The Labour Party and Clause Four 1918-1995 | History Today The Labour Party and Clause Four 1918-1995 20th Century Britain Political Martin Daunton argues that Labour's commitment to public ownership owed little to socialism and more to circumstances at the end of the First World War. In 1918, Clause IV of the Labour party's new constitution pledged its members, somewhat vaguely, 'to secure to the workers by hand and brain the full fruits of their labour through the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and. exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service'. By 1995, Clause IV was a policy which dare not speak its name, an electoral liability which embarrassed the modernisers in the Labour party and threatened the adherence of middle-class voters who had succumbed to the lures of shares in privatised utilities and the attractions of the world had been in 1945, when the first majority Labour government came to power on a manifesto pledged to nationalisation.

By the time Attlee left office in 1951, industries employing 10 per cent of the workforce and controlling 20 per cent of all capital expenditure had been nationalised. Not surprisingly, Joseph Schumpeter, one of the leading economists of' the day, predicted an unstoppable 'march into socialism' as workers by hand and brain advanced to secure the full fruits of their labour. Want the full article and website archive access? Already a member? Log in now Socialism Today - The Labour Party and the abolition of Clause Four Search The Labour Party and the abolition of Clause Four Fifteen years ago this April a special conference of the Labour Party voted to abolish the old Clause Four of Labour�s constitution, adopted in 1918, committing to "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange". An article by PETER TAAFFE in issue No.61, Summer 1995 of Militant International Review, the forerunner of Socialism Today, analysed the significance of this move in the process of transforming the character of the Labour Party as the mass vehicle of political representation of the British working class. The version below has been slightly shortened for reasons of space.

IN ADVANCE OF the conference some commentators were clear about what was happening: "What we shall see this afternoon is the collapse of Labour as the party of organised labour" (Martin Kettle, The Guardian, 29 April 1995). Not just at the conference itself, with the crushing majorities for the right wing, but in the days that followed, the Labour leadership did everything to prove Martin Kettle right. Blair indicated that the union vote at party conferences would probably be reduced to 50% before the general election. In fact this has already been agreed in principle. Privately Blair and his entourage of �gilded youth� have flagged their intention of eliminating completely organised trade union influence in the party. Alongside of this is the open embrace of the �market�, of capitalism. This was brazenly expressed by shadow chancellor Gordon Brown in the Evening Standard on the eve of the special conference. In language worthy of any Tory leader, Brown wrote: "The Labour Party is now the party of modern business and industry in Britain... For the first time... the Labour Party has set down its commitment to a market economy, to living with the rigors of competition, and to nurture enterprise...

now with our clear statement of aims, no-one can ever again question our commitment to a healthy and successful private sector, or to competition and enterprise". Brown went further after the abandonment of Clause Four: "A Labour government will be very tough on public spending... takeovers can be very healthy for the economy, they can be a spur to inefficient management". It�s no wonder then that the Financial Times jeeringly comments about "Labour�s love of the market... Even a year ago, it would have been unthinkable for Gordon Brown, the shadow chancellor, to give the speech he delivered yesterday". This has to be taken together with Blair�s opposition to such a basic question as the re-nationalisation of utilities. On this issue the Labour leadership are more conservative than some on the right in France. One of Chirac�s leading advisors, prior to the presidential elections, supported in an interview in the Financial Times the re-nationalisation of water. The timorous Labour leadership are not even prepared to promise re-nationalisation of the railways, if the government should proceed with privatisation.

Notwithstanding this, Labour�s membership, according to Blair, has increased by 100,000 over the last twelve months, standing now at something like 320,000. Half of the present membership, according to Gordon Brown in the Evening Standard, has joined since 1992. This actually shows the rapid turnover in Labour Party membership, with workers leaving in disgust at the policies of the right and being replaced by a largely petit-bourgeois �Blair levy�. These new members, overwhelmingly middle class in origin, manipulated by loaded postal ballots, have been the raw mass used to still the voice of the few socialist workers left in the Labour Party. A guarantee of future corruption scandals LABOUR ENJOYS A 50% to 30% lead over the Tories amongst the so-called A-B groups. This general support is paralleled by a layer of petit-bourgeois joining the party. A high proportion of careerists will have been drawn in, attracted by the lure of office, which would follow on the heels of a Labour victory. Similar developments have taken place in Labour and Socialist parties in Europe.

