The current mental state of the Labour Party is like a nagging headache that’s impervious to repeated doses of paracetamol. Michele Hanson bottles the zeitgeist wittily in her column for today’s Guardian, while Helen Lewis offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of attitudes on both sides of the divide in the New Statesman.

I had intended to avoid burdening this blog with more wasted words about it all, but then, while reading Family Britain, the second volume of David Kynaston’s brilliant social history of post-war Britain, I came across the following passage. It’s October 1952 and in a windswept Morecambe, a stormy Labour party conference is taking place a year after the Tories had swept the 1945-51 Labour government from power.

The party leadership, headed by former PM Clem Attlee, is facing challenges from the Bevanites – followers of the fiery Aneurin Bevan who had steered the NHS into existence a few years earlier. Kynaston takes up the story:

The defining event of an uninhibitedly fractious, ill-tempered conference – ‘Shut your gob,’ shouted the right-wing miners’ leader Will Lawther at one heckler, while at least two bouts of fisticuffs were reported, one of them involving the heavyweight Bessie Braddock – was the election for constituency representatives on the National Executive Committee (NEC).

Six out of the seven places went to avowed Bevanites at the expense of senior figures. The union block vote remained firmly attached to the right of the party, but, writes Kynaston, ‘this was still a stunning coup on the part of the Bevanites, increasingly a party within the party.’

Bevanites: Harold Wilson, Aneurin Bevan, Ian Mikardo, Tom Driberg and Barbara Castle in 1951
Bevanites: Harold Wilson, Aneurin Bevan, Ian Mikardo, Tom Driberg and Barbara Castle in 1951

After the conference, Hugh Gaitskell, emerging as leader of the right in the party, intensified the mood of internecine strife by making a highly provocative speech.

He accused a significant minority of the (increasingly middle-class) constituency delegates of being ‘Communists or Communist controlled’; made a derogatory reference to ‘mob rule by a group of frustrated journalists’ (with the left-wing.
Bevan-supporting Tribune explicitly mentioned); and called for a restoration of ‘the authority and leadership of the solid and sensible majority of the Movement’.

Vicky, cartoon showing Harold Wilson, Aneurin Bevan, Michael Foot, Ian Mikardo
A 1952 cartoon by Vicky: Bevanites Harold Wilson, Aneurin Bevan, Michael Foot and Ian Mikardo are the unruly lefties attacking Bessie Braddock, Attlee and Gaitskell

Attlee was determined to stay as leader for as long as it took to ensure that neither Bevan nor a figure from the right of the party succeeded him; at a subsequent meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, he successfully moved a resolution not only banning all unofficial groups within the party but also forbidding all personal
attacks. But, notes Kynaston, the pro-Bevan New Statesman was certain that Bevanism would not die, given that it was ‘the expression of a deep fissure between the official Party machine and the mass of everyday Socialists’. Kynaston goes on to quote a ‘disenchanted party worker’, puzzled that Labour had ‘so entirely failed to be a vigorous, coherent opposition to the Tories’.

‘Why have the Bevanites been allowed to hold the field?’ he asked. ‘It can be argued that a government which came so close to winning a third term cannot have been so far wrong. [The Tories won the 1951 election by a slim margin of seats, with Labour actually polling more votes.]  The middle of the road voters apparently approved of the moderate programme of 1951, without any specific proposals for further nationalisation. Why then adopt more radical policies? All the more reason for avoiding extremism when its chief advocate is Mr Bevan, who is thought of as being violently disliked by the body of voters as he is violently admired by his followers.’

Bevanites… Cobynistas: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Jeremy Corbyn greets supporters in Liverpool, August 2016
Jeremy Corbyn greets supporters in Liverpool, August 2016

See also

2 thoughts on “Plus ça change: Labour was a house divided in 1952

  1. Good find! Of course, in 1952, Labour had a further 12 years and two election defeats to go before it came to power again. And critically, it had a strong, Right-dominated TU movement to pull it back to electability, something absent these days. Worth noting too that these leftist revolts occur every 30 years or so – 1952; 1981; 2015 – a feature noted in stock market bubbles too. Why? Because a new irresistible generation arises which has no memory or experience of past crises; hence, learns nothing from them; hence, repeats the errors

  2. Interesting and thought provoking….thank you. I’ll be reading more on this this afternoon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.