , "an o r g a n i s a t i o n run by Mikardo and a 52 newspaper run by Foot." 5. P o l i c i e s Throughout the 1 9 5 0 s Tribune continued t o repeat t h a t a p o l i c y of widespread n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n was e s s e n t i a l t o e s t a b l i s h i n g s o c i a l i s m i n B r i t a i n . The arguments were i d e n t i c a l to those employed by the Keep L e f t MPs. I t i s not necessary to repeat here what has been d e a l t w i t h i n Chapter two. Bevan f i r m l y b e l i e v e d t h a t the USSR d i d not i n t e n d t o encroach upon Western Europe simply because the USSR was not producing enough s t e e l to enable her to launch an o f f e n s i v e against the Western a l l i e s . He considered t h a t o v e r e s t i m a t i o n of Sov i e t m i l i t a r y s t r e n g t h , i m p l i c i t i n excessive rearmament on B r i t a i n ' s p a r t , and b e l i e f i n the l i k e l i h o o d of Sov i e t aggression, might dangerously e x c i t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l f r i c t i o n . Bevan a l s o disapproved of B r i t a i n rearming e x t e n s i v e l y because he considered t h a t money spent on arms could be b e t t e r spent on the s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . Bevan was d e c i s i v e l y against B r i t a i n rearming i n response to American pressure to do so. I n responding to American pressure B r i t a i n would be p l a c i n g h e r s e l f i n a p o s i t i o n of i n c r e a s i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h US f o r e i g n p o l i c y . The more she i d e n t i f i e d w i t h US f o r e i g n p o l i c y , the l e s s r e s t r a i n t she could be expected to exert on America. Too c l o s e an a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the USA a l s o i m p l i e d t h a t B r i t a i n was l o s i n g any claims t o an indep-5 3 endent f o r e i g n p o l i c y . J Bevan d i f f e r e d from the PLP l e a d e r s h i p w i t h regard t o the degree of a s s o c i a t i o n t h a t B r i t a i n should have w i t h the USA. N e i t h e r Bevan nor Tribune advocated t o t a l severance from the USA. They were arguing f o r a l e s s c l o s e a s s o c i a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the f i e l d s of 36 f o r e i g n p o l i c y and defence. The Bevanites considered t h a t , Ernest Bevin, the F o r e i g n M i n i s t e r from J u l y 1945 t o March 1951, aeemed to be too ready too f r e q u e n t l y to concur w i t h the USA's f o r e i g n p o l i c y . ^ A t t l e e , Bevin and Herbert M o r r i s o n , Lord P r e s i d e n t from J u l y 1945 t o March 1951 and F o r e i g n M i n i s t e r from March 1951 t o October 1951, were i n favour of a s t r o n g a l l i a n c e w i t h the USA, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the purpose of defence a g a i n s t p o s s i b l e Soviet encroachment i n t o 55 Western Europe. There was disagreement w i t h i n the PLP over the q u e s t i o n of German rearmament. The Bevanites argued t h a t East and West Germany should be r e - u n i t e d and thai? the rearmament of West Germany might be at the cost of r e - u n i f i c a t i o n . They considered t h a t i f B r i t a i n supported the rearmament of West Germany and her i n c l u -s i o n i n a European Defence Community, the USSR might be unaccomodating i n n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r the r e - u n i f i c a t i o n of Germany. The USSR might f e e l threatened by a European Defence Community which symbolised a c o n s o l i -56 d a t i o n of Western m i l i t a r y s t r e n g t h . According t o Foot, A t t l e e and Bevin were opposed to German rearm-ament u n t i l 1951, when the US p r e s i d e n t Truman, pressed them to accept the p r i n c i p l e of rearmament. I n September 1951 M o r r i s o n gave the Labour government's support to the i d e a of a European Defence Community which would i n c l u d e Western Germany. I n 1954 G a i t s k e l l and M o r r i s o n i n s i s t e d t h a t the Labour P a r t y should 57 support German rearmament. At a PLP meeting i n February 1954, a r e s o l u t i o n opposing German rearmament, proposed by Wilson was defeated by two v o t e s . The Annual P a r t y Conference i n October 1954 a l s o evinced a s m a l l m a j o r i t y f o r rearm-ament. The Conference defeat f o r those against German rearmament was regarded by Tribune as a defeat f o r the Bevanites' p o l i c y . ^ 8 37 The Bevanites aroused disagreement w i t h i n the PLP over the questions of German rearmament, B r i t a i n ' s a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the USA, the f e a s i b i l i t y of a S o v i e t a t t a c k on Western Europe, the cost of B r i t a i n ' s defence expenditure, and the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r e s c r i p t i o n charges. They a l s o p e r c e i v e d t h e i r p o l i c y on n a t i o n -a l i z a t i o n as d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t from the l e a d e r s h i p ' s p o l i c y . 6. D u r a t i o n At the g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n of February 1950 the Labour government was r e t u r n e d to power w i t h an o v e r a l l m a j o r i t y of f i v e s e a t s . I n October 1951 the P a r t y went to the country i n an attempt to i n c r e a s e i t s m a j o r i t y but l o s t the e l e c t i o n t o the Conservative P a r t y . Labour's l o s s of the 1951 e l e c t i o n meant t h a t Labour MPs, such as Bevan, who disagreed w i t h the p o l i c i e s of the Labour l e a d e r s h i p , were f r e e d from the n e c e s s i t y of v o t i n g w i t h the Labour P a r t y i n order to keep a Labour government i n e x i s t e n c e . The emergence of the Bevanites may be dated from October 1951. During 1951 and 1952 the Bevanites organised to promote p o l i c i e s which v a r i e d from those of the PLP l e a d e r s h i p . A f t e r the outlawing of u n o f f i c i a l groups i n 1952, s i x Bevanites continued to meet. The s i x were j o i n e d i n t h e i r meetings by Foot, i n order, Foot h i m s e l f has w r i t t e n , t o m a i n t a i n l i n k s w i t h Tribune, the Bevan-i t e s ' main medium of e x p r e s s i o n . ' I n 1956 Bevan was e l e c t e d to the Shadow Cabinet and accepted the post of Shadow Fcreign S e c r e t a r y . I n September 1957, Tribune began p u b l i s h i n g a r t i c l e s which advocated u n i l a t e r a l n u c l e a r disarmament. At the P a r t y Conference of 1957 Bevan spoke agai n s t B r i t i s h u n i l a t e r a l n u c l e a r disarmament, and thus opposed Tribune's p o l i c y . Bevan's o p p o s i t i o n to a p o l i c y of h i s former f o l l o w e r s appears to have marked 38 the end of the Bevanites. The attempt through VFS to re-group the Bevanites was more an example of e x t r a -P a r l i a m e n t a r y f a c t i o n a l i s m than PLP f a c t i o n a l i s m . The Bevanites were MPs, w i t h a c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e l e a d e r . They promoted a range of p o l i c i e s , over a p e r i o d of some f i v e y ears, t h a t aroused disagreement w i t h i n the PLP. They were seen "by other members of the PLP as a f a c t i o n . They were organised to press t h e i r p o l i c i e s both w i t h i n and o u t s i d e P a r l i a m e n t . Thus, the Bevanites appear to f u l f i l l the c r i t e r i a f o r d e s i g n a t i o n as a f a c t i o n . 39 Footnotes to Chapter Three Tr ibune , September 15, 1950, p . 3; November 3, 1950, p . 2; January 26, 1951, p . 2; February 9, 1951, p . 7 2. Since 1949 Bevan had made i t c l e a r that any charge on the Heal th Service would mean h i s r e s i g n a t i o n . For d e t a i l s of Bevan's r o l e i n the establishment of the Heal th Service see Michael Foot , Aneurin Bevan V o l . I I (London: Davis -Poynter , 1973), pp. 102-218 3. C a r l F . Brand, The B r i t i s h Labour Par ty ( S t a n f o r d : Hoover I n s t i t u t i o n Press , 1974), p . 2"5o. For d e t a i l e d s p e c u a l t i o n on Bevan's motives i n ' r e s i g n i n g see L e s l i e Hunter, The Road to Br ighton P i e r (London, 1959), pp. 32 f f , c i t e d i n Stephen Haseler , The  G a i t s k e l l i t e s (London: Macmil lan, 1969), p . 21, f n 2. See also Foot , pp . 318-339 and Hugh D a l t o n , High  Tide and A f t e r (London: F r e d e r i c k M u l l e r L t d . , 1962), pp. 359-63 4* Tr ibune , May 18, 1951, p . 6. Tribune argued that the r i g h t - w i n g of the Par ty was f a i l i n g to see the n o n - s o c i a l i s t ends toward which i t was moving through i t s f o r e i g n p o l i c y . 5. Tr ibune , May 4, 1951, pp. 4,5 6. The trade union leaders concerned were: Arthur Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union ; W i l l i a m Lawther, Pres ident of the N a t i o n a l Union of Mineworkers, and Tom Wil l iamson, General Secretary of the N a t i o n a l Union of General and M u n i c i p a l Workers Union 7. Times, September 21, 1951, p . 3. The representa t ives and unions^concerned were: W.T .Pot ter , N a t i o n a l Union of Railwaymen; E .G.Gooch, N a t i o n a l Union of A g r i c u l t u r a l Workers; W.A.Burke, Transport and General Workers U n i o n ; S.Watson, N a t i o n a l Union of Mineworkers; E . I r w i n , E l e c t r i c a l Trades Union. 8. Eeesings Contemporary A r c h i v e s , 8 ( I I ) , J u n e - J u l y 1950-52, 11754A, c o l . 2; Brand, p . 271; Foot , p . 352. Tribune had been a d v e r t i s i n g the pamphlet f o r two weeks before i t was on sale and could probahly not have withdrawn i t from sale at the l a s t minute. 9. David B u t l e r and Jennie Freeman, B r i t i s h P o l i t i c a l  Facts (London, 1968) and haseler ,~p^ 21. Foot argued i n Tribune that the i m p o s i t i o n of charges on tee th and spectables provided under the H e a l t h Service had been passed i n the House because the only a l t e r n -a t i v e f o r those MPs who disagreed was to al low a government defeat . Tr ibune , December 28, 1951, p.3 40 10. This point i s deal t with i n Chapter Pour 11. Tr ibune , December 14, 1951, p . 1 12. I b i d . , March 21, 1952, p . 1 13. Both Haseler and Foot l a b e l a l l 57 as " l e f t - w i n g " . Foot , p . 364 and Haseler , p . 22 14. Henry P e l l i n g , A Short H i s t o r y of the Labour Par ty (London: Macmil lan , 1972), p . 109. A f t e r March 1952 the r e i m p o s i t i o n of the Standing Orders meant that i f an MP v i o l a t e d them he could be expel led from the P a r t y . 15. Haseler , p . 22 16. The r e s o l u t i o n i s r e p r i n t e d i n the Times, October 24, 1952, p . 8, c i t e d by Haseler , p . 23. This r e s o l u t i o n was c a r r i e d by 188 votes to 51- There were 295 Labour MPs at the t ime. 17. Tr ibune , October 31, 1952, p . 1 18. Foot , pp. 390-1. Foot was an MP from 1945 u n t i l 1951. He l o s t h i s seat i n the 1951 general e l e c t i o n and was not returned to Parliament u n t i l 1966. 19. Foot , p . 430 20. I b i d . , p . 431 21. Dal ton , p . 409; Foot , p . 433 22. P a u l Foot , The P o l i t i c s of Harold Wilson (London: Penguin S p e c i a l , 1968), p . l i b 23. Tr ibune , February 25, 1955, p . 4; March 4, 1955, p . 2 24. I b i d . , March 11, 1955, p . 1 25. Dal ton , p . 409 26. M. Foot , pp. 461, 464. Foot p o i n t s out that Bevan was a t t a c k i n g C h u r c h i l l , not A t t l e e 27. I b i d . , p . 458 28. I b i d . 29. I b i d . , p . 465 41 30. A t t l e e was, according to Foot, ag a i n s t withdrawing the Whip, but G a i t s k e l l was i n favour of d e c i s i v e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n . M. Foot, pp. 4 6 8 - 4 7 4 31. Tribune, September 27, 1957, p. 7 32. Labour P a r t y Annual Conference Report (LPACR) 1957, pp. 181, 1«3. Conference voted against u n i l a t e r a l n u c l e a r disarmament by 5,836,000 votes to 7 8 1 , 0 0 0 33. M. Foot, p. 581 34. I b i d . , p. 579 35. I b i d . , p. 602 36. Emanuel S h i n w e l l , The Labour S t o r y (London: Macdonald, 1963), p. 203 37. Lord Windlesham, Communication and P o l i t i c a l Power (London: Jonathan Cap*, 1966), p. 84. Lord , Windlesham i s a Conservative Peer. He cannot n e c e s s a r i l y be regarded as knowing as much about the i n n e r d e t a i l s of the PLP i n t h i s p e r i o d as a Labour MP. 38. Times, March 6, 1958, p. 10; New Statesman, March 8, T95BT P. 1 39. Times, March 6, 1958, p. 10; March 7, 1958, p. 10 40. Both-the vote i n March 1952 and t h a t i n March 1955 concerned o p p o s i t i o n amendments i n defence debates. 41. D a i l y H e r a l d , March 6, 1952, p. 6, c i t e d i n Ha s e l e r , p. 22 42. George Brown, I n My Way (London: V i c t o r G o l l a n c z , 1971), P. 79 43. M. Foot, p. 360 44. I b i d . , p. 343 45. I b i d . , pp. 359-60 46. Tribune, March 21, 1952, p. 8 47. I b i d . , May 4, 1951, pp. 4 ,5; December 14, 1951, p. 1; October 10, 1952, p. 3, r e s p e c t i v e l y . 4 8 . I b i d . , October, 19, 1952, p. 2 42 49- I b i d . , December 5, 1952, p. 4. G a i t s k e l l , A l f r e d Robens, Hugh Dalton, James Callaghan, Emanuel S h i n w e l l and P h i l i p Noel-Baker were a l l e l e c t e d to the Shadow Cabinet, but f a i l e d to be e l e c t e d t o the NEC. 50. M.Poot, pp. 378, 384 51. S h i n w e l l , p. 193 52. Crossman's unpublished d i a r i e s , c i t e d by M.Poot, 0 . 