# British Labor Bids for Power/Chapter 16

16. Organizing for the Struggle
Several questions of Trade Union organization came before the Congress. One involved the proposition of separate offices for the Trades Union Congress and the Labor Party; a second dealt with the enlargement of the powers of the Trades Union Congress General Council; another related to trade union amalgamation and the One Big Union; a fourth concerned the issue of International Trade Union Unity.
Administrative separation of the Congress and the Labor Party precipitated the first real discussion of the Congress. The offices of the two organizations are in adjoining buildings; in the main the same delegates attend both the Congress and the Labor Party Conference; largely the same men aid in the executive direction of both bodies; joint bureaus are maintained. Still, issues arise.
For several weeks before the Congress sessions, the British capitalist press had been busy with a campaign to split the ranks of labor by lining up unions and industrial action on one side, the Labor Party and political action on the other. This "splitting tactic" is an old game in Britain, and the workers know how to meet it. They have no intention of dividing their forces and they are far too keen and too experienced to fall into the trap.
Fred Bramley, Secretary of the General Council, made this point clear. He said, in proposing the resolution, that there had been no split; had been no discussion of a split; had been no sign of a split. At the same time he pointed out the need for separate administrative machinery to meet the varied needs on the political and the industrial fields. J. H. Thomas of the Railwaymen and J. R. Clynes of the General Workers, both leaders of the political wing of the British Labor Movement, spoke against the “preposterous impression that there is some deep-seated split" in the ranks of labor. At the same time they defended the proposition involving "administrative realignments." When they had finished speaking the issue had been ironed out into a mere matter of detail.
In his broad Yorkshire brogue, Herbert Smith, President of the Miners' Federation, broke in on the parliamentary phrases of Clynes and Thomas with a sharp thrust at the manœuvres of the Labor Party. "Each side," he said, "must have its own director for its own business. They can have joint action when required. One of the worst features of the present situation is that the ​political party bounces in and tries to do something that undoes nine-tenths of what the industrial side has done. [This sally was met with cheers.] If it is an industrial question, it must be dealt with by the Industrial Council, and any help that the political party can give must be given through that Council. Both sides have their work to do. The industrial man must devote his whole time to his job, and the political man should do the same."
Evidently, then, there were real differences between the two groups. The recent Labor Government was sharply criticised in the debate. Nevertheless, the discussion resulted in a compromise.
One matter, however, was made perfectly clear. From Harry Pollitt of the Boilermakers on the extreme Left, to Thomas and Clynes on the extreme Right, the spokesmen for British Labor told the "capitalist press" in so many words, and to its teeth, that there would be no split. As there were perhaps a hundred press men in the hall the labor men had a good inning.