In Spain, for instance, the �membership� of PSOE includes 40,000 state office holders, who have benefited from an extended period of PSOE government. With this has come inevitable corruption which has plagued not just PSOE, but the French, Belgian, Italian and other Socialist Parties. The party leaders, and a big part of the ranks also, once having abandoned the great historical aim of socialism, have adapted themselves completely to capitalism. It was therefore only a matter of time before the leadership of these organisations drew the conclusion that they also, alongside the bourgeois politicians, should poke their snouts into the state feeding trough. If you accept capitalism, why not accept the moral code of that system, or the lack of it, and look after �number one�? The tendency towards careerism, inherent in all reformist organisations, was given a finished expression in the past in the phrase of a former left Labour MP: "I believe in the emancipation of the working class one by one, beginning with myself". If now the �emancipation of the working class� is abandoned, the shackles will come off and then it is a scramble for each individual minister and party member to look after themselves first.

The present evolution of the Labour right in Britain is a guarantee of corruption on the scale of Spain or France in the event of them coming to power. Such a tendency will be reinforced by the determination of the leadership to free themselves even more from the irksome control of a conscious and organised rank and file in the trade unions. It is true, as Lenin argued, that the Labour Party through its pro-capitalist leadership has always been a �bourgeois� party. This has been pointed to in the past by every stripe of ultra-left sectarian in Britain as evidence that the Labour Party was a �write-off�. However Lenin also emphasised that this was just one side of the Labour Party; through its trade union base in particular, it was also a working class party. From this source would come a limitless supply of workers who would move in and transform the party. Militant [the forerunner of the Socialist Party] in the past based itself on this perspective. Up to a point the British Labour Party was �unique� in its origins and in its relationship to the trade unions. The French and German parties had different origins without the same organic link between the unions and the mass party.

The British Labour Party from its inception was to all intents and purposes a �trade union� party. This proved to be a powerful impediment to the capitalists exercising decisive influence over the direction of the party. In office it was subject to the pressure of the unions and therefore could potentially endanger the interests of capitalism. It is for this reason that from its inception the bourgeoisie have attempted to break the link with the unions as well as remorselessly attacking Clause Four. In 1931 the Labour government was broken because the trade unions refused to accept the draconian retrenchment policy of MacDonald. The bourgeoisie therefore opted to split the Labour Party with the formation of MacDonald�s �National Government�. In 1969 the Wilson government�s attempt to introduce anti-trade union legislation, In Place of Strife, was defeated by colossal trade union pressure exerted on the Labour cabinet. Both the capitalists and their right-wing echoes in the labour movement learn from history, as do Marxists. What if a left Labour government, led by the likes of Tony Benn, had come to power in Britain?

Then the pressure of the working class through the unions could have pushed that government in the direction of challenging capitalism, as with Allende in Chile from 1970-73. It is for this reason that the ruling class have ceaselessly campaigned to break the Labour Party officially from the long-term aim of �socialism� and to destroy the trade union link with Labour. They wish to establish a version of the US Democratic Party in Britain. Now they have succeeded in removing Clause Four. A product of the 1990s ideological retreat THE DEFEAT OF Clause Four is a setback for the general struggle for socialism. Developments in Britain and internationally, as well as the internal decomposition of the Labour Party, have allowed the Labour right to succeed. The collapse of Stalinism and the ideological campaign against socialism which followed from this, the world economic upswing of the 1980s, the purging of Militant and others on the left from the Labour Party, have all contributed to the right�s victory.