473 ' ' • • 53. M. Foot, pp. 306-7; Tribune February 23, 1951, p. 10 54. Tribune, January 3, 1947, p. 1 55. A t t l e e p o i n t e d out th a t i t was not u n t i l the B e r l i n a i r l i f t t h a t the Americans became aware of the p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t posed by the USSR - a t h r e a t of which B r i t a i n had been aware f o r some time. F r a n c i s W i l l i a j n s , A Prime M i n i s t e r Remembers (London: Heinnemann, 1961), p. 172 Brand p o i n t s out th a t symptoms of non-cooperation by the USSR a f t e r the war were primary f a c t o r s i n determining B r i t a i n ' s foreign p o l i c y . According to Brand, B r i t a i n had to p r o t e c t h e r s e l f from a " p o s s i b l e one-power domination of the Continent". Brand, p. 258 56. Tribune, March 21, 1952, p. 2; A p r i l 18, 1952, p. 2; May 2, 1952, p. 2; November 20, 1953, p . 1; November 27, 1953, p . 1 57. M. Foot, p. 403 58. I b i d . , p. 427; H a s e l e r , p. 128; Brand, p. 277 59. M. Foot, pp. 390-1 0 43 Chapter Four \ The R e v i s i o n i s t s Chapter four considers the Labour Party-disputes of the l a t e 1950s and e a r l y 1960s. During the 1950s a number of Labour MPs became i d e n t i f i a b l e as r e v i s i o n i s t s of t r a d i t i o n a l Labour' p o l i c i e s . The l e a d e r of the Labour Par ty from 1955 to 1963, Hugh G a i t s k e l l , was c l o s e l y associa ted with the r e v i s i o n i s t s . From G a i t s k e l l ' s l e a d e r -ship arose the Clause IV debate i n 1959-60, In i960 Conference voted f o r a p o l i e y of u n i l a t e r a l disarmament. From G - a i t s k e l l ' s r e f u s a l to accept t h i s d e c i s i o n as b i n d i n g upon the PLP arose the u n i l a t e r a l i s m dispute of 1960-61. While the Clause IV debate exc i ted controversy w i t h i n the PLP, the u n i -l a t e r a l i s m debate was more a dispute between the PLP and Conference. However, the u n i l a t e r a l i s m argument prompted Harold Wilson to challenge G - a i t s k e l l ' s l e a d e r s h i p . A f t e r b r i e f c o n s i d e r a t i o n of these disputes , the extent to which the r e v i s i o n i s t s were a f a c t i o n w i l l be expla ined . During the 1950s a number of Labour MPs began to advocate a r e a p p r a i s a l of the Labour P a r t y ' s t r a d i t i o n a l p o l i c i e s . T h e i r e f f o r t s to res ta te Par ty p o l i c i e s earned them the name of r e v i s i o n i s t s , or "new t h i n k e r s " . 1 The r e v i s i o n i s t s expressed most of t h e i r opinions through the p e r i o d i c a l , S o c i a l i s t Commentary, which, by the m i d - f i f t i e s , had become known as a d i s t i n c t l y 2 r e v i s i o n i s t j o u r n a l . From 1953 to 1955, Hugh G a i t s k e l l was c l o s e l y l i n k e d with S o c i a l i s t Commentary, as were s e v e r a l other Labour MPs, namely: Austen A l b u , C . A . R . Cros land , Denis Healey, Alan McCulloch , Fred M u l l e y , A l f r e d Robens, J . Roper, H . A . Turner and Kenneth Younger.^ In 1955 Clement A t t l e e r e t i r e d as leader of the Labour Par ty and was succeeded by G a i t s k e l l . ^ There-a f t e r G a i t s k e l l ceased to associate o v e r t l y with 44 Socialist Commentary* He did, however, continue to meet with a group of close p o l i t i c a l friends at his house i n Frognal Gardens, Hampstead, and his friends were known to be revisionists. Those Labour MPs meeting at Gaitskell's house were: Crosland, Roy Jenkins, Douglas Jay and Patrick Gordon Walker. The Sunday Times referred to these MPs as the "Frognal Group." Despite being clearly identifiable as a group of MPs who presented their views i n a particular journal, the revisionists did not excite argument within the PLP over their policies u n t i l after the 1959 general 7 ' election. In October 1959 the Conservatives won the o general election for the third consecutive time. Clause IV Inevitably the Labour Party discussed the election. At the post-election Party Conference, held i n Black-pool i n November 1959, Gaitskell attributed the loss of the election to Labour's lack of appeal to an increasingly affluent working-class. He suggested that the Party should make a special effort to gain votes from the ever-widening middle-class. Gaitskell made specific reference to Clause IV, Section 4 , of the Labour Party Constitution. He argued that this clause was the only clause that explained Labour's aims, and i t implied that the Party's only precise objective was nationalization. Voters, he claimed, were confused about Labour's intentions regarding public ownership, and thought that the Party intended to "take over everything indiscriminately. •• The Labour Party had many aims otherrthan nationalization and Gaitskell expressed the hope that they could be incorp-orated into the Constitution." 3" 0 At no point i n his speech did Gaitskell say that Clause IV should be removed from the Constitution. How-ever, his speech was interpreted by many at the Conference as a suggestion that Clause IV be removed. 45 J . Dugdale, MP f o r West Bromwich, s a i d t h a t G a i t s k e l l had t o l d the Conference "that we have got to scrap the p o l i c y of n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . " 1 1 I n the c l o s i n g debate at the Conference, Aneurin Bevan s t a t e d h i s o p p o s i t i o n t o G a i t s k e l l ' s suggestions and argued t h a t the P a r t y should not ehange i t s p o l i c i e s because the e l e c t o r a t e had r e j e c t e d them, but should t r y and present i t s 12 p o l i c i e s more a t t r a c t i v e l y . A f t e r the Conference the dabate over Clause IV continued w i t h MPs from both r i g h t and l e f t of the PLP speaking against the removal of Clause IV from the C o n s t i t u t i o n . For example, George Brown, the Labour P a r t y ' s o f f i c i a l spokesman on defence, who considered h i m s e l f r i g h t - w i n g , argued f o r i t s r e t e n t i o n . 1 3 I n Tribune Bevan wrote an a r t i c l e i n which he s a i d t h a t he was c e r t a i n t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the Labour P a r t y would not agree t o e x c i s i n g the i d e a of n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n from the C o n s t i t u t i o n . 1 ^ The Clause IV debate appeared to be s e t t l e d i n March I960, when the NEC accepted an amendment to the C o n s t i t u t i o n . The amendment r e t a i n e d Clause IV i n t a c t but added twelve aims of the Labour P a r t y to the C o n s t i t u t i o n . The new aims were s i m i l a y to those 15 suggested by G a i t s k e l l at the 1959 Conference. J The Times r e p o r t e d t h a t G a i t s k e l l had achieved what he se t out t o do at the Conference, and a l s o noted t h a t a l l s e c t i o n s of the PLP seemed content w i t h the out-come. The new aims were not i n the end i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the C o n s t i t u t i o n . By J u l y I960 i t had become obvious t h a t the NEC would not o b t a i n a s u f f i c i e n t m a j o r i t y of votes at the I960 Conference f o r an amendment. The annual conferences of i n d i v i d u a l Trades Unions r e v e a l e d a l a r g e vote against an amendment. The NEC t h e r e f o r e presented the twelve aims, not as an amendment, but as a "valuable e x p r e s s i o n of the aims of the Labour.Party i n the second h a l f of the t w e n t i e t h century", a r e s o l u t i o n t h a t was accepted by 46 the C o n f e r e n c e . A ' However, at the I960 Conference another argument arose w i t h i n the Labour P a r t y . Nuclear Disarmament At the Labour Par ty Conference i n October I960, an NEC statement on nuclear defence was presented. The statement sa id t h a t , i n view of the Conservative govern-ment's d e c i s i o n to abandon B r i t a i n ' s independent nuclear deterrent , the Labour Par ty should work f o r an agreement to end a l l nuclear t e s t s . According to the New Statesman, the PLP had "overwhelmingly _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Q endorsed" the statement. The Conference, however, voted by a small major i ty against the NEC statement and f o r a r e s o l u t i o n advocating u n i l a t e r a l nuclear 19 disarmament. ^ G a i t s k e l l s a i d at the Conference that he would, " f i g h t and f i g h t and f i g h t again" to reverse 20 the u n i l a t e r a l i s t d e c i s i o n . G a i t s k e l l ' s open defiance of the Conference d e c i s i o n provoked a r e a c t i o n i n the PLP. In November I960 Harold Wilson, backed p r i m a r i l y by Labour MPs who favoured u n i l a t e r a l disarmament, challenged 21 G a i t s k e l l ' s l e a d e r s h i p . G a i t s k e l l p o l l e d 166 votes 22 and Wilson 81. In subsequent e l e c t i o n s to the Shadow Cabinet , Barbara C a s t l e , Richard Crossman and Anthony Greenwood, three l e f t - w i n g MPs, d e c l i n e d to be candidates because, they s a i d , they would not serve 23 under G a i t s k e l l ' s l e a d e r s h i p . Wilson d i d stand i n the Shadow Cabinet e l e c t i o n s and was returned n i n t h . He had been top of the Shadow Cabinet p o l l i n 1956, 1957 n 24 and 1959, and had come second i n 1958. This r e s u l t seems to i n d i c a t e that h i s stance against G a i t s k e l l ' s l e a d e r s h i p had l o s t him h i s former p o p u l a r i t y , and also that G a i t s k e l l ' s support w i t h i n the PLP was f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d . G a i t s k e l l ' s main o p p o s i t i o n appeared to be i n the Labour movement outside Westminster, among those constituency__parties and trades unions who had 47 voted f o r u n i l a t e r a l disarmament at the I960 Conference, I t was i n an attempt to change the u n i l a t e r a l i s t Conference d e c i s i o n that the Campaign f o r Democratic S o c i a l i s m was crea ted . The Campaign f o r Democratic S o c i a l i s m The Campaign f o r Democratic S o c i a l i s m (CDS) was e s s e n t i a l l y an extra-Par l iamentary campaign. I t i s mentioned b r i e f l y here to i n d i c a t e the extent to which r e v i s i o n i s t MPs were i n v o l v e d i n i t s o r g a n i s a t i o n . On October 19, I960, the Times reported that twenty-s i x former Labour Parl iamentary candidates , l o c a l govern-ment leaders and trade u n i o n i s t s had launched a campaign to support G a i t s k e l l as leader of the Labour Par ty and to reverse the t rend i n the Labour Par ty 25 toward u n i l a t e r a l i s m . According to Lord Windlesham, the CDS went to great lengths to appear as a spontan-eous, g r a s s - r o o t s demonstration of support f o r G a i t s k e l l , and to suppress mention of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of f o u r Labour MPs who played a major r o l e i n i t s establishment . The f o u r MPs were Crosland, Jay, Jenkins and Gordon Walker, G a i t s k e l l * s c l o s e s t p o l i t i c -a l a s s o c i a t e s . According to Haseler , G a i t s k e l l never 27 f o r m a l l y associa ted himsel f with CDS. I t seems i n e v i t a b l e that G a i t s k e l l must, at the very l e a s t , have been w e l l aware of the a c t i v i t i e s of CDS. Throughout the autumn of I960, CDS sent copies of i t s manifesto to a l l Labour MPs and Peers , a l l KEC members, and d i s t r i b u t e d some 20,000 copies throughout 28 const i tuency Labour P a r t i e s . Prom May to June I96I CDS was a c t i v e i n t r y i n g to persuade trades unions to vote f o r m u l t i - l a t e r a l i s m at t h e i r annual conferences. At the Labour Par ty Annual Conference of 1961 the u n i l a t e r a l i s t r e s o l u t i o n of the previous year was r e v e r s e d . The 1961 Conference voted by a s u b s t a n t i a l m a j o r i t y to accept a j o i n t NEC-PLP-TUC statement that 29 was against u n i l a t e r a l n u c l e a r disarmament. A f t e r the 48 1961 Conference, the Labour P a r t y appeared to be u n i t e d , w i t h the arguments over Clause IV and u n i l a t -e r a l i s m behind i t . The r e v i s i o n i s t s - a f a c t i o n ? 