Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T09:41:45.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The British Constitution and the Structure of the Labour Party

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Gerhard Loewenberg
Gerhard Loewenberg
Affiliation:
Mount Holyoke College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The British Labour Party defies the classifications which students of the structure of political parties have developed. By its historical origin and its formal organization it would seem to be a mass party in the sense that Duverger and others have used that term. But it has also exhibited, notably since 1945, the characteristics of a traditional parliamentary party, denying its mass membership power and influence and allowing its parliamentary leaders the exercise of full authority. Yet in the nineteen-thirties there was evidence that the Labour Party was developing all the characteristics of a mass party, doctrinaire in its program, unreconciled to parliamentary institutions, and anxious to subordinate its parliamentary leadership to the extra-parliamentary organization. It is the defeat of this tendency and the assertion of parliamentarism in the period since World War II which makes this a decisive epoch in the development of the Labour Party, the study of which offers an explanation of the paradox of the party's structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1958 , pp. 771 - 790
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See for example, Bassett, R., The Essentials of Parliamentary Democracy (London, 1937), pp. 163–166Google Scholar; Barker, Ernest, Reflections on Government (Oxford, 1942), p. 83Google Scholar.

2 The event is recounted in McCallum, R. B. and Readman, Alison, The British General Election of 1945 (London, 1947), pp. 144–150, 173–175Google Scholar. Laski's role is sympathetically described in Martin, Kingsley, Harold Laski (New York, 1953), pp. 160–163Google Scholar.

3 McKenzie, R. T., British Political Parties (London, 1955), p. 317Google Scholar.

4 Report of the Annual Conference of the Labour Party, 1933, pp. 8–10Google Scholar; ibid., 1932, pp. 208–209. Hereafter referred to in the footnotes as Report.

5 Attlee, C. R., The Labour Party in Perspective—And Twelve Years Later (London, 1949), p. 78Google Scholar. This is a re-issue, with a new introduction, of a book first published in 1937.

6 Attlee, C. R., As It Happened (London, 1954), p. 156Google Scholar.

7 SirJennings, W. Ivor, Cabinet Government (Cambridge, 1951), p. 50Google Scholar.

8 Tribune (London), March 24, 1950, p. 3Google Scholar.

9 As It Happened, p. 196.

10 Quoted in Jennings, op. cit., p. 456.

11 Churchill, W. S., The Second World War, Vol. VI (New York, 1954), p. 675Google Scholar.

12 Jennings, op. cit., p. 37.

13 R. T. McKenzie, op. cit., pp. 331–332. According to the biographer of Ernest Bevin, Laski suggested to Attlee “that if he were sent for by the King he ought to state that he was not in a position to do anything until the new Parliamentary Party had had a meeting to decide whom it wanted for its leader. To this remarkable suggestion Attlee, I am told, replied briefly and characteristically: ‘Dear Laski, Thank you for your letter, contents of which have been noted’.” Williams, Francis, Ernest Bevin, Portrait of a Great Englishman, (London, 1952), p. 239Google Scholar.

14 The Times (London), January 22, 1957, p. 8Google Scholar.

15 As It Happened, p. 153.

16 Williams, op. cit., p. 237.

17 New Statesman and Nation, Vol. 43 (February 16, 1952), p. 173Google Scholar; New York Herald Tribune, February 9, 1952, p. 2Google Scholar.

18 Greenwood, Stokes and Summerskill were the only members of the Parliamentary Committee originally constituted in 1951, when the party first went into Opposition, to be subsequently defeated in bids for re-election to it—Greenwood and Stokes the following year, Stokes again in 1956 after returning to the Committee in 1955, and Summerskill in 1957. Bevan resigned from the Committee in 1954 but returned the following year. In 1955 occurred the collective departure from the Committee of Attlee, Morrison, Dalton, Shinwell, Ede, Hall and Whiteley, who were replaced by Greenwood and Stokes and five newcomers. Of the latter, one, Younger, was defeated in his bid for reelection in 1957, and one, Mitchison, was the only man serving on the Committee during this time who had not held a position in the Labour Government.

19 The list of appointments is given in The Times (London), July 15, 1955, p. 8Google Scholar; Cf. Jennings, , Parliament, 2d ed., (Cambridge, 1957), p. 538Google Scholar.

20 McKenzie, op. cit., p. 323.

21 The Economist, Vol. 183 (June 22, 1957), p. 1050Google Scholar; The Times (London), June 15, 1957, p. 4Google Scholar.

22 Morrison, Herbert, Government and Parliament (London, 1954), pp. 5, 36, 38Google Scholar.

23 Gordon-Walker, Patrick, “On Being a Cabinet Minister,” Encounter, Vol. 6 (April, 1956), pp. 17–24Google Scholar.

24 Cabinet Government, pp. 187 and 183 respectively. See also Carter, B. E., The Office of Prime Minister (London, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Ch. 6.