Jack Straw, writing in The Independent, gives a glimpse of some of the reasons why Gaitskell�s attempt to eliminate Clause Four failed in 1959: "Partly he failed because many party members were still mesmerised by the alleged economic success of the Soviet Union. Speaking against Gaitskell�s project, Aneurin Bevan said, �I am a socialist. I believe in public ownership. The challenge is going to come from Russia, not from the United States, West Germany, (or) France�." The collapse of the planned economies, due to the crimes of the Stalinist elite, was utilised by the capitalist class to conduct its ideological offensive against socialism. This in turn has allowed the right to conduct its offensive against Clause Four and the trade union link. Blair is quite conscious of the fact that his government will face opposition from the unions. This is why he must proceed quickly to further weaken their voice within the Labour Party, at the national conference and through changes in the composition of the National Executive Committee, by stuffing it with right-wing local government representatives. Will the union leaders accept further attacks on their influence? Will they swallow a fundamental alteration in the structures of the Labour Party?

Some of the union leaders complained in the aftermath of April 29 about the �Blair juggernaut� which rolled over them and the left at the special conference. However, it is likely that, while still complaining loudly about the methods of the right, they will accede to the right�s proposals. Is it possible, in the light of these developments, that the Labour Party could end up in the same position as PSOE in Spain? Here is a party that was reborn in the 1970s as a �Marxist� party. However, the Gonzales leadership has gone so far to the right that the socialist trade union federation, the UGT, some time ago detached itself and even refused to advocate a vote for PSOE in recent elections. PSOE still retains a residual electoral support particularly among older workers, although even that must have been severely shaken by the revelations of Gonzales�s involvement with the state death squads against the Basque ETA terrorist organization. Similar trends showing the increasing �bourgeoisification� of the social democracy, and the consequent desertion of significant layers of workers and youth, are evident elsewhere. It can be objected that Britain is �different�.

Of course there are differences, in origins, traditions and in the rhythm of the movement, between the workers� movement in different countries in Europe. But to emphasise at this stage the �uniqueness� of the British Labour Party, given the developments of the past period, is an expression of �British exceptionalism�. This philosophy, much in vogue amongst bourgeois strategists in the past, could have a certain credibility at a time when British capitalism was a pre-eminent world economic power. But the shattering of British capitalism�s previously privileged position means that Britain now displays all the same tensions, only in a more aggravated form, as the other countries of Western Europe. So also the labour movement in Britain is affected by the same trends evident throughout the workers� movement of Europe. The 1980s saw a certain layering of the proletariat as well as a marked shift towards the right of the leadership of the main workers� organisation. This went hand in hand with the weakening of the left within these organisations. Changes are taking place, or rather are now in the process of doing so, which raise questions about the character of the Labour Party.

All indications show that the Labour leadership is pushing in the direction of creating an openly �liberal� bourgeois party. No longer seen as �their party� THE FACT THAT Labour enjoys considerable electoral support is not the only, or even the decisive factor, in determining its relationship with the working class. Marxism has nothing in common with impressionism � a superficial view of temporary and empirical facts � but takes an all-rounded, dialectical view of processes. The abandonment of Clause Four and the weakening of the links with the unions are not developments of secondary importance. Yet even more decisive is the consciousness of the working class, or significant layers of the working class, towards the �traditional� organisations. The links with the unions could be broken in the future but this and the abandonment of Clause Four would not in and of themselves signify a decisive break in the link between the party and its working class base. After all the Socialist Party in France or the Social Democracy in Germany do not have these features. Yet Marxists still characterised these organisations at bottom as workers� organisations, because of their working class base and the consciousness of the working class. However, workers in both France and Germany are beginning to undergo a transformation in how they view these organisations.

In Britain significant layers of workers, particularly amongst the youth and in the inner-city areas, no longer automatically look towards the Labour Party as �their� party. They perceive the Labour Party leaders, both nationally and particularly on a local level, as merely �another party�, incapable of offering any solution to their problems. This has gone to such an extent that bourgeois commentators, like Andrew Marr in The Independent, have warned the Labour leaders of going too far. He approves of the direction which Blair has taken: "Labour�s internal polling confirms that its new supporters remain seriously worried about a revival of union militancy in the future. Therefore... it is essential for New Labour to be unequivocally on the side of users and taxpayers � more consumers� association than workers� party". At the same time, he warns, "Blair can dump the unions, but not the poor... Labour cannot, should not, must not break with the millions of lower-paid and unemployed people who have partly looked to the trade union movement for their salvation. Someone must speak for them. Labour is not simply the party of Middle England and cannot ever be. There is another country, lower Britain, and it is a frightened and angry place".