1. Membership Nine Labour MPs have been i d e n t i f i e d as a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the r e v i s i o n i s t j o u r n a l S o c i a l i s t Commentary. John Strachey was a l s o noted as a r e v i s i o n i s t through h i s book, Contemporary C a p i t a l i s m . Crosland, J e n k i n s , Jay and Gordon Walker were G a i t s k e l l ' s c l o s e s t p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t e s and c o n s t i t u t e d the Frognal Group. I n c l u d i n g G a i t s k e l l , f o u r t e e n r e v i s i o n i s t s can be d e f i n i t e l y i d e n t i f i e d , r e p r e s e n t i n g 5.5$ of the PLP. There were probably more r e v i s i o n i s t s w i t h i n the PLP who d i d not i d e n t i f y themselves as such by means of w r i t t e n mater-i a l . H a s e l e r has i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were about 45 r e v i s i o n i s t s w i t h i n the PLP. 2. Leadership G a i t s k e l l , Crosland, Jay, Jenkins and Gordon Walker appear to have comprised the l e a d e r s h i p of the r e v i s i o n i s t s . A l l f i v e met r e g u l a r l y at G a i t s k e l l ' s home, and C r o s l a n d , J e n k i n s , Jay and Gordon Walker were a l s o i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the establishment of CDS. They were t h s r e f o r e , i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h members of the Labour P a r t y o u t s i d e P a r l i a m e n t , o r g a n i s e r s of a c t i v i t i e s designed to promote a r e v i s i o n i s t p o l i c y and G a i t s k e l l ' s l e a d e r s h i p . As l e a d e r of the Labour P a r t y G a i t s k e l l could not openly a s s o c i a t e w i t h CDS, yet i t can be assumed t h a t he was w e l l aware of i t s a c t i v i t y g i v e n the meetings of the Prognal Group. A l l f i v e l e a d i n g r e v i s i o n i s t s openly a r t i c u l a t e d t h e i r p o l i c i e s . Por example, Crosland c o n t r i b u t e d to S o c i a l i s t Commentary and wrote a book expounding r e v i s i o n i s t views on e q u a l i t y , the economy and n a t i o n -a l i z a t i o n , The Future of S o c i a l i s m . Jay and J e n k i n s a l s o wrote a r t i c l e s i n other j o u r n a l s , i n which they 31 expressed t h e i r r e v i s i o n i s t views. I n J u l y 1955, Gordon Walker had gone one step f u r t h e r than G a i t s k e l l d i d at the 1959 Conference, and suggested t h a t the Labour P a r t y should, "drop the p o l i c y of common owner-ship of the means of p r o d u c t i o n "from the P a r t y C o n s t i t -32 ution!' He m o d i f i e d t h i s view somewhat, when, speaking to h i s :constituency at Smethwick i n March I960, he supported G a i t s k e l l ' s p r o p o s a l to amend the C o n s t i t u t i o n . G a i t s k e l l spoke f o r a de-emphasis of Labour's n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n p o l i c y at the 1959 Conference, suggesting an a m p l i f i c a t i o n of the aims of the Labour P a r t y . The aims he suggested were i n f a c t accepted by the NEC ati a C o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment but l a t e r dropped as an amendment. A f t e r the 1959 Conference G a i t s k e l l c o n t i n -ued to press h i s o p i n i o n s on n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , f o r example i n March I960 i n a speech to Leeds U n i v e r s i t y Labour S o c i e t y . On t h i s o c c a s i o n he e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e r e were many types of p u b l i c ownership, other than out-r i g h t n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , which the Labour P a r t y could a d o p t . ^ At the I960 Conference G a i t s k e l l spoke d e c i s -i v e l y a g a i n s t the u n i l a t e r a l i s t p o s i t i o n . G a i t s k e l l ' s speeches occasioned a great d e a l of d i s s e n s i o n w i t h i n the Labour P a r t y , and a t t r a c t e d 35 p u b l i e accusations t h a t he was d i s r u p t i n g P a r t y u n i t y . G a i t s k e l l a t t r a c t e d a t t e n t i o n to h i s p o l i c i e s t h a t was the great because he was the l e a d e r of the P a r t y . I n t h i s respect he may be considered to be the l e a d e r of the r e v i s i o n i s t s . G a i t s k e l l ' s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the PLP endowed him w i t h a d d i t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y among h i s r e v i s -i o n i s t f o l l o w e r s . As l e a d e r of the P a r t y G a i t s k e l l a l s o had a range of s a n c t i o n s at h i s d i s p o s a l , but t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t he a p p l i e d s a n c t i o n s i n connection w i t h h i s l e a d e r s h i p of the r e v i s i o n i s t s as a f a c t i o n . The other f o u r members of the Prognal group may have c o n t r i b u t e d j u s t as much to the l e a d e r s h i p of the r e v i s i o n i s t s through t h e i r w r i t i n g s and through t h e i r d i r e c t l i n k s w i t h CDS. 3. O r g a n i s a t i o n As a l r e a d y noted, the l e a d i n g r e v i s i o n i s t s h e l d meetings at G a i t s k e l l ' s home. The establishment of CDS i n d i c a t e s a g r e a t e r degree of o r g a n i s a t i o n between the l e a d i n g r e v i s i o n i s t s and i n d i v i d u a l s o u t s i d e P a r l i a m e n t . The f a c t t h a t CDS d i s t r i b u t e d copies of i t s manifesto t o a l l Labour MPs and Peers i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t was attempting to persuade those not a l r e a d y a n t i - u n i l a t e r a l i s t to change t h e i r minds. Since, though, the r e s t of the CDS a c t i v i t i e s were e x t r a -P a r l i a m e n t a r y , the extent of i t s o r g a n i s a t i o n bears l i t t l e relevance to the main concern of t h i s paper. The r e v i s i o n i s t MPs produced a number of a r t i c l e s advocating t h e i r p o l i c i e s , mainly through S o c i a l i s t  Commentary. I n 1952 and 1953 MPs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h S o c i a l i s t Commentary made a d e l i b e r a t e attempt to promote the j o u r n a l . I n p a r t i c u l a r , G a i t s k e l l was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r fund r a i s i n g e f f o r t s t h a t helped i n c r e a s e the paper's c i r c u l a t i o n . 3 6 There i s no d e f i n i t e i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the r e v i s i o n -i s t s organised Labour MPs to vote i n Parliament i n favo u r of the s p e c i f i c r e v i s i o n i s t p o l i c i e s under present c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i . e . Clause IV and n a t i o n a l -i z a t i o n and u n i l a t e r a l i s m . The Clause IV debate aroused disagreement w i t h i n the PLP but was not the subj e c t of a vote i n the House. On the i s s u e of u n i l a t e r a l disarmament the m a j o r i t y of the PLP was, according to George Brown, i n agreement. Before the I960 Conference, he s a i d t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the PLP were opposed to u n i l a t e r a l i s m . 4. The r e v i s i o n i s t s seen by others The r e v i s i o n i s t s were i d e n t i f i a b l e i n the PLP as MPs who were t r y i n g to r e f a s h i o n the Labour P a r t y ' s t r a d i t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l p hilosophy. I n h i s memoirs, 51 Brown has r e f e r r e d to G a i t s k e l l and h i s associates as a d i s t i n c t group of " p r a c t i c a l r e f o r m e r s " . ^ 8 Bevan, i n an a r t i c l e i n Tribune r e f e r r e d to the " S o c i a l i s t R e v i s i o n i s t s " who were suggesting that p u b l i c ownership 39 " was outmoded. ^ Emanuel Shinwell r e f e r r e d to the Prognal Group as: A t y p i c a l cabal of the k i n d that has f r e q u e n t l y attempted to denigrate the fundamentally democratic r u l e of the Labour P a r t y . . . . 40 The r e v i s i o n i s t s were seen by Brown and Bevan as a number of MPs expounding a p a r t i c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y ; by Shinwel l the l e a d i n g r e v i s i o n i s t s were i d e n t i f i e d as a c a b a l . 5. P o l i c i e s (a) N a t i o n a l i z a t i o n and economic e q u a l i t y The Labour Par ty C o n s t i t u t i o n s tates that one of the aims of the Labour Par ty was to o b t a i n an e qui ta ble d i s t r i b u t i o n of wealth upon the bas is of the common ownership of the means of p r o d u c t i o n , i . e . Clause I V . The 1945-50 Labour government had n a t i o n a l i z e d a l a r g e number of i n d u s t r i e s and had thereby t r i e d to f o l l o w t h i s aim. The r e v i s i o n i s t s suggested that the a b o l i t -i o n of c a p i t a l i s m , through state ownership of f i r m s , was not p r e r e q u i s i t e to an equal s o c i e t y . They advoc-ated a mixed economy, i . e . p r i v a t e and p u b l i c ownership, i n which p u b l i c ownership could take var ious forms, e . g . the government could own a number of shares i n a p r i v a t e concern. E q u a l i t y could be obtained i n a mixed economy, with a s t r a t i f i e d s o c i e t y , through the p r o v i s i o n of maximum scope f o r i n d i v i d u a l self-advancement. According to Cros land : Continuous t r a f f i c up and down the ladder [ i . e . s o c i a l scale] would i n e v i t a b l y make s o c i e t y more mobile and dynamic and so l e s s c lass bound. 41 52 R e v i s i o n i s t b e l i e f s on p u b l i c ownership culminated i n G a i t s k e l l ' s p r o p o s a l t h a t the C o n s t i t u t i o n be amended. W i t h i n the PLP o t h e r views on n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n were h e l d . Bevan considered t h a t : I f the Labour P a r t y was to abandon i t s main t h e s i s of p u b l i c ownership i t would not d i f f e r i n any important respect from the Tory P a r t y . 42 Brown p o i n t e d out t h a t the C o n s t i t u t i o n should not be a l t e r e d because i t was a symbol of the Labour 43 P a r t y ' s t r a d i t i o n . J (b) F o r e i g n P o l i c y According t o the r e v i s i o n i s t s , B r i t a i n should r e t a i n her c l o s e a l l i a n c e w i t h the USA and continue the f o r e i g n p o l i c y l i n e s developed by Ernest Bevin. G a i t s k e l l argued t h a t a s p l i t between England and the USA would a l t e r the balance of power i n the w o r l d . ^ Arguing against u n i l a t e r a l i s m , G a i t s k e l l s a i d t h a t a p o l i c y of u n i l a t e r a l n u c l e a r disarmament was t a n t a -mount to suggesting t h a t B r i t a i n withdraw from any a l l i a n c e t h a t r e l i e d on the p o s s e s s i o n of n u c l e a r 45 weapons, i . e . w i t h the USA. The r e v i s i o n i s t s were i n favour of m u l t i - l a t e r a l n u c l e a r disarmament, but d i d not c o n s i d e r t h a t B r i t a i n could g i v e a moral 46 l e a d t o the r e s t of the world i f she disarmed alone. I n comparison to the r e v i s i o n i s t s , the l e f t of the PLP thought t h a t B r i t a i n c o uld and should take a 47 moral l e a d and disarm u n i l a t e r a l l y . The r e v i s i o n i s t s were expounding a philosophy, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e f e r e n c e to domestic concerns, t h a t r e s u l t e d i n disagreement w i t h i n the P a r t y on two s p e c i f i c i s s u e s , the C o n s t i t u t i o n and n u c l e a r disarm-ament. U n d e r l y i n g the Clause IV i s s u e were the r e v i s -i o n i s t s ' broad p e r c e p t i o n s of the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e t h a t d i f f e r e d q u i t e d i s t i n c t i v e l y from those of the PLP l e f t . 53 6. Durat ion During the 1950s the r e v i s i o n i s t s were i d e n t i f i a b l e as a d i s t i n c t group of MPs, advocating t h e i r p o l i c i e s through S o c i a l i s t Commentary. The height of PLP d i s c u -s s i o n over the Clause IV debate dated from the 1959 Conference and l a s t e d u n t i l the NEC agreed to accept G a i t s k e l l ' s a m p l i f i c a t i o n of aims of the Labour Par ty i n March I960. The subsequent NEC d e c i s i o n not to propose a C o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment to the I960 C o n f e r -ence d i d not arouse a great deal of controversy . In submitt ing a r e s o l u t i o n that the a m p l i f i c a t i o n of aims were a valuable expression of the Labour P a r t y ' s o b j e c t -i v e s , the NEC e f f e c t e d a compromise that precluded f u r t h e r argument. The u n i l a t e r a l i s m controversy dated from October I960 u n t i l October 1961, with r e v i s i o n i s t a c t i v i t y , i n the form of CDS, extending from October I960 to J u l y 1961. R e v i s i o n i s t a c t i v i t i e s i n the form of p r e s s i n g t h e i r p o l i c i e s , can therefore be s a i d to date from the e a r l y 1950s to the end of 1961. A f t e r the d e l i b e r a t i o n s of the 1961 Conference, i s s u e s surrounding r e v i s i o n i s m ceased to become as re levant or s i g n i f i c a n t as they had i n the previous two years . As the f o r e g o i n g data have shown, the r e v i s i o n i s t s c l o s e l y approach the model of f a c t i o n a l i s m . There were f o u r t e e n c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e r e v i s i o n i s t MPs, of which f i v e provided the l e a d e r s h i p . The r e v i s i o n i s t s were organised i n s o f a r as they wrote a r t i c l e s promoting t h e i r p o l i c i e s , attempted to promote the j o u r n a l i n which most of t h e i r opinions were presented, and c i r c u l a t e d other Labour MPs with t h e i r opinions on u n i l a t e r a l i s m , through the CDS manifesto . There i s evidence that they were seen by other Labour MPs as a d i s t i n c t group. T h e i r p o l i c i e s d i f f e r e d from those h e l d by. other MPs on the PLP l e f t ; there was also r i g h t - w i n g o p p o s i t i o n to the r e v i s i o n i s t s ' p o l i c y on Clause IV and theraLn o p p o s i t i o n to the p h i l o s -ophy that gave r i s e to the Clause IV-debate . 54 Footnotes to Chapter Four 1. Aneurin Bevan i n Tr ibune , June 13, 1952, p . 1 2. Stephen Haseler , The G a i t s k e l l i t e s (London:Macmillan, 1969), PP. 68-9 3. I b i d . , p . 68 4. G a i t s k e l l ran against Bevan and Herbert M o r r i s o n . The f i n a l p o l l was Gai&Skell, 157 v o t e s ; Bevan, 70; Morr ison 40. 5. Haseler , p . 155 6. I b i d . , Sunday Times, November 15, 1959 7. New Statesman, January 23, I960, p . 92 8. In the e l e c t i o n the Conservatives won 365 s e a t s ; Labour 258; Others 7 9. Clause IV, Sect ion 4 of the Labour Par ty C o n s t i t u t i o n states that one of the Labour P a r t y ' s objects i s , "To secure f o r the workers by hand or by b r a i n the f u l l f r u i t s of t h e i r i n d u s t r y and the most equi table d i s t r i b u t i o n theisaf that may be p o s s i b l e , upon the bas is of the common ownership of the means of p r o d u c t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and c o n t r o l of each i n d u s t r y or s e r v i c e . " Labour P a r t y  Annual Conference Report,1959, p . 112 10. LPACR, 1959, p . 112 11. I b i d . , p . 145 12. I b i d . , pp. 152-3 13. George Brown, In My Way (London: V i c t o r G o l l a n c z , 1971), p . 80 14. An a r t i c l e by Bevan i n Tr ibune ,date u n s p e c i f i e d , c i t e d by Michael Foot , Aneurin Bevan Volume II (London: Davis -Poynter , 1973), p . 651 15. Times, March 17, I960, p . 17 16. I b i d . , p . 