25 Op. cit., p. 595.

26 Cabinet Government, p. 389.

As It Happened, pp. 193, 207. See also Nicholas, H. G., The British General Election of 1950 (London, 1951), pp. 75–77Google Scholar;

27 Butler, D. E., The British General Election of 1951 (London, 1952), p. 84Google Scholar; McKenzie, op. cit., p. 323.

28 As It Happened, p. 156.

29 The Labour Party in Perspective, p. 87.

30 Report, 1946, p. 56Google Scholar.

31 Op. cit., p. 126.

32 Ibid., pp. 136, 123 respectively.

33 Cocks, Seymour, Tribune (London), June 13, 1947, p. 12Google Scholar, quoted by Burns, James MacGregor, “The Parliamentary Labour Party in Great Britain,” this Review, Vol. 44 (December, 1950), p. 866Google Scholar.

34 Ibid., pp. 863–866.

35 Report, 1951, p. 5Google Scholar.

36 The Times (London), March 12, 1952, p. 6Google Scholar.

37 The Economist, Vol. 170 (February 27, 1954), p. 595Google Scholar; The Times (London), February 24, 1954, p. 8Google Scholar.

38 Report, 1954, pp. 92–1081Google Scholar.

39 See Epstein, L. P., “Cohesion of British Parliamentary Parties,” this Review, Vol. 50 (June, 1956), pp. 369–375Google Scholar. No attempt was made to expel the dissidents from the party. Withdrawal of the Whip, while it lasted, only meant that they were excluded from the meetings of the Parliamentary Party, and as a symbol of their ostracism, that they were denied “The Whip,” the weekly document informing party members of the business to come before the House and indicating the times when the party requires their presence.

40 Report, 1907, p. 48Google Scholar, quoted in McKenzie, op. cit., p. 393.

41 The Labour Party in Perspective, p. 78.

42 Handbook: Facts and Figures for Socialists (London, 1951), pp. 301–302Google Scholar.

43 Kingsley Martin, op. cit., pp. 180, 203.

44 Report, 1951, p. 5Google Scholar.

45 Report, 1954, p. 5Google Scholar.

46 The Economist, Vol. 172 (September 4, 1954), pp. 713–714Google Scholar. Goldstein, Joseph, The Government of British Trade Unions (London, 1952)Google Scholar, Ch. 9.

47 See McKelvey, J. T., “Trade Union Wage Policy in Postwar Britain,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 6 (October, 1952), pp. 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Roberts, B. C., “Trade Unions and Party Politics,” Cambridge Journal, Vol. 6 (April, 1953), p. 395Google Scholar.

49 Report, 1953, pp. 165–166Google Scholar; 194–195.

50 The Constitution and Standing Orders of the Labour Party, Clause V, Section 2; for the composition of these committees, see Reports: 1949, p. 27Google Scholar; 1950, p. 29; 1951, p. 28; 1955, p. 29.

51 The Times (London), February 28, 1949, p. 4Google Scholar.

52 European Unity, a Statement by the National Executive Committee of the British Labour Party (May, 1950). For Attlee's statement, see 476 H.C. Deb. 38 (June 13, 1950); cf. The Times (London), June 14, 1950, p. 6Google Scholar, and June 22, 1950, p. 6.

53 Quoted in Kingsley Martin, op. cit., pp. 172–173.

54 Rose, Saul, “Policy Decision in Opposition,” Political Studies, Vol. 4 (June, 1956), pp. 128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the “Rejoinder” by R. T. McKenzie, ibid., Vol. 5 (June, 1957), pp. 176–182.

55 Bulmer-Thomas, Ivor, The Party System in Great Britain (London, 1953), p. 194Google Scholar; Laski, Harold, Reflections on the Constitution (Manchester, 1951), p. 78Google Scholar.

56 Morrison, Herbert, The Peaceful Revolution (London, 1949), p. 60Google Scholar.

57 July 2, 1945, p. 5.

58 Report, 1952, p. 91Google Scholar.

59 Report, 1948, pp. 111–112Google Scholar.

60 Report, 1953, p. 85Google Scholar; ibid., Standing Order 2, para. 3 and 4, p. 221.

61 The Economist, Vol. 174 (March 12, 1955), p. 883Google Scholar; Hennessy, Bernard, “Trade Unions and the British Labour Party,” this Review, Vol. 49 (December, 1955), pp. 1055–1056Google Scholar. Cf. Reports: 1954, p. 234 ffGoogle Scholar. and 1955, p. 277 ff.

62 Report, 1947, p. 198Google Scholar.

63 Ibid., 1946, pp. 128–30, 182–84, 191–95; 1947, pp. 125–27, 157–59; 1948, pp. 150–52, 212–214; 1950, pp. 154–57; 1952, pp. 154–58, 178–79.

64 Op. cit., p. 484.

65 Interim Report of the Sub-Committee on Party Organisation, in Report, 1955, pp. 63–92Google Scholar, at p. 64. For commentary on the Interim Report, see Hanham, H. J., “The Local Organization of the British Labour Party,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 9, (June, 1956), pp. 376–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McKenzie, R. T., “The Wilson Report and the Future of the Labour Party Organisation,” Political Studies, Vol. 4 (February, 1956), pp. 93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an interesting case study of the problems of a local organization, see Blondel, Jean, “The Conservative Association and the Labour Party in Reading,” Political Studies, Vol. VI (June, 1958), pp. 110–118Google Scholar.

66 Report, 1956, pp. 9–10, 171Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.