Significantly he adds that: "If Labour in power fails to offer it leadership and hope then... lower Britain would eventually turn elsewhere, perhaps to a period of militant syndicalism, perhaps to political dissent of a different kind". By �militant syndicalism� and �political dissent� Marr is hinting that �lower Britain� can be attracted by left and Marxist ideas. Yet a Blair Labour government is bound to disappoint the millions of poor, in the inner-cities in particular, if it remains within the framework of capitalism. And the fact that it will do so and therefore expects opposition is shown precisely in the fear by the right that trade union opposition will materialise very quickly after the coming to power of a Labour government. Would workers move to �reclaim� the party? NOTWITHSTANDING EVERYTHING above is it still not possible for the trade unions to enter the Labour Party and transform it in a leftward direction under the next Labour government? One could not rule out such a development. But there are powerful obstacles now set in place by the right wing which make such a process difficult, if not unlikely.

The idea, mechanically repeated by some, that following a Blair-led Labour government the revolt of the working class will be automatically translated into a mass left current within the Labour Party, ignores the changes in the structures of the party and its relationship to the working class. It also flies in face of recent historical experience. Left oppositions have grown usually as a reflex to the defeat of Labour in a general election. This was the case in the 1970-74 period which saw the emergence of Benn as a left leader for the first time following the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders occupation. Of course there had been signs of an emerging left-wing during the Labour government of 1964-70 but this only took on a significant form in the period of 1970-74. There was also some left opposition, although of a muted character, throughout the period of the 1974-79 Labour government. But a huge left-wing opposition only developed following the defeat of 1979. In addition the channels which previously existed to change the Labour Party in a leftward direction have been dammed up by the right-wing�s �reforms�.

In the past a resolution from a local Labour Party could become, through a conference discussion and debate, the policy of the party nationally. Indeed a resolution initiated from a ward in the Liverpool Wavertree constituency which opposed the five per cent limit on wages, was accepted at the 1978 Labour Party conference. This resolution, moved by a Militant supporter, gave the signal to Ford and other workers which in turn led to strikes and the �Winter of Discontent�. In other words the initiative at a ward in a local Labour Party helped to break the wages policy of the Labour government at that time and open the floodgates of industrial discontent. Would working class opposition, inevitable under a Blair-led Labour government, now be channeled through the Labour Party? Or is it more likely to result in a split from the Labour Party? We support the coming to power of a Labour government, not because there will be a fundamental change in the policies pursued by that government compared to the Tories, but because it would lift the yoke of 16 years of Tory rule off the backs of the working class. It would release the pent-up frustrations which have built-up over this period.

Moreover it would test out in action, and thus expose, Blair and the right-wing, which in turn would prepare the ground for the acceptance of genuine socialist and Marxist ideas in a mass form. Most politically advanced workers entertain few illusions as to what a Labour government will mean. At best they hope for a more favorable, less hostile, framework within which to struggle. But they are already conscious, or half- conscious, of the fact that it will be down to the strength and combativity of workers in action, and not the actions of a Labour government, if the Tory attacks of the past are to be reversed and new conquests made. The issue of the minimum wage and the shorter working week, as well as the general issues of low pay, trade union rights etc, will quickly surface with pressure on Labour to take action. However, a Blair-led government will be like the present Social Democratic government in Sweden which from day one of its election victory last year has carried through vicious counter-reforms. This could bring a Labour government into rapid conflict with the trade unions and the working class generally. But is it likely that workers will move into and begin to transform the party?