12 17. For d e t a i l s of the i n f l u e n c e of the trades unions on t h i s d e c i s i o n see H a s e l e r , pp. 170-3 55 18. For the f u l l statement see LPACR, I960, pp. 13-14; New Statesman, J u l y 16, i960, p . 74 19. The vote f o r the NEC statement was 3 ,042,000 with 3,339,000 agains t . The vote f o r the Amalgamated Engineering U n i o n ' s u n i l a t e r a l i s t r e s o l u t i o n was 3,303,000 with 2,896,000 agains t . LPACK I960,, p . 202 20. I b i d . , p . 201 21. Lord Windlesham, Communication and P o l i t i c a l Power (London: Jonathan Cape, i 9 b 6 ) , p . 127 22. I b i d . 23. Keesings Contemporary Archives I96O, V o l . 12, p . 1 7 7 7 3 A — " ~ 24. Windlesham, p . 127 25. Times, Ocotber 19, I960, p . 12 26. Windlesham, p . 98 27. Haseler , p . 216 28. Windlesham, pp. 101-3. The manifesto s ta ted that CDS aimed to r e s i s t u n i l a t e r a l i s m . Times October 1 9 , I960, p . 12 29. The vote was 4,526,000 f o r and 1, 756,000 agains t . Windlesham, p . 142 30. Haseler i d e n t i f i e s another 45 MPs as r e v i s i o n i s t s , they were: J . A i n s l e y , G. Barnet , C. Bence, W. B l y t o n , J . Boyden, E . Braddock, T . Bradley , J . Bray, D. Chapman, G. Chetwynd, J^ C r o n i n , T . D a l y e l l , J . Diamond, A. F i t c h , E . F l e t c h e r , G. De F r e i t a s , D. Ginsburg, C. Grey, W. Hannan, H . Hayman, D. Howell , J . Hoy, H . Hughes, S. I r v i n g , G. Jeger , D. Jones, H . K i n g , M. Lloyd-George , N . Macdermot, E . L . M a l l a l i e u , R. Mason, J . McCann, B. M i l l a r , P . Noel-Baker , R. Paget, R. P r e n t i c e , G.W. Reynolds, G.R. Rodgers, G. Strauss , D. Taverne, A. Thompson, F . Tomney, P . Wel ls , C. Wilsock. H a s e l e r , pp . 271, 218. Haseler i d e n t i f i e s these MPs as r e v i s i o n i s t © on the bas is of s ignatures to a l e t t e r of support to CDS. Since themain i n d i c a t i o n of membership used throughout t h i s paper was authorship of a r t i c l e s , i t was considered consis tent to r e l y only upon author-ship f o r concrete i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of membership. 56 31. Haseler , pp. 65, 89, 95 , 163 32. Tr ibune , J u l y 22, 1955, p . 2 33. Times, March 7, I960, p . 6 34. I b i d . , March 12, I960, p . 4 35. New Statesman, March 5, I960, p . 320 36. Personal i n f o r m a t i o n c i t e d by H a s e l e r , pp. 68-9 37. New Statesman, October 1, I960, p . 461 38. Brown, pp. 80-1 39. Tr ibune, June 13, 1952, p . 1 40. Emanuel S h i n w e l l , The Labour Story (London: Macdonald 1963) , P. 200 ; 41. C . A . R . Crosland, The Future of S o c i a l i s m (London: Jonathan Cape, 1963), p . 150 42. M. Foot , p . 651 43. Times, March 7, I960, p . 6; Brown, p . 80 44. Hugh G a i t s k e l l , "The Search f o r Anglo-American P o l i c y " , I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , V o l . 32, No. 4 ( J u l y 1954) , c i t e d by Haseler , p . 119 45. LPACR 1959, p . 201 46. Haseler , pp. 184, 185 47. Tr ibune , October 11, 1957, p . 7 57 Chapter F i v e The Tribune Group Chapter F i v e deals i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l order w i t h s i x major d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g i n the PLP d u r i n g the 1966 P a r l i a m e n t . The d i s p u t e s concerned B r i t i s h support f o r American p o l i c y i n Vietnam, p r i c e s and incomes p o l i c y , defence expenditure, B r i t a i n ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r e n t r y i n t o the European Common Market, p o s t - d e v a l u a t i o n economic measures and the government White Paper I n P l a c e of S t r i f e . An attempt i s made, i n the course of the chronology, t o i n d i c a t e the extent of these d i s p u t e s w i t h i n the PLP by means of v o t i n g f i g u r e s i n the House. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t , t h a t , i n each d i s p u t e , a number of MPs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Tribune, r e p e a t e d l y abstained or voted against the govern-ment to emphasise t h e i r own p o l i c y p r e f e r e n c e s . I n the second p a r t of the chapter t h e r e i s an a n a l y s i s of the extent to which the Tribune MPs can be considered a f a c t i o n . On January 18, 1963, G a i t s k e l l d i e d . On February 14, 1963, Wilson was e l e c t e d l e a d e r of the Labour P a r t y . 1 I n October 1964 the Labour P a r t y was r e t u r n e d t o power f o r the f i r s t time s i n c e 1950. Labour's o v e r a l l m a j o r i t y was o n l y f o u r s e a t s . The Labour P a r t y seemed u n i t e d during the 1964 P a r l i a m e n t . As i n the 1950 P a r l i a m e n t , the P a r t y ' s s m a l l m a j o r i t y i n h i b i t e d demonstrations of d i s s i d e n c e w i t h i n the PLP. Tribune p r o t e s t e d the government's r e l u c t a n c e t o t o t a l l y d i s a s s o c i a t e i t s e l f from American a c t i o n i n Vietnam. However, as M i c h a e l Foot p o i n t e d out, i f a PLP demonstration of d i s s e n t on Vietnam brought down the government, the r e b e l MPs would not be endorsed as Labour candidates i n a subsequent e l e c t i o n . Foot wrote: The hard f a c t of the present P a r l i a -58 mentary situation i s that the l e f t of the Labour Party could not destroy the government without exterminating i t s e l f and any influence i t might hope to exert for years to come. 2 In 1966 Wilson went to the country i n an attempt to increase the Party's majority. On Thursday March 31, 1966, Labour was returned to power with an over-a l l majority of ninety-seven. Poot's observations on the restrictions of a small majority were now no longer valid. During the 1966 Parliament, a number of left-wing Labour MPs protested against the govern-ment's policies on Vietnam, prices and incomes l e g i s -lation, defence expenditure, the Common Market, post devaluation economic measures and proposed l e g i s l a t i o n to c u r t a i l strikes. Vietnam Wilson tried to maintain the concept of a special relationship between the USA and Great Britain. As part of this policy he i m p l i c i t l y supported American policy i n Vietnam, but refused to l e t Britain become m i l i t a r i l y involved. 3 Throughout the 1964 Parliament, and during 1966, Tribune c r i t i c i s e d the B r i t i s h government for backing the USA i n Vietnam. Tribune said that the PLP l e f t should be exerting i t s influence to the f u l l to persuade the government to do a l l i t could to stop the war i n 4 Vietnam. On June 29, 1966, Wilson announced that the B r i t i s h government would not associate i t s e l f with the US bombing of o i l installations i n the Hanoi and Haiphong areas. On July 7, a government motion was presented to the House endorsing Wilson's statement of June 29i Before the vote on this motion^-the New  Statesman reported that twenty left-wing Labour MPs had indicated that- they would- abstain: they wished to show their disapproval of American bombing, but wanted 59 to a b s t a i n on the vote i n order to demonstrate t h e i r d i s s e n t from American p o l i c y i n Vietnam as a whole. The government's motion was approved? by 331 votes t o 230 v o t e s . The names of the MPs who had s a i d they would a b s t a i n d i d not appear on the Hansard v o t i n g l i s t s ; they must t h e r e f o r e have abstained or been absent from the House f o r some other reason.^ A f t e r the vote Tribune continued t o p r i n t a r t i c l e s c r i t i c i s i n g the Vietnam war, but, as the year went on, the a r t i c l e s became l e s s prominent. P r i c e s and Incomes The 1964 Labour government i n h e r i t e d a balance of payments d e f i c i t of £747 m i l l i o n s from t h e i r Conservative 7 predecessors. I n February 1965, i n an attempt t o i n c r e a s e p r o d u c t i v i t y and m a i n t a i n s t a b l e p r i c e l e v e l s the government e s t a b l i s h e d a P r i c e s and Incomes Board ( P I B ) . I n September 1965 i t was decided t o g i v e the PIB s t a t u t o r y powers. This meant t h a t the S e c r e t a r y of State f o r the Department of Economic A f f a i r s , George Brown, would have the power to r e f e r any p r i c e or wage i s s u e to the PIB. Wage or p r i c e settlements c o u l d be d e f e r r e d w h i l e the PIB conducted e n q u i r i e s i n t o whether the i n c r e a s e was j u s t i f i a b l e . D e c i s i o n s made by the PIB could then be enforced by m i n i s t e r i a l order. Progress of the p r i c e s and incomes b i l l embodying t h i s d e c i s i o n was delayed by the 1966 e l e c t i o n . On J u l y . 20, 1966, Wilson announced t h a t , i n order t o c o n t a i n domestic i n f l a t i o n and prevent i n c r e a s e d .-• c o s t s and p r i c e s from a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t i n g exports, a s i x months' s t a n d s t i l l on wages, s a l a r i e s and o t h e r types of income would be imposed. The s i x months' s t a n d s t i l l , which came to be known as the " f r e e z e " , would be f o l l o w e d bv s i x months of what Wilson c a l l e d "severe r e s t r a i n t " . The f r e e z e would be l e g a l i s e d as an a d d i t i o n a l clause to the p r i c e s and incomes b i l l . 60 On August 10, 1966, the p r i c e s and incomes b i l l , o r i g i n a t e d i n September 1965, with the a d d i t i o n of a clause imposing the wage and p r i c e f r e e z e , was presented to the House. The Commons voted by 272 to 214 votes q to accept the l e g i s l a t i o n . There were 30 Labour a b s t e n t i o n s . 1 0 The names of four teen MPs c l o s e l y associa ted with Tribune d i d not appear on the v o t i n g l i s t s : therefore they may have a b s t a i n e d . 1 1 Tribune repeatedly c r i t i c i s e d the p r i c e s and incomes l e g i s -12 l a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y the f r e e z e . In a d d i t i o n to c r i t i c i s i n g the p r i c e s and incomes b i l l , Tribune devoted severa l a r t i c l e s , during the l a t t e r h a l f of 1966, to a t tacking government defence expenditure, which i t considered too h i g h . Defence Expenditure Wilson also f e l t that B r i t a i n ' s defence expend-i t u r e was too h i g h , and i n February 1967, Denis Healey, M i n i s t e r of Defence, presented proposals to the House f o r reducing B r i t a i n ' s m i l i t a r y commitments. The main p o i n t s of h i s speech were: 1. a r e d u c t i o n of m i l i t a r y and c i v i l i a n personnel i n the Far East from 80,000 to 40,000 by 1970-71 2. a t o t a l withdrawal from B r i t i s h bases i n Singapore and M a l a y s i a by the mid-1970s 3. t o t a l withdrawal from Aden by January 1968 There was PLP o p p o s i t i o n to these cuts . In h i s memoirs, Wilson commented that , "a s u b s t a n t i a l s e c t i o n of the PLP going much wider than the t r a d i t i o n a l l e f t , wanted more i . e . cuts and wanted i t more q u i c k l y . 1 , 1 3 There were s ix ty- two Labour abstentions on the vote on the defence p r o p o s a l s . Tribune commented that the abstentions were evidence that o p p o s i t i o n to the " c r i p p l i n g economic and p o l i t i c a l burden of defence spending has spread to a l l s e c t i o n s of the p a r t y . " The Times concurred with Tribune i n saying that the _ _ abstainers were from a l l sec t ions of the p a r t y . No 61 PLP d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n was taken against the a b s t a i n -e r s , b u t , at a PLP meeting a f t e r the vote Wilson warned Labour MPs that the Labour Par ty might be r e l u c t a n t to endorse as candidates i n a subsequent 16 e l e c t i o n , MPs who abstained f r e q u e n t l y . The 1967 vote on defence cuts was not the only instance i n which MPs other than those associated with Tribune objected to government p o l i c y . In I967 the Common Market i s s u e d i v i d e d the P a r t y . The Common Market Oh May 2, 1967, Wilson announced that the B r i t i s h government would apply f o r admission i n t o the European Economic Community (the Common Market ) . Opinion w i t h i n . the Labour Par ty was d i v i d e d over the Common Market . According to both Haseler and Brand, opinions on t h i s i ssue d i d not f o l l o w the usual l e f t , r i g h t , centre 17 l i n e s of cleavage. Tribune f i r m l y opposed ent ry . On May 10, a vote i n the House supported W i l s o n ' s i n t e n t i o n to apply f o r membership i n the Common Market by 488 votes to 62. 34 Labour MPs voted against; entry and 51 abstained, represent ing together 23.5$ of the PLP. Argument w i t h i n the PLP on t h i s i s s u e was h a l t e d i n December 1967, when Pres ident de Gaulle of Prance vetoed B r i t i s h entry . The Labour government made no f u r t h e r formal a p p l i c a t i o n f o r membership during the 1966 Par l iament . Although g i v i n g greater prominence to defence expenditure and the Common Market i s s u e during the l a t t e r h a l f of I966, and the e a r l y months of 1967, Tribune s p o r a d i c a l l y commented upon the economic s i t u -a t i o n . In May 1967 a Tribune e d i t o r i a l c a l l e d f o r " l i m i t e d d e v a l u a t i o n " accompanied by " e f f e c t i v e p r i c e i q c o n t r o l s and s u b s t a n t i a l defence c u t s . " ^ 62 Devaluat ion and P o s t - d e v a l u a t i o n Measures Wilson was r e l u c t a n t to devalue the pound s t e r l i n g , mainta ining that devaluat ion provided a " featherbed" f o r the export ing i n d u s t r i e s . He wanted to res tore a balance of payments surplus and make B r i t i s h i n d u s t r y 20 genuinely compet i t ive . However, by November 1967, Wilson agreed that B r i t a i n would have to devalue from US$2.80 to $2.40. According to the New Statesman, devaluat ion was greeted with r e l i e f by the PLP, who had been a f r a i d that Wilson might have t r i e d to b o l s t e r the pound with a l a r g e US l o a n with onerous condi t ions attached, e . g . 21 s t r i n g e n t wage and p r i c e c o n t r o l s . Tribune welcomed d e v a l u a t i o n . On January 16, 1968, Wilson announced to the House a. s e r i e s of p o s t - d e v a l u a t i o n measures. The measures i n c l u d e d cuts i n defence spending and cuts i n domestic p u b l i c expenditure . The main points were: 1. B r i t a i n would withdraw from her bases i n M a l a y s i a and Singapore by 1971 (In 1967 Healey had s a i d that withdrawal from these bases would take place by the "mid-1970s"). 2. The government's order f o r US a i r c r a f t f o r the RAP was to be c a n c e l l e d . 3 P r e s c r i p t i o n charges would be r e - i n t r o d u c e d (they were abol ished by the Labour govern-ment i n 1965). 4. Plans to r a i s e the school l e a v i n g age from 15 to 16 were to be postponed. 5. The p r o v i s i o n of f r e e milk i n the major i ty 22 of schools was to be ended. Tribune applauded the defence cuts but vehmently disagreed with the s o c i a l s e r v i c e c u t s . ^ 3 On January 18, twenty-s ix Labour MPs abstained on a motion i n the House approving the economic 63 measures proposed by the g o v e r n m e n t . ^ Wilson f i r m l y c h a s t i s e d the abstainers at a PLP meeting, and took d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n . The abstainers were banned from PLP meetings f o r the month of February. J Consider ing that the s o c i a l s e r v i c e cuts would a l i e n a t e many Labour v o t e r s , Tribune i n s t i t u t e d what i t c a l l e d a " C h a r t i s t Movement". This i n v o l v e d the p u b l i c a t i o n i n Tribune and subsequent d i s t r i b u t i o n from T r i b u n e ' s o f f i c e s i n London, of a S o c i a l i s t  Char ter . The Charter s p e c i f i e d that the government should cut defence expenditure ; n a t i o n a l i z e the m a j o r i t y of la rge p r i v a t e concerns; e s t a b l i s h a guaranteed minimum wage and work a c t i v e l y f o r world disarmament. The Charter was signed by seventeen Labour MPs c l o s e l y l i n k e d with T r i b u n e . The S o c i a l i s t Charter was a pure ly e x t r a - P a r l i a -mentary movement, designed l a r g e l y to support the Labour P a r t y , but also h e a v i l y emphasising the PLP l e f t ' s p o l i c i e s of extensive n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n and des i re f o r r a d i c a l defence cuts . I t i s mentioned here to i n d i c a t e that MPs l i n k e d with Tribune were ac t ive i n propagating t h e i r p o l i c i e s both w i t h i n and outside Par l iament , and appear to have been o r g a n i s i n g themselves to do so . During the l a s t few months of 1968 Tribune began to focus i t s a t t e n t i o n on the government's proposals to solve the problem of wide-spread i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e s , and disagreed with them. In Place of S t r i f e On January 17, 1969, Barbara C a s t l e , M i n i s t e r of Employment and P r o d u c t i v i t y , produced a White Paper, e n t i t l e d In Place of S t r i f e . Opposi t ion to the White Paper, w i t h i n the PLP and the Labour Movement as a whole, was focused on three recommendations, intended as short term s o l u t i o n s to i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e s . The 64 recommendations were; 1. a twenty-eight day c o n c i l i a t i o n pause between the beginning of a dispute and the commencement of s t r i k e a c t i o n 2. a compulsory b a l l o t to be taken among those i n t e n d i n g to s t i k e before a d e c i s i o n to s t r i k e was made 3. the government to assume the power to impose a settlement on i n t e r - u n i o n d i s p u t e s . On March 3, 1969, In Place of S t r i f e was debated i n the House as a p o s s i b l e b a s i s f o r l e g i s l a t i o n . I t was accepted by 224 votes to 62. F o r t y Labour MPs abstained on the vote and f i f t y - t h r e e voted against the White Paper, represent ing together 25.6$ of the 2 6 PLP. Twelve MPs associa ted with Tribune were amongst 27 '— those v o t i n g against . Peter Jenkins comments that the v o t i n g represented a r e v o l t "more ser ious than the 28 par ty managers had a n t i c i p a t e d . " On A p r i l 15, Roy Jenkins , Chancel lor of the Exchequer, announced i n h i s budget speech that the government would immediately i n i t i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n based on In Place of S t r i f e . The announcement provoked an outcry w i t h i n the PLP. ^ On May 7, at a PLP meeting, Douglas Houghton, chairman of the PLP, declared that he was speaking f o r the whole PLP when he s a i d that the government should not attempt to h a l t s t r i k e s by i n t e r v e n i n g between management and u n i o n s . 3 0 James Hamilton, speaking on behalf of the 130 t rades union sponsored MPs, informed the Chief Whip, Robert M e l l i s h , that the trades union MPs would not vote f o r the b i l l . 3 1 Peter Jenkins maintains t h a t , except f o r Wilson and Bas t le the whole Cabinet agreed that the b i l l should be d r o p p e d . J On June 19, Wilson announced to the House that he had accepted an undertaking from the TUC to increase i t s pwers to h a l t s t r i k e s . The intended l e g i s l a t i o n was 3 3 to be dropped. The PEP was j u b i l a n t . J A f t e r the disagreement over In Place of S t r i f e the PLP presented a more u n i t e d f r o n t to the n a t i o n than i t had since the 1966 e l e c t i o n . At the end of I969 Tribune commented that the b i t t e r n e s s temporarily-aroused over trades union l e g i s l a t i o n had been erased and the whole par ty was u n i t e d i n f a c i n g the f u t u r e . ^ On June 18, 1970, the B r i t i s h e lec tora te rewarded the Labour P a r t y ' s newly found u n i t y by r e t u r n i n g the Conservative P a r t y to power. The Tribune MPs - a f a c t i o n ? 1. Membership Peter Jenkins and C a r l Brand both r e f e r to the d i s s i d e n t l e f t i n the 1966^70 Parliament as "the Tribune Group", so c a l l e d because they expressed t h e i r p o l i c i e s through T r i b u n e . Seventeen Labour MPs can be f i r m l y i d e n t i f i e d as the Tribune group. MPs who contr ibuted on a r e g u l a r b a s i s to Tr ibune , i . e . at l e a s t once a month between 1966 and 1970 were: Prank A l l a u n , Tom D r i b e r g , Michael Poot, Lena Jeger, Hugh Jenkins , R u s s e l l K e r r , Ian Mikardo and John Mendelson. MPs who contr ibuted more than one a r t i c l e a year to Tribune during t h i s p e r i o d were: E r i c H e f f e r , Emrys Hughes, Stan Newens, Stanley Orme and Konni Z i l l i a c u s . In 1966 Tribune r e f e r r e d to David Kerr and Archie Manuel as Tribune M P s . ^ Anne Kerr and Chr is Norwood were also considered members of the Tribune group since they a s s i s t e d i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of a r t i c l e s . I t i s u n l i k e l y that these seventeen represented the e n t i r e Tribune Group. J . Richard P i p e r has i n d i c a t e d that there were between twenty and t w e n t y - f i v e MPs who formed the core of the G r o u p . ^ As the 30 abstentions on the August 1966 p r i c e s and incomes vote , the 62 abstentions on the February 1967 defence vote and the 26 abstentions 66 on the 1968 post devaluat ion measures show, the Tribune MPs could obta in f l u c t u a t i n g degree of support from other MPs. The maximum amount of support they received was i n Febaoary 1967 when 62 MPs abstained. The t o t a l membership of the Tribune Group was therefore between seventeen and s i x t y - t w o . 2. Leadership M i c h a e l Foot appears to be the most l i k e l y s i n g l e candidate f o r the l e a d e r s h i p of the Tribune Group. He was e d i t o r of Tribune during the p e r i o d under examin-a t i o n . He wrote more a r t i c l e s present ing T r i b u n e ' s p o l i c i e s than any other c o n t r i b u t o r to Tr ibune . In t h i s respect he might be considered the most voca l of the Tribune group and the focus around which other Tribune MPs r a l l i e d . However, there i s no evidence that Foot was more than a voca l f o c a l p o i n t . The New Statesman r e f e r r i n g to the l e f t i n the 1964 Par l iament , pointed to Foot and Mikardo as p o t e n t i a l l e a d e r s , but s ta ted that the l e f t was i n f a c t l e a d e r l e s s . Peter Jenkins s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f u t e s any i d e a that Foot l e d the PLP l e f t i n the 1966 P a r l i a m e n t . ^ ° I t would appear then that the Tribune Group was l e a d e r l e s s . 3. Organisa t ion There i s no s p e c i f i c evidence that the Tribune MPs h e l d meetings at which a l l seventeen were present . However, i t seems l i k e l y that at l e a s t the S o c i a l i s t  Charter was launched with some p r i o r c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h i n the Tribune Group. While there i s no d i r e c t evidence of o r g a n i s a t i o n there were severa l i n s t a n c e s , other than a r t i c l e s i n Tribune i n which Tribune MPs showed that they shared the same views on p o l i c y , i n d i c a t i n g that some minimum degree of c o n s u l t a t i o n ex is ted between them. On J u l y 8, 1966, Tribune reported that 114 Labour MPs had signed a motion which c a l l e d upon the government to 67 d i s a s s o c i a t e i t s e l f completely from the war i n Vietnam. The s i g n a t o r i e s i n c l u d e d the 17 Tribune M P s . ^ 1 On J u l y 22, 1966, Tribune p u b l i s h e d the texts of two l e t t e r s which, i t repor ted , had been sent to P r e s i d e n t Johnson of the USA and to Pres ident Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam. The l e t t e r s appealed to the P r e s i d e n t s to stop the war. The f i v e s i g n a t o r i e s to the l e t t e r comprised three Tribune MPs, namely*: A l l a u n , Foot and Orme, and two 6,ther Labour MPs, Fenner Brockway and Joyce B u t l e r . On May 5, 1967, Tribune p u b l i s h e d a lengthy s t a t e -ment against B r i t a i n j o i n i n g the Common Market. Tribune s a i d that 74 Labour MPs, of a l l sec t ions of the Par ty hafl signed the statement, but d i d not p u b l i s h t h e i r names. In t h i s , and subsequent i s s u e s , Tribune adver t i sed copies of the statement as a v a i l a b l e f o r bulk order f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the c o n s t i t u e n c i e s . The c o l l e c t i o n of the s ignatures must have r e q u i r e d some o r g a n i s a t i o n by the Tribune MPs. The product ion of the S o c i a l i s t Charter , i n 1968, i s a d d i t i o n a l evidence of o r g a n i s a t i o n to adver t i se T r i b u n e ' s p o l i c i e s . L i k e the Tribune statement on the Common Market, the S o c i a l i s t Charter was adver t i sed as a v a i l a b l y f o r bulk order and d i s t r i b u t i o n . While aiming these statements p r i m a r i l y at an e x t r a - P a r l i a -mentary audience, Tribune expressed the hope that const i tuents would exert pressure on t h e i r MPs to 4 2 adopt T r i b u n e ' s p o l i c i e s . In October 1966, twelve Labour MPs wrote a l e t t e r to the New Statesman i n which they c r i t i c i s e d the government's wage f r e e z e . Of the twelve, eight were Tribune MPs, namely: A l l a u n , Hugh Jenkins , Anne K e r r , R u s s e l l K e r r , Mikardo, Newens, Orme and Z i l l i a c u s . 4 3 I n Tribune Foot expressed the same o p i n i o n s . ^ 68 It was suggested i n Chapter One that an additional indication of factional arganisation would be demons-trated by a faction's members voting together i n the House, i n order to demonstrate their unanimity on the policies that the faction advocated. In the six issues considered i n the foregoing pages upon which there was PLP disagreement, a l l seventeen Tribune MPs voted together on two occasions: on the February 1967 defence cuts and on the January 1968 post-devaluation measures. 45 In these instances a l l seventeen abstained. The foregoing data indicates that there was some degree of organisation among the Tribune MPs, but they do not appear to have been highly organised. 4. The Tribune MPs seen by others According to Peter Jenkins, the, Tribune Group were physically distinct i n the House of Commons, inso-far as they always sat together i n the same place, look-ing "more l i k e a party of opposition than a part of the party i n government". Jenkins says: Ministers at the Despatch Box spent as much time debating over their right shoulders as i n addressing the Conservative Opposition across the floor of the House. 46 At least one member of Parliament agreed with Jenkins. In the House, on July 24, 1967, Conservative MP, Ian Macleod said that the Tribune Group were: The true opposition for the simple reason that our present discontents must surely be solved either by a Tory or a Socialist solu-tion [to which the policies of] the front bench opposite are absolutely irrelevant. 47 The Tribune Group were clearly identifiable to others. 5. Policies The Tribune MPs advocated a range of policies which were different from those expressed by the PLP leadership. 