It is more likely that the growing opposition will be reflected in demands for the unions to break with the increasingly bourgeois Labour Party leaders. While a certain movement back can not be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that a mass left wing will crystallise in the Labour Party following a Labour victory. It is more likely that some unions, under the pressure of their members, will demand disaffiliation from the Labour Party. This could be the precursor to a split. A turning point THE PRESENT LABOUR left leadership, who more and more rely on a policy of inertia, will not take the initiative in such a development. A mass movement from below will have to develop before they will be pushed into action. Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill have both indicated that it is necessary to �continue the struggle for socialism� within the Labour Party, despite the overwhelming victories for the right. Rodney Bickerstaff has also complained loudly about the �treatment� dished out to trade union leaders, protesting that they can hardly keep up with the �rear lights of the Blair juggernaut� as it rushes to the right.

And yet none of these leaders have called on, or are capable of organising, the tens and hundreds of thousands of workers from the unions to flood in and reclaim the Labour Party. It is doubtful whether at this stage there are a significant layer of leftward-moving workers within the unions who would respond to this call, given the quiescence of left reformism in the whole preceding period. However, on the basis of big events, a radical, socialist mass wave will develop in the unions. Then the question will be posed point blank: either to use the trade unions to enter the Labour Party and brutally push out the bourgeois elements, or to put a minus against the present organisation of the Labour Party and commence to create a new mass socialist political party. Already The Economist has commented that while Blair was claiming overwhelming support for his ditching of Clause Four, in January a Gallup poll showed that 37% were "broadly in agreement" with the words of Clause Four. They went on to say that this showed that there was a space, quite a significant one, for a new socialist party in Britain. The triumph of the right on all fronts within the Labour Party poses stark choices for the left within the unions and within the labour movement generally.

For the foreseeable future the Labour Party on a day-to-day basis will not be a viable weapon for the British working class. When it comes to an election the mass of workers will polarise behind Labour, hoping against hope that a Blair-led Labour government would begin to change the situation. But while a few minimal measures may be introduced, these will be outweighed by counter-reforms, with the likelihood of increased attacks on workers in the public sector in particular. The whole position of British and world capitalism deems that any government in power must take back the conquests of the past. In this situation Militant appeals to all those who continue to struggle for socialism to consider joining its ranks. It will continue to offer a socialist, fighting alternative on all fronts in which working people struggle. At the same time, unlike the sects who, in the words of Marx, "emphasise their own shibboleth rather than what they have in common with the movement", we will fight for the creation of the widest possible mass socialist force in Britain. If the trade unions conclude that it is necessary to fill out the Labour Party at a future date in an attempt to transform it, we would give the maximum possible support.

However, as suggested earlier, the channels for pursuing this no longer exist, at least in the form that they did in the past. It therefore can not be ruled out that the demand will grow for a new mass socialist force in Britain. We are interested in the widest possible organisation of the British working class and would support all steps in this direction. One thing is clear: April 29 marks a turning point in the history of the labour movement. Sometimes history raises a party to its full height, the better to concentrate the forces of disintegration and opposition to this same party. In 1906 the Liberal Party scored its greatest electoral triumph, but this was the high water mark of Liberalism. Tested in action it began to disintegrate, never again to recapture the position it then held. Blair�s Labour Party could be swept into power with a huge electoral majority on the tide of bitter class hatred of the Tory government. However, the inevitable disappointment of the hopes of millions, by a government which remains within the framework of diseased British capitalism, will conjure up forces which will shatter the grip of the right wing on the labour movement in Britain.

Socialist Party :: The Labour Party, Militant and 'infiltration' The Labour Party, Militant and 'infiltration' Militant issue 1307 advertising the launching of The Socialist (Click to enlarge) In fury at the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership campaign, right wing politicians and media alike have been referring to 'infiltration' of the Labour Party by Militant supporters. Militant was the predecessor of the Socialist Party - whose supporters in the past were members of the Labour Party. This has not been the case for decades. In the 1980s and early 1990s some of our members were witch-hunted out of the Labour Party and Militant became a banned organisation. Labour's structures were changed to try to prevent the influence of socialist ideas. Militant supporters led the heroic struggle of Liverpool City Council, which won millions of pounds of funding back from the Thatcher government and built 5,000 homes, six nursery schools and created more than 6,000 jobs. It was Militant supporters who organised the anti-poll tax movement, through the mass non-payment of 18 million people, which defeated that tax and brought down Thatcher.