69 (a) Vietnam: while the PLP l e a d e r s h i p was only p r e -pared to d i s a s s o c i a t e B r i t a i n from the s p e c i f i c US bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong, the Tribune MPs wanted t o t a l d i s a s s o c i a t i o n and o u t r i g h t condemnation of American a c t i o n i n V i e t n a m . ^ 8 (b) Defence: Tribune c o n s i s t e n t l y advocated that the government should c u r t a i l i t s defence expenditure, and suggested i n i t s S o c i a l i s t Charter that B r i t a i n should end a l l e x i s t i n g m i l i t a r y a l l i a n c e s . Wilson agreed that the government should c u r t a i l i t s defence expend-i t u r e , but considered that t h i s could be done n e i t h e r 50 as f a s t nor as d r a s t i c a l l y as the l e f t wanted. (c ) Common Market: Tribune opposed W i l s o n ' s a p p l i c -a t i o n f o r B r i t i s h entry i n t o the Common Market, c o n s i d -e r i n g that the Common Market was too concerned with " d o c t r i n a l adherence to p r i v a t e c o m p e t i t i o n . " Tribune also expressed the f e a r that membership would increase B r i t i s h food p r i c e s and that p r e f e r e n t i a l t a r i f f s f o r 51 t rade with Commonwealth countr ies would be l o s t . (d) P r i c e s and Incomes: Tribune considered t h a t , i n t r y i n g to operate a p r i c e s and incomes p o l i c y i n a mixed economy, the government was i n t e r f e r i n g with the r i g h t s of the working-c lass to negot iate wage i n c r e a s e s . N e g o t i a t i o n of wage increases was a f u n d a -mental r i g h t of the workers i n a predominantly c a p i t a l -i s t economy. Tribune s ta ted that i t favoured wage planning only as part of a planned, p u b l i c l y managed, economy. The government should, s a i d Tr ibune , b r i n g the overwhelming major i ty of the p r i v a t e sector of the economy under the c o n t r o l of the p u b l i c s e c t o r . Under a predominantly public-owned economy the govern-ment would negot iate with the TUC over wage i n c r e a s e s : 52 the TUC would represent a l l unions . (e) Trades Union l e g i s l a t i o n : Tribune maintained that 70 the government should not attempt to c u r t a i l trade union powers, because t h i s was an infringement of a worker 's 5V r i g h t to s t r i k e . J ( f ) P o s t - d e v a l u a t i o n measures: Tribune objected to any cuts i n s o c i a l s e r v i c e s , b e l i e v i n g that the s o c i a l s e r v i c e s should be increased and expanded, p a i d f o r by 54. the i m p o s i t i o n of wealth taxes and g i f t taxes . 6. Durat ion The Tribune MPs a r t i c u l a t e d t h e i r p o l i c i e s p r i o r to and throughout, the 1966 Par l iament , al though, during the months preceeding the 1970 general e l e c t i o n , they concentrated on a t tacking the Conservatives ra ther than c r i t i c i s i n g the government and p r e s s i n g t h e i r own i d e a s . Prom June 1966 to June 1969, the Tribune MPs were also ac t ive i n p r e s s i n g t h e i r p o l i c i e s through means other than Tr ibune , e . g . l e t t e r s i n the p r e s s , abstentions i n the House. As an ac t ive group they operated f o r three years . T h e Tribune MPs were c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e to the PLP, and indeed to the whole House, as a number of MPs, of which i t i s p o s s i b l e to d e f i n i t e l y name seventeen, who, over a p e r i o d of three years , pressed t h e i r p o l i c i e s . The Tribune MPs appeared to l a c k a s p e c i f i c l e a d e r s h i p , appearing as a headless , l o o s e l y organised group. The Tribune MPs therefore approach the model of f a c t i o n a l i s m presented i n Chapter one, f a l l i n g short only on the c r i t e r i o n of l e a d e r s h i p . I t seems reason-able to say that the 1966 Parliament was one of PLP . .disunity , i n which a number of MPs seemed to be a c t i n g as a f a c t i o n , while not a c t u a l l y f u l f i l l i n g a l l c r i t e r i a f o r d e f i n i t i o n as a f a c t i o n . 71 Footnotes to Chapter Five 1. On the f i r s t ballot Wilson obtained 115 votes, Callaghan 41 and Brown 88. As no one individual had a majority of the votes a second ballot was held between Brown and Wilson. In the second ballot Wilson obtained 144 votes and Brown 103. For an interesting account of the leadership election see Anthony Howard and Richard West, The Making of the Prime Minister (London: Jonathan Cap e, 1965), p. 2~3 2. Tribune, January 7, 1966, p. 7 3. President Johnson's requests for a v i s i b l e gesture of support, even a single regiment to show the B r i t i s h flag, were firmly refused. Carl F. Brand, The B r i t i s h Labour Party (Stanford: Hoover I n s t i t -ution Press, 1974), p. 320 4. Tribune, June 24, 1966, p. 6 5. New Statesman, July 15, 1966, p. 77 6. Hansard, Vol. 731, col.s 815-9 Hansard does not publish, l i s t s of abstentions. If an MP's name does not appear on the voting l i s t s i t can be inferred that he abstained, or that he was absent from the House when the vote was taken. The New Statesman did not name a l l 20 MPs intending to abstain, but did name Eric Heffer, Hugh Jenkins, Ian Mikardo, Stan Newens, and Stanley Orme. Michael Foot and John Mendleson were reported as saying that they would vote for the government, and the voting l i s t s show that they did. After the vote, Konni Zilliaeus wrote i n Tribune that he had abstained. Tribune, July 15, 1966, p. 5 — 7. Brand, p. 306, fn 7 8. Harold Wilson, The Labour Government, 1964-197,0 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson and Michael Joseph, 1971), p. 259 9. Hansard, Vol. 733, col.s 1834-7 10. Wilson, p. 268 11. The fourteen MPs were: Frank Allaun, Tom Driberg, Michael Foot, Eric Heffer, Emrys Hughes, Hugh Jenkins, Anne Kerr, David Kerr, Russell Kerr, Ian Mikardo, John Mendilson, Stan Newens, Stanley Orme, Konni Zilliaeus. The following Tribune MPs voted with the government: Lena Jeger, Archie Manuel and Chris Norwood. 72 12. For example, Tr ibune , J u l y 15, 1966, p . 4; J u l y 29, 19 6 6, p . 7 13. Wilson, p . 376 14. Tribune March 3, 1967, p . 1. Tribune s a i d that a l l the Tribune MPs had abstained 15. '/Times, March 3, 1967, p . 1 16. Wilson, p . 378. During the 1966 Par l iament , Wilson and his' Chief Whip, John S i l k i n , permitted MPs to absta in i n a vote i f they had grounds f o r a conscient ious o b j e c t i o n to the government p o l i c y concerned. 17. Brand, p . 369; Stephen Haseler , The G r a i t s k e l l i t e s (London: Macmil lan, 1969), p . 229 18. Brand, p . 369. There were 363 Labour MPs at the t ime. I f the Labour abstentions and votes against are deducted from the t o t a l of 488 pro-Market votes , i t shows that 210 Conservatives and L i b e r a l s voted with the government. Of those v o t i n g against the government, 11 were Tribune MPs, namely: A l l a u n , D r i b e r g , Hughes, L . Jeger , H . Jenkins , Anne K e r r , R. K e r r , Manuel, J . Mendelson, Norwood and Orme. Two Tribune MPs, Newens and D. Kerr voted with the government, Hansard, V o l . 746, c o l . 1654 19. T r i b u n e , May 26, 1967, p . 5 20. Wilson, p . 261; Paul Foot , The P o l i t i c s of Harold  Wilson (London: Penguin S p e c i a l , 1968), p . 178 21. New Statesman November 24, 1967, f r o n t page 22. Labour Par ty Annual Conference Report 1968, p . 72; Wilson, pp. 48 3-6 23* Tribune January 19, 1968, p . 1; January 26, 1968, 24. I b i d . , January 26, 1968, p . 5. Tribune s a i d that a l l the Tribune MPs had abstainea" 25. Times, February 1, 1968, p . 1 26. Peter Jenkins , The B a t t l e of Downing Street (London: Charles Knight and Co. L t d . , 1970), p . 08 73 27. Hansard V o l . 779, c o l . s 165-7. Those v o t i n g .against were: A l l a u n , D r i b e r g , Foot , A. K e r r , R. K e r r , J . Mendelson, H e f f e r , E . Hughes, L . Jeger, Newens, Norwood and Orme. 28. J e n k i n s , p . 68 29. I b i d . , p . 104 30. I b i d . , p . 121:; 31. I b i d . , p . 122. M e l l i s h replaced S i l k i n as Chief Whip i n A p r i l 1969. S i l k i n was appointed M i n i s t e r of Works 32. I b i d . , pp. 153-4 33. I b i d . , p . 159 34. Tr ibune , October 10, 1969, p . 1 35. Jenkins , p . 62; Brand, p . 330 36. Tr ibune , J u l y 8, I966, p . 3 37. Information from personal conversations with R u s s e l l Kerr . . . . . < 38. J . Richard P i p e r , "Backbench R e b e l l i o n , Par ty Govern-ment and Consensus P o l i t i c s " , Parl iamentary A f f a i r s (Autumn 1974), p . 390 39. New Statesman, November 12, 1965, p . 722 40. Jenkins , p . 62 41. Tr ibune , J u l y 8, 1966, p . 3 42. I b i d . , May 5, 1967, p . 7; June 7, 1968, p . 5 43. New Statesman, October 28, 1966, p . 623. The other s i g n a t o r i e s were: Norman Atkinson, Sydney B i d w e l l , John Lee and Trevor Park 44. Tr ibune , J u l y 15, 1966, p . 4 45. I b i d . , January 26, 1968, p . 5; March 3, 1967, p . l 46. Jenkins , p . 62 47. Tr ibune , J u l y 28, 1967, p . 1 48. I b i d . , June 24, 1966, p . 6; J u l y 1, 1966, p . l 74 49. Ibid., June 7, 1968, p. 5 50. Wilson, p. 377 5 1 » Tribune, May 5, 1967, p. 7 52. Ibid., July 15, 1966, p. 4; July 29, 1966, p. 7; June 7, 1968, p. 5 53. Ibid., January 17, 1969, p. 1 54. Ibid., January 12, 1968, p. 1; January 26, 1968, P. 5 75 Chapter Six Conclusions Chapter Six provides a summary of the preceding chapters . The f a c t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d are compared under each of the s i x c r i t e r i a of f a c t i o n a l i s m . The periods of f a c t i o n a l i s m i n the PLP during the p e r i o d under study are i s o l a t e d . Some conclusions about the P L P ' s '' s t y l e of f a c t i o n a l i s m are drawn. The foregoing pages have presented b r i e f chron-o l o g i e s of disputes w i t h i n the PLP during the years 1945-1970. The extent to which p a r t i e s to PLP disputes can be i d e n t i f i e d as f a c t i o n s , according to the s i x c r i t e r i a enumerated i n Chapter One, has been assessed. The f o l l o w i n g f a c t i o n s have been i d e n t i f i e d : the Keep L e f t f a c t i o n , the Bevanites and the r e v i s i o n i s t s . The Tribune Group approached the model of f a c t i o n a l i s m but d i d not f u l f i l l the c r i t e r i o n of l e a d e r s h i p . The three f a c t i o n s i d e n t -i f i e d and the Tribune Group can now be compared i n terms of each of the s i x c r i t e r i a of f a c t i o n a l i s m . 1. Membership I t was decided that membership of a f a c t i o n would be determined on the b a s i s of s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , i . e . MPs who contr ibuted to pamphlets or who wrote a r t i c l e s that exempli f ied a d i s t i n c t v iewpoint . In the case of the Keep L e f t MPs i t seemed appropriate to take the authors of the two pamphlets, Keep L e f t and Keeping L e f t as being members of the Keep L e f t MPs. In the case of the Bevanites , r e v i s i o n i s t s and Tribune MPs each group appeared to a r t i c u l a t e i t s p o l i c i e s through a p a r t i c u l a r j o u r n a l . , The Keep L e f t MPs also wrote a r t i c l e s r e i t e r a t i n g Keep L e f t ' s 76 p o l i c i e s i n a j o u r n a l , and t h i s was considered i n attempting to i d e n t i f y the leaders of the Keep L e f t M P s . 1 The Keep L e f t MPs, the Bevanites and the Tribune group a l l wrote i n the same j o u r n a l , T r i b u n e . The r e v i s i o n i s t s wrote i n S o c i a l i s t Commentary. I t was decided that MPs who wrote r e g u l a r l y i n these j o u r n a l s , expressing mutually h e l d i d e a s , would be i d e n t i f i e d as members of each p a r t i c u l a r group. A f t e r s c r u t i n y of the journals the term r e g u l a r was taken to mean w r i t i n g more than one a r t i c l e a year during each p e r i o d of time under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . As i n d i c a t e d i n Chapter One, there are important gaps i n the membership of each f a c t i o n i d e n t i f i e d . The MPs i d e n t i f i e d as members comprised the f o l l o w i n g p e r c e n t -ages of the PLP: Keep L e f t MPs, 5$; Bevanites , 4$; r e v i s i o n i s t s , 5$; Tribune MPs, 4$. I t i s u n l i k e l y that these f i g u r e s represent the t o t a l number of MPs associa ted with each f a c t i o n . They do however provide an i n d i c a t i o n of the s i z e of the hard core of each group. 2. Leadership In the case of the Keep L e f t MPs, l e a d e r s h i p was determined on the b a s i s of apparent c e n t r a l i t y of one MP to the group's a c t i v i t y . Crossman was i d e n t i f -i e d as l e a d e r of the Keep L e f t MPs because he wrote a r t i c l e s i n Tr ibune , contr ibuted to both Keep L e f t and Keeping L e f t , and presented the group's f o r e i g n p o l i c i e s to the House i n the form of an amendment.