In a whole number of other campaigns - from forcing the shutdown of the headquarters of the racist British National Party, to leading a strike of 250,000 school students which defeated the threat to remove benefits from 16 and 17 year olds - Militant worked both within and beyond the structures of the Labour Party to organise fighting working class campaigns. These re-printed articles look back at some aspects of this history. What was the Labour Party and how did it change? Extracts from a Socialist Party pamphlet written in 2001 Historically the Labour Party was a ' capitalist -workers' party'. The leaders at the top reflected the outlook and interests of the capitalist class. And the capitalists relied on them to keep the profit system safe for themselves. But at the bottom of the party, workers were pulling in a different direction. They had taken the initiative, through trade unions and socialist organisations, in forming the Labour Party so that they could have their own independent political voice. This had meant breaking with the Liberal Party which, for many years, claimed to be a 'broad church' representing both bosses and workers.

In the course of strikes and social struggles, workers discovered that the Liberals always came down on the side of the bosses. They drew the conclusion that they needed an independent party to represent their specific class interests. Constant struggle The Militant newspaper, now The Socialist Having set the party up, workers demanded that the Labour leaders implement policies which put their interests first. A constant struggle took place between the two, but workers were always able to make their voices heard and have an influence over the policies and direction of the party. Until the early 1990s the Socialist Party (then called Militant) campaigned for socialist ideas inside the Labour Party. At the same time however, we argued that to achieve socialism it was necessary to have a cohesive party with a clear programme for fundamentally changing society. Workers and young people in or around a mass capitalist-workers' party, as the Labour Party was, could, we argued, be won over to the idea of a fundamental transformation of society. The Labour Party provided a mass forum for debating and comparing the ideas of fundamental socialist change with those of gradual reform of capitalism. But New Labour sold its soul to the capitalist free market in the 1990s. And it was not alone.

Leaders of the Labour, Social Democratic and Communist parties throughout the world abandoned any idea of fighting for fundamental change in the capitalist system or even for reforms in favour of working class people. Instead they swallowed the dominant ideology, reinforced by the 1990s boom, that there was no alternative to the capitalist market and neo-liberal policies such as privatisation and deregulation. The disintegration and eventual collapse of the Stalinist regimes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe played a decisive part in this process. Socialism, the capitalists declared, was dead. Labour ditched the historic Clause Four of its constitution, which committed the Labour Party to the "common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange". In its place the party embraced 'the rigour of competition', 'enterprise' and free market forces. (See below) Tony Blair's aim when he became leader was to end socialism as the aim of the Labour Party and, as part of that, to sever the historic ties between Labour and the trade unions . He wanted to transform the Labour Party from a 'capitalist-worker's' party into an openly capitalist one. Trade union link Formally the link between the trade unions and the Labour Party remains in place.

But the nature of that relationship has fundamentally changed. In the past workers could make their voices heard through the party structures. They could pass resolutions at the annual party conference and have a decisive influence over policy. Now Blair's 'modernising reforms' have closed those democratic structures off. Prospective candidates, democratically elected by Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs), have been undemocratically removed by a leadership clique at the top of the party. The trade union vote at the annual party conference has been reduced from 90% to 49%. More importantly, the power that conference had to democratically decide policy has been removed and replaced by ineffectual 'policy forums'. It's clear that the leadership want to further undermine the links with the unions by abolishing the general management committees to which local unions can send delegates.

This process of attacking the link between the unions and the Labour Party was taken to a whole new level by Ed Miliband and the Collins Review which, as the Socialist Party commented at the time of its adoption in 2014, meant "the destruction of the last remnants of the trade unions' organised presence within the Labour Party." Clause IV Part 4 (1918) "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." In 1995 Tony Blair replaced the Labour Party's 1918 socialist Clause IV Part 4 with a clause IV Part 2A containing a commitment to capitalist market forces: Clause IV Part 2A (1995) "A dynamic economy, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and co-operation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper with a thriving private sector and high-quality public services where those undertakings

 essential to the common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them." The battle inside Labour in the 1980s Here we re-publish extracts of an article by the late Andrew Price looking back at the witch-hunt of Militant from the Labour Party.

The original article ('The Road to New Labour') appeared in Socialism Today in 2010 and can be found at The 1970s was a decade of class struggle that radicalised growing sections of the working class. This in turn affected the Labour Party, as Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) and party conferences endorsed a number of left-wing policies. The decade ended with the defeat of Callaghan's right-wing Labour government and the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher whose brutal brand of Toryism was unique in post-war Britain. During the 1980s, support for Militant grew considerably in both the CLPs and the Labour Party Young Socialists. Thatcherism accelerated the radicalisation of the working class and the shift to the left. Coupled with this was an organised campaign led by Tony Benn and Eric Heffer to democratise the party and ensure that future Labour governments did not drift into right-wing policies. These developments were viewed with consternation by the ruling class which, through the mass media , expressed concern at the growth in support for socialism in the party. They urged their shadows in the Labour Party to take action to reverse these trends.

The demand was raised for disciplinary action against Militant supporters, branded as 'infiltrators' into the Labour Party. This was an outright lie. From Labour's inception, Marxists had been party members. And, as a relatively democratic party, Labour had always allowed like-minded individuals to organise. What irked our opponents was our capacity to be better organised than most. Expulsions In 1983 party leader Michael Foot buckled to pressure and initiated the expulsion from the party of the then editorial board of Militant: Peter Taaffe, Ted Grant, Lynn Walsh, Clare Doyle and Keith Dickinson. Foolishly, Foot and others believed that by cutting off the head of Militant its growth in the Labour Party would stop. Labour fought the 1983 election with its most left-wing manifesto since 1918. It called for the reversal of all Tory cuts, scrapping Britain 's nuclear weapons, repealing anti-union laws, and the restoration to public ownership of all industries and services privatised by the Tories. The Labour Party lost the election, with the Tories securing a massive parliamentary majority (albeit losing 685,000 votes).

The ruling class and its shadows in the Labour Party argued that Labour's defeat resulted from a left-wing manifesto with too much emphasis on socialism. Liverpool Labour None of the proponents of this view were able to explain the results in Liverpool. Given a big national swing to the Tories, Liverpool, where Labour was clearly identified with the left, recorded a swing to Labour which, if repeated nationally, would have been sufficient to form a Labour government. The same was repeated in 1987 when Labour received 57% - its highest ever share of the vote in the city. Such details were ignored as Labour was urged by its political enemies to 'modernise', including a purge of Marxists from its ranks. This was the key issue in the leadership election following Foot's resignation in 1983, where Neil Kinnock was elected leader. Kinnock's efforts to 'modernise' the Labour Party were frustrated by two major developments. In March 1984, the provocative behaviour of the Tories led to the epic miners' strike, which lasted until March 1985. At grassroots level most Labour members saw the Tories determined to smash the miners and their union, and expected Kinnock to support them.

But Kinnock regarded the strike as the last thing he wanted given his modernisation agenda. In private, he attacked the strike. In public, he maintained a craven silence. The other development was the election of a Labour council in Liverpool led by a number of Militant supporters. Liverpool Labour council was determined to lead a fightback on behalf of a city whose people had been brought to their knees by poverty, unemployment and bad housing. From the outset of the struggle, Kinnock was implacably opposed to the strategy of Liverpool Labour council, and attacked it in a disgraceful speech to Labour Party conference. This speech was the green light for a mass purge of Marxists from the party. Quietly the word went out: where witch-hunt ers were in the majority, expel; where not, as in Liverpool, Labour's National Executive Committee would do the dirty work. Gains undone Kinnock turned from purging Militant to purging party policy. Every one of the gains made by the left was removed. The major problem with Kinnock's plan to make the Labour Party more 'electable' was that it failed to impress the voters.