^ Crossman was a, backbencher at the time and so cannot be s a i d to have h e l d a great deal of a u t h o r i t y over others i n the Keep L e f t f a c t i o n . Nor was he l i k e l y to be i n a p o s i t i o n to wei ld sanctions i n the foreseeable f u t u r e . The l e a d e r s h i p of the Bevanites and the r e v i s i o n i s t s d i f f e r e d from that of the Keep L e f t MPs. Both Bevan and G a i t s k e l l h e l d prominent par ty posts 77 during the years when the Bevanites and r e v i s i o n i s t s ex is ted as f a c t i o n s . They were therefore i n a p o s i t i o n to f r e q u e n t l y expound t h e i r f a c t i o n ' s p o l i -c i e s with an a u t h o r i t y not permitted to Crossman. Both Bevan and G a i t s k e l l were prepared to openly challenge prominent sec t ions of the Labour Par ty as a whole: Bevan d e f i e d A t t l e e i n the House i n 1954 and 1955*3, G a i t s k e l l d e f i e d the I960 Labour Party Annual Conference. As a r e s u l t both drew more p u b l i c i t y to f a c t i o n a l cleavages w i t h i n the Labour Party than d i d e i t h e r Grossman or the Tribune MPs. Nei ther Bevan nor G a i t s k e l l based t h e i r leadership upon o r g a n i s a t i o n a l s k i l l s ; t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p appears based on t h e i r s tanding w i t h i n the PLP. Bevan was also respected f o r h i s o r a t o r i c a l s k i l l s . As noted i n Chapter Three G a i t s k e l l r e f e r r e d to Bevan as the leader of the Bevanites , but pointed to Mikardo as the organiser A of the f a c t i o n . In Chapter Pour the point was made t h a t , although G a i t s k e l l l e d the r e v i s i o n i s t s , Cros land, Jenkins , Jay and Gordon Walker were concern-5 ed with o r g a n i s i n g f a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . The Tribune MPs appear to have been l e a d e r l e s s , and, as a p o s s i b l e consequence, were not so w e l l organised as the other three f a c t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d . The l a c k of a l e a d e r casts some doubt on whether the Tribune MPs can be defined as a f a c t i o n according to the d e f i n i t i o n . Poot appeared to be the most probable i n d i v i d u a l to q u a l i f y as a l e a d e r , but , according 6 to at l e a s t one contemporary, was n o t . Poot had no o f f i c i a l part post and therefore was not i n a p o s i t i o n to command the respect and a u t h o r i t y over the Tribune MPs as could Bevan over the Bevanites or G a i t s k e l l over the r e v i s i o n i s t s . He was not ins t rumental i n o r g a n i s i n g f a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the PLP but concentrated on e d i t i n g and w r i t i n g i n T r i b u n e . Tribune was the organ through which the group expressed 78 i t s p o l i c i e s , and, as a f o c a l point of the group's a c t i v i t i e s , provided a medium through which some o r g a n i s a t i o n might r e s u l t . 3. Organisa t ion The c r i t e r i o n of o r g a n i s a t i o n was t h r e e - f o l d ; meetings, p u b l i c a t i o n s and v o t i n g . The Keep L e f t f a c t i o n h e l d meetings from which the pamphlet Keep  L e f t was a d i r e c t outcome. I t has been assumed that they h e l d meetings p r i o r to the product ion of 7 Keeping L e f t but there i s no d e f i n i t e proof of t h i s . The Bevanites h e l d meetings i n order to determine how they should act , as a group, i n P a r l i a -ment. The leaders of the r e v i s i o n i s t s met, but there i s no p o s i t i v e evidence that the meetings were f o r a s p e c i f i c purpose other than general p o l i c y d i s c u s s i o n . There i s no d i r e c t evidence that the Tribune MPs met as a group i n order to consider p o l i c i e s or ways of promoting them. I t can be i n f e r r e d that at l e a s t some of the Tribune MPs met p r i o r to the product ion of the S o c i a l i s t Charter . The r e v i s i o n i s t s were a f a c t i o n that gained the support of the major i ty of the PLP, with a r e v i s i o n -i s t as leader of the P a r t y . Therefore , u n l i k e the other two f a c t i o n s and the Tribune MPs, they d i d not need to consider t a c t i c s to persuade a major i ty of the PLP to adopt t h e i r p o l i c y preferences . The Clause IV and u n i l a t e r a l i s m disputes were not the subjects of votes i n the House: hence the r e v i s i o n i s t s d i d not i n v i t e open demonstrations of PLP d i s u n i t y . The r e v i s i o n i s t s d i d not then need to organise to the extent that m i n o r i t y f a c t i o n s needed to do, i n order to press t h e i r p o l i c i e s . The Keep L e f t MPs, the Bevanites and the Tribune MPs, being i n a m i n o r i t y i n the PLPs, and not , apparently , capable of g a i n i n g major i ty support c o n s i s t e n t l y , were 79 i n a p o s i t i o n where o r g a n i s a t i o n was important . They needed to demonstrate that they represented a weight of o p i n i o n , e i t h e r i n the PLP or w i t h i n the Labour P a r t y as a whole, i n order to prove that t h e i r p o l i c i e s were not jus t sporadic c r i t i c i s m s of the l e a d e r s h i p . While the Keep L e f t MPs met to produce a pamphlet and the Tribune MPs r a l l i e d around a j o u r n a l , the Bevanites met to debate means by which 9 they could act as a coherent group i n Par l iament . The product ion of the pamphlets One Way Only and Going Our Way? and a r t i c l e s i n Tr ibune , were i n a d d i t i o n to t h e i r planning of Parl iamentary s t r a t e g y . I n s o f a r as the Bevani tes"held meetings to discuss p o l i c i e s and t a c t i c s i n the House and produced pamph-l e t s , presumably too the r e s u l t of meetings, and a r t i c l e s , they evinced a higher degree of o r g a n i s a t i o n than d i d any other group. I t has not always been necessary to i n d i c a t e v o t i n g f i g u r e s i n order to demonstrate f a c t i o n a l o r g a n i s a t i o n . There have been instances when a f a c t i o n advocated p o l i c i e s that were not the subject of a vote i n the House, e . g . Clause I V . The Keep L e f t f a c t i o n abstained i n the vote on defence i n 1946 i n order to demonstrate t h e i r p o l i c y preferences , but d i d not need to absta in or vote against the l e a d e r s h i p on the issues of c o n s c r i p t i o n and s t e e l n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n i n order to press t h e i r p o l i c i e s . At the height of the Bevani tes 1 f a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , i n 1952, Bevan l e d the abstentions i n the vote on the.March defence debate. The Bevanites also showed t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n to the l e a d e r s h i p ' s p o l i c i e s on other i ssues by a l t e r -nate means, e . g . Bevan's r e s i g n a t i o n from o f f i c i a l par ty p o s t s . During the 1966 Parliament the t o p i c s on which the Tribune MPs were disagreeing with the l e a d e r s h i p were a l l the subject of votes i n the House. Chapter f i v e has therefore l a i d greater emphasis on 80 v o t i n g f i g u r e s than have the other chapters . The s i x votes considered i n Chapter f i v e r e v e a l that the Tribune MPs voted together on two i n s t a n c e s , but were d i v i d e d on a l l o thers . I f v o t i n g together i s taken as an i n d i c a t o r of a f a c t i o n ' s o r g a n i s a t i o n , then i t seems that the Tribune MPs were not h i g h l y organised, but d i d demonstrate a measure of sporadic cohesion. T h e i r main means of a t t r a c t i n g a t t e n t i o n to t h e i r p o l i c i e s seems to have been through T r i b u n e . The f a c t t h a t , on a l l s i x i s s u e s discussed i n Chapter f i v e , there were s u b s t a n t i a l numbers of MPs v o t i n g against , or a b s t a i n i n g , on votes concerning o f f i c i a l par ty p o l i c y , demarcates the p e r i o d as one of PLP d i s u n i t y but not as one i n which a w e l l organised f a c t i o n was o p e r a t i n g . Comparison of the o r g a n i s a t i o n of the three f a c t -ions and the Tribune group leads to the conclus ion that the Bevanites were the most h i g h l y organised, the Keep L e f t MPs evinced the second highest degree of o r g a n i s a t i o n ; the r e v i s i o n i s t s were not as organised as the Keep L e f t MPs, but d i d organise through CDS. The Tribune MPs were the l e a s t organised. The r e v i s -i o n i s t s d i d not need to organise to the same extent as the m i n o r i t y l e f t - w i n g f a c t i o n s and the Tribune MPs because the r e v i s i o n i s t s commanded the support of the m a j o r i t y of the PLP. 4. Seen by others The Keep L e f t MPs were i d e n t i f i e d as a number of MPs who i n s t i t u t e d a Keep L e f t Movement . 1 0 The Bevan-i t e s were i d e n t i f i e d as a par ty w i t h i n a p a r t y . 1 1 The r e v i s i o n i s t s , as a whole, were i d e n t i f i e d as a number of MPs expounding new p o l i c i e s , and the l e a d i n g r e v i s -12 i o n i s t s as a c a b a l . The Tribune MPs were c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e as a p h y s i c a l l y d i s t i n c t group i n the H o u s e . 1 3 The groups were therefore i d e n t i f i e d i n some-what d i f f e r e n t ways, but a l l were nevertheless d i s t i n c t 81 i n t h e i r own ways. 5. P o l i c i e s The three f a c t i o n s and the Tribune group expounded p o l i c i e s which they perce ived as d i f f e r e n t from p o l i c i e s put forward by a s e c t i o n of the res t of the PLP. The Keep L e f t MPs d i f f e r e d from the PLP leadership i n want-i n g a p o l i c y of widespread n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n and i n wishing B r i t a i n to loosen her m i l i t a r y t i e s with the USA. 1 ^" The Bevanites p r e c i s e l y r e i t e r a t e d Keep L e f t ' s p o l i c i e s on n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . They also d i f f e r e d from the PLP leadership on the questions of the l i k e -l i h o o d of Soviet aggression, on German rearmament and that B r i t a i n should reduce her defence expenditure, and cease to f inance i t at the cost of the s o c i a l 15 s e r v i c e s . The Tribune MPs, l i k e the Bevanites , adamantly defended a f r e e N a t i o n a l Heal th Service and wanted an increase i n s o c i a l serv ice expenditure ; l i k e the Bevanites and the Keep L e f t MPs, the Tribune MPs wanted a curtai lment of defence expenditure. The Keep L e f t MPs, the Bevanites and the Tribune MPs a l l wanted an economy predominantly under p u b l i c ownership, and the Keep L e f t and Tribune MPs argued that an aspect of such an economy should be a n a t i o n a l l y planned wages p o l i c y . The Tribune MPs disagreed with the Labour government's proposals to i n s t i t u t e wage planning while the m a j o r i t y of the economy remained i n the hands of p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e . 1 ^ L i k e the Bevan-i t e s and the Keep L e f t MPs, the Tribune MPs emphasised that B r i t a i n should not c l o s e l y associate h e r s e l f with American f o r e i g n p o l i c y , p r e c i s e l y , Vietnam. While the Keep L e f t MPs had advocated that B r i t a i n work toward European u n i t y , the Tribune MPs were against B r i t a i n j o i n i n g the Common Market. The philosophy u n d e r l y i n g t h i s p o l i c y was based on the same r a t i o n a l e which l e d the Keep L e f t MPs and the Bevanites to advocate 82 widespread n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . A l l three f a c t i o n s wanted an economy under p u b l i c ownership. The Tribune MPs objected to the Common Market because the then members of the Common Market a l l had p r i v a t e enterpr ise econ-omies. The Tribune MPs, Bevanites , and Keep L e f t MPs shared a s i m i l a r p o l i t i c a l philosophy that was d i s t i n c t i v e l y l e f t - w i n g . The r e v i s i o n i s t s ' approach to p o l i c y formation was e s s e n t i a l l y r i g h t - w i n g f o r the Labour 17 P a r t y . The r e v i s i o n i s t s emphasised that o u t r i g h t n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n was only one type of p u b l i c ownership and argued f o r p a r t i a l p u b l i c ownership along with p r i v a t e enterpr ise - suggestions that were anathema to the l e f t - w i n g . In f o r e i g n p o l i c y the r e v i s i o n i s t s advocated the r e t e n t i o n of c lose l i n k s with the USA and the n e c e s s i t y of r e t a i n i n g e x i s t i n g m i l i t a r y a l l i a n c e s . Disarmament, they b e l i e v e d , should be m u l t i - l a t e r a l . The point of separat ion between Bevan and h i s f o l l o w e r s came over the quest ion of disarm-ament and m i l i t a r y a l l i a n c e s . Bevan opposed u n i l a t -e r a l disarmament, as d i d the r e v i s i o n i s t s , because i t would sever B r i t a i n ' s l i n k s with her a l l i e s . However, Bevan d i f f e r e d from the r e v i s i o n i s t s i n not f a v o u r i n g 18 strong m i l i t a r y l i n k s with the USA. 6. Durat ion T n e Tribune MPs and the MPs i n each of the other f a c t i o n s , began advocating p o l i c i e s that became associa ted with the f a c t i o n s before the f a c t i o n s were i d e n t i f i a b l e as such. The Keep L e f t MPs expressed t h e i r p o l i c i e s i n pamphlets and Tribune from 1946 to 1950 but operated as a f a c t i o n from 1947 to 1948. The Bevanites p u b l i s h e d t h e i r opinions from 1951 to 1956 but the peak of t h e i r f a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s was from 1951 to 1952; the f a c t i o n s t i l l ex is ted and was ac t ive but entered a d e c l i n e between 1952 and 1956. The 8 3 revisionists wrote i n Socialist Commentary from 1951 to 1961, but excited Party disunity from 1959 to 1961. T h e Tribune MPs argued their policies throughout the 1964 and 1966 Parliaments, but only operated as a faction during the 1966 Parliament, precisely from I966 to 1969. Taking the periods when the factions were most active i t i s possible to identify the following years as the ones of greatest factional activity i n the PLP between 1945 and 1970: 1947-48, 1951-56, 1959-61, 1966-69. The numbers of MPs identified as associated with the three factions and the Tribune MPs did not d i f f e r greatly; the leadership did dif f e r . The Bevanites and revisionists were led by MPs holding o f f i c i a l Party offices. The Keep Left MPs were led by a backbencher while the Tribune MPs were leaderless. Degrees of group organisation also differed. A l l three factions and the Tribune MPs were seen as distinct groups by other MPs. The period of time during which each group acted as a faction varied: Keep Left, one year; the Bevanites, five years; the revisionists, two years; the Tribune MPs, three years. A l l four groups expounded a range of policies which they pereeived as different from policies expressed by other sections of the PLP. The policies of three groups were strikingly similar, and left-wing. The fact that the Tribune MPs and two out of the three factions identified were left-wing leads to the concl-usion that the PLP i s more prone to left-wing faction-alism than right-wing factionalism. The emergence of the revisionist faction seems somewhat of an aberration. The fact that the revisionists made themselves id e n t i f -iable as a faction at a l l seems to emerge from G-aitskell's leadership. Had he not personally elabor-ated upon Clause IV and had he not declared he would 84 f i g h t the I960 Conference d e c i s i o n on u n i l a t e r a l i s m the r e v i s i o n i s t s might not have taken a c t i o n that l e d to t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a f a c t i o n , e . g . the establishment of CDS. Apart from the s i m i l a r i t y of p o l i c i e s e x h i b i t e d by the three l e f t - w i n g groups and the use of the same j o u r n a l , Tr ibune , there appears to be a strong consistency of membership running throughout a l l three groups. Foot and Mikardo were members of a l l three groups. The Keep L e f t f a c t i o n and the Bevanites shared the f o l l o w i n g members: C a s t l e , Crossman, Hale and Swingler . The Bevanites and the Tribune MPs shared the f o l l o w i n g members; A l l a u n and D r i b e r g . The elements of c o n t i n u i t y ; p o l i c i e s , personnel and paper, i n d i c a t e that there has been an unbroken tendency i n the Labour Par ty that p e r i o d i c a l l y organises i t s e l f i n t o a f a c t i o n . As noted above, always i n the minor-i t y , the three l e f t - w i n g groups evinced a s i m i l a r s t y l e of f a c t i o n a l i s m - p a r t i c u l a r l y the attempts to appeal to the r a n k - a n d - f i l e of the Labour P a r t y , through Tribune and i t s subsiduary p u b l i c a t i o n s ^ e . g . the S o c i a l i s t C h a r t e r . - and through t h e i r appeals to the r a n k - a n d - f i l e j u s t i f i e d t h e i r p o l i c y d i f f e r e n c e s from the l e a d e r s h i p ' s p o l i c i e s . As can be seen from the preceding chapters , the l e f t - w i n g cannot always be considered a f a c t i o n . A cursory glance i n d i c a t e s that the main stimulus f o r l e f t - w i n g f a c t i o n a l o r g a n i s a t i o n seems to be a p o l i c y d i s p u t e : the Keep L e f t MPs were s t imulated by disputes over f o r e i g n p o l i c y ; the Bevanites r a l l i e d around Bevan upon h i s r e s i g n a t i o n i n 1951 over the quest ion of defence expenditure and p r e s c r i p t i o n charges; the Tribune group appear to have been provoked by a s e r i e s of i s s u e s . Examination of the emergence of the Tribune MPs as a group i n d i c a t e s another f a c t o r that seems ins t rumental to the formation of a f a c t i o n . 85 The Tribune group themselves i n d i c a t e d that they were r e s t r i c t e d by the Labour P a r t y ' s small m a j o r i t y from a c t i v e , Par l iamentary , expression of t h e i r p o l i c i e s during the 1964 P a r l i a m e n t . 1 ^ when i n 1966 Labour increased i t s m a j o r i t y the Tribune MPs f e l t no compunc-t i o n i n r e f r a i n i n g from Parl iamentary support of t h e i r own government. S i m i l a r l y , i n 1950-51 when Labour had a small m a j o r i t y , the l e f t d i d not demonstrate, i n the House, t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n to the government's i m p o s i t i o n of p r e s c r i p t i o n charges. Bevan, Freeman and Wilson res igned but d i d not hamper the govern-20 ment i n g e t t i n g i t s b i l l through, they voted f o r i t . To have demonstrated o p p o s i t i o n to the government's measures by means of votes against or abstent ions , would have brought down the government. The emergence of a l e f t - w i n g f a c t i o n appears to be contingent upon two f a c t o r s - the promotion by the PLP leadership of a p o l i c y to which the l e f t are so opposed that they organise to demonstrate t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n and Labour ' s p o s i t i o n i n Par l iament . The two f a c t o r s are in ter -dependent . I f the Par ty i s i n power with a m a j o r i t y , or i n o p p o s i t i o n , and i f the l e a d e r s h i p promotes a p o l i c y to which the l e f t s t r o n g l y o b j e c t , then the l e f t appears to organise i n t o a f a c t i o n . When the PLP governs with a small m a j o r i t y , the l e f t i s quiescent, supporting the l e a d e r s h i p , and w a i t i n g f o r Labour to be returned to power with a l a r g e m a j o r i t y , or f o r Labour to l o s e an e l e c t i o n , i n order to indulge i n the f r e e expression of i t s own p a r t i c u l a r philosophy and that p h i l o s o p h y ' s r e s u l t a n t p o l i c i e s . This paper has not attempted to e x p l a i n the emergence of f a c t i o n s , although i t has been i n d i c a t e d that p o l i c y disputes and the P a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n i n or out of govern-ment may be i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r s i n s t i m u l a t i n g f a c t i o n -a l i s m . The a v a i l a b i l i t y of MPs prepared to l e a d , or 86 capable of l e a d i n g , a f a c t i o n may also be another f a c t o r . I t has been suggested that a long p e r i o d i n 21 o p p o s i t i o n may encourage open dispute w i t h i n the PLP. T h i s seems to have been borne out by the f i n d i n g s . When Labour was i n o p p o s i t i o n from 1951 to 1964 two f a c t i o n s were i d e n t i f i a b l e . The existence of f a c t i o n s w i t h i n the PLP may haver i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the P a r t y ' s approach to p o l i c y formation when Labour governs.. Fur ther research could be d i r e c t e d towards an assess-ment of the i n f l u e n c e of f a c t i o n s upon p o l i c y format ion . To what extent i s a Labour Cabinet compelled to comp-romise with backbench f a c t i o n s ? Do i n d i v i d u a l Cabinet members i n agreement with a f a c t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s , d i s c r e t -e l y encourage f a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y ? An a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Par ty leader and a f a c t i o n might a s s i s t i n e x p l a i n i n g the emergence of f a c t i o n s . To what extent, and i n what ways, does a Labour l e a d e r s t imulate or preclude the emergence of a f a c t i o n ? What a c t i o n can a leader take to f o r e s t a l l i n t r a - P a r t y d i s r u p t i o n or to c u r t a i l the l i f e of & f a c t i o n ? Does a Par ty leader ^necessarily regard f a c t i o n a l i s m as detr imental to the Party? The i n s t i n c t i v e assumption i s that f a c t i o n a l i s m i s dys-f u n c t i o n a l to p a r t i e s , i n s o f a r as i t d i s r u p t s p a r t y u n i t y , absorbing the energies of MPs i n pe t ty back-b i t i n g . I t may be though that the Labour Par ty i t s e l f has grown accustomed to the existence of f a c t i o n s and b e n e f i t s from the debates s t imulated through f a c t i o n a l i s m . But how i s PLP f a c t i o n a l i s m viewed from outside the Party? How does the e lec tora te regard a f a c t i o n - r i d d e n party? Do PLP disputes endow the Labour Par ty with an a i r of l i v e l y debate, or does the e l e c t o r a t e consider that a party i n t e r n a l l y d i v i d e d should not form a government? Is the e lec tora te i n f a c t aware of f a c t i o n s w i t h i n the PLP? These important questions remain to be explored. 87 Footnotes to Chapter Six 1. See p . 16 2,. I b i d . 3. See pp. 27-8 4. See p . 35 5. See p . 49 6. New Statesman, November 12, 1965, p. 722 7. See p . 16 8. See p . 66 9. See p . 33 10. See p . 16 11. See p . 34 12. See p . 51 13. See p . 68 14. See pp. 19-20 15. See p . 36 16. See p . 69 17. Ralph M i l i b a n d , Parl iamentary S o c i a l i s m (London: George A l l e n and Unwin L t d . , 1961), p . 344 18. See pp. 35, 52 19. See pp. 57-8 20. Hansard, V o l . 487, c o l . 338 21. J . Richard P i p e r , "Backbench R e b e l l i o n , P a r t y Govern-ment and Consensus P o l i t i c s " , Parl iamentary A f f a i r s , (Autumn 1974), p . 389 88 B i b l i o g r a p h y  Works C i t e d A Primary Sources 1. Newspapers and Journals New Statesman, 1945-1970 Times, 1945-1970 T r i b u n e , 1945-1957; 1966-1969 2. Labour Par ty P u b l i c a t i o n s Labour Party Annual Conference Reports, 1945-1969 3. Reference Works B u t l e r , David E . and Freeman, Jennie , B r i t i s h P o l i t i c a l Fac ts , London: Frank Cass, 1968 Gould, J u l i u s , A D i c t i o n a r y of the S o c i a l Sciences . New York: The Free P r e s s , 1965 Hansard Keesings Contemporary Archives B Secondary Sources 1. Autobiographies and Biographies Brown, George, In My Way. London: V i c t o r G o l l a n c z , 1971 D a l t o n , Hugh, High Tide and A f t e r : Memoirs 1945-1960 London: F r e d e r i c k M u l l e r L t d . , 1962 Foot , M i c h a e l , Aneurin Bevan: Volume II 1945-1960. London: Davis -Poynter , 1973 Foot , P a u l . The P o l i t i c s of Harold Wilson. London: Penguin S p e c i a l , 1968 M o r r i s o n , Herber t . An Autobiography. London: Odhams Press L t d . , I960 Smith, L e s l i e . Harold Wilson: The Authentic P o r t r a i t . London: Charles S c r i b n e r s ' Sons, 1965 89 W i l l i a m s , F r a n c i s . A Prime M i n i s t e r Remembers. London: Heinemann, 1961 Wilson, H a r o l d . The Labour Government: 1964-1970: A Personal Record^ London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson and Michael Joseph, 1971 2. Books A l l e n , V i c t o r L . Trade Union Leadership . London: Longmans, 1957 Brand, C a r l F . The B r i t i s h Labour P a r t y . S tanford , C a l i f o r n i a : Hoover I n s t i t u t i o n P r e s s , 1974 B u t l e r , David E . The B r i t i s h General E l e c t i o n , 1955. London: Macmil lan, 1955 ~ B u t l e r David E . and K i n g , Anthony. The B r i t i s h General E l e c t i o n , 1964. London: Macmil lan , 1965 B u t l e r David E . and K i n g , Anthony. The B r i t i s h General E l e c t i o n , 1966. London: Macmil lan, 1966 C r o s l a n d , G . A . R . The Future of S o c i a l i s m . London: Jonathan Cap*, 1963 F i n e r , S . E . , B e r r i n g t o n , H . B . and Bartholomew, D . J . Backbench Opinion fen the House of Commons  3-955-1959» London: Pergamon P r e s s , 1961 Haseler , Stephen. The G a i t s k e l l i t e s . London: Macmil lan , Howard, Anthony and West, R i c h a r d . The Road to Number Ten. London: Macmil lan, 1965 J e n k i n s , P e t e r . The B a t t l e of Downing S t r e e t . London: Charles Knight and Co. L t d . , 1970 Kaplan, Morton A . , (ed . ) The Revolut ion i n World P o l i t i c s New York: John Wiley and Sons I n c . , 1962 Kaufman, Gerald (ed . ) The L e f t . London: Anthony Blond, I9T6" McKenzie, Robert, T. B r i t i s h P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s . London: Heinemann, 1963 M i l i b a n d , Ralph. Parl iamentary S o c i a l i s m . London: George A l l e n and Unwin, 1961 P e l l i n g , Henry. A Short H i s t o r y of the Labour P a r t y . London: Macmil lan , 1972 ~~~ 90 Rose, Richard ( e d . ) Studies i n B r i t i s h P o l i t i c s . London: Macmil lan , 1969 S h i n w e l l , Emanuel. The Labour S tory . London: Macdonald and C o . , 1963 Stewart, Margaret . Protes t of Power? A Study of the Labour P a r t y . London: George A l l e n and Unwin, 1974 Windlesham, L o r d . Communication and P o l i t i c a l Power. London: Jonathan Cape, 1966 3. A r t i c l e s Abrams, Mark. " P u b l i c Opinion P o l l s and P o l i t i c a l B a r t i e s " , P u b l i c Opinion Quar ter ly , ( S p r i n g , 1963). Burns, James, M. "The Parl iamentary Labour Par ty i n Great B r i t a i n " , American P o l i t i c a l  Science Review, 44" (1950) L e i s e r s o n , M i c h a e l . "Pactions and C o a l i t i o n s i n One Party Japan", American P o l i t i c a l  Science Review^ (September 1960") P i p e r , 4 . R i c h a r d . "Backbench R e b e l l i o n , Par ty Govern-ment and Consensus P o l i t i e s " , P a r l - iamentary A f f a i r s , (Autumn, 1974) Rose, R i c h a r d . " P a r t i e s , Fac t ions and Tendencies i n B r i t i a n " , P o l i t i c a l S tudies , X I I , No. 1 (February 1964) Rose, Richard and Unwin, Derek. " S o c i a l Cohesion, P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s and S t r a i n s i n Regimes", Comparative  P o l i t i c a l S tudies , 2 (1969) Seyd, P a t r i c k . " F a c t i o n a l i s m w i t h i n the Conservative P a r t y " , Government and O p p o s i t i o n , V o l . 7, No. 4 (Autumn 1972) : Works Not C i t e d 1. A r t i c l e s E p s t e i n , Leon D. "Cohesion of B r i t i s h Parl iamentary P a r t i e s " , American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, V o l . L , (June 1956) P a n i t c h , Leo V. "Ideology and I n t e g r a t i o n : The Case of the B r i t i s h Labour P a r t y " , P o l i t i c a l  S tudies , V o l . XIX, No. 2, (June 1971) Rose, R i c h a r d . "The Bow Group's Role i n B r i t i s h P o l i t i c s " , Western P o l i t i c a l Quart - e r l y , 14, (196T) , 2. Books J a n o s i k , Edward, G. Consti tuency Labour_Part ies i n B r i t a i n . London: P a l l M a l l , 1968 Shrimsley, Anthony. The F i r s t Hundred Days of Harold Wilson . London: Weidenfeld and N i c h o l s o n , 1965 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100080/manifest

Comment

Related Items