In 1987 Thatcher was returned with a majority only slightly less than the Tories had in 1983. In the dying years of her premiership, however, Thatcher scored a spectacular own goal with the introduction of the poll tax. Throughout Britain millions of working people could not, or refused to pay this iniquitous tax. On the ground, Militant supporters responded by organising anti-poll tax unions, giving support to non-payers. A Sun editorial referred to the advocates of non-payment as 'Toy Town Trots'. Following their lead, as ever, Kinnock employed the same term in a speech attacking non-payment with far more force than the poll tax itself. At the height of the non-payment campaign, the Tories dropped Thatcher as leader. Militant - certainly not Kinnock and the Labour Party - deserves the credit for her downfall. The Rise of Militant Clause IV: a brief history | Politics | The Guardian Labour Clause IV: a brief history Jeremy Corbyn has reignited debate over ‘nationalisation’ clause that was a key element of Labour’s socialist identity until Tony Blair removed it Cooperative and trade union members on an anti-profiteering demonstration in Hyde Park, London, in 1919.

Photograph: Roper/Getty Images Sunday 9 August 2015 08.19 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 28 September 2016 08.27 EDT Share on Messenger Close Jeremy Corbyn has triggered a fresh debate in the Labour party with comments in an interview in which he appeared to suggest reinstating clause IV of the party’s constitution. His spokesman subsequently denied the Labour leadership frontrunner wanted a return to “the old clause IV” and that he did not want “a big ‘moment’ such as that”. Why has it been such a totemic issue for the party and why was it such a big moment for the modern Labour party when Tony Blair ditched clause IV in an attempt to increase appeal among middle-class voters? What was clause IV? This article historically refers to part of the 1918 text of the UK Labour party’s written constitution , which had set out the aims and values of the party. For the first time, the party officially stated its socialist element in an official document. Sidney Webb. Photograph: .

The original version of clause IV of Labour’s constitution – drafted in November 1917 by Sidney Webb , the co-founder of the London School of Economics and early member of the Fabian Society – was adopted by the party in 1918. The clause stated: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service. This clause was seen by by supporters as a straightforward commitment to nationalisation or the “common ownership”, yet became a point of controversy later in 20th-century Britain. Jeremy Corbyn denies he would bring back Labour's nationalising clause IV Read more The commitment to organise and maintain a political Labour party in parliament and in the country, as well as promoting the “political, social and economic emancipation of the people” were among other clauses in the text. What is its significance? The reason why clause IV was historically noteworthy was because it was seen as the party’s commitment to socialism. Press at the time wrote of how significant the new constitution of the post-war political party was.

In an article in the Manchester Guardian, it was said this was the first time a party had declared it’s “definitely socialistic” principles. Labour’s 1918 constitution. Manchester Guardian, 27 February 1918. Read in full. Growth of opposition Yet the belief in this core principle began to be challenged within the party. After losing the 1959 general election, and in the era of the cold war, Hugh Gaitskell, the then Labour leader, thought public opposition to nationalisation had led to the party’s poor performance. He proposed to amend clause IV. The left fought back, however, and defeated moves for change: symbolically, in fact, it was agreed that the clause was to be included on party membership cards. Factors such as the economic crisis of the 70s, defeats suffered by the trade union movement, and the decline in influence of the British Communist party, led to a strengthening in the position of Labour party members who were opposed to Marxist ideology. So what was the ‘clause IV moment’? Pinterest Tony Blair in 1995.

Photograph: E Hamilton west/Guardian This time-honoured commitment to mass nationalisation was overhauled 20 years ago when Tony Blair, then Labour leader, won a controversial vote to amend clause IV . The vote, held at the Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, where the original clause had been adopted in 1918, marked a momentous victory for Blair and the New Labour project . Winning this vote among members was seen to be a green light for the Labour leader to modernise the party, making it more attractive to “middle England” ahead of the 1997 general election. Speaking afterwards , Blair said: Let no one say radical politics is dead. Today a new Labour party is being born. For those on the leftwing of the party, however, the vote only confirmed how willing Labour was to abandon its socialist past to get elected. At the time, the Defend Clause IV campaign said : “There is little in Blair’s proposed new clause to which Liberal Democrats or even many Tories could not subscribe.” In the amended, and current, values the constitution of the Labour party states that it is a democratic socialist party that believes “power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few”.

Its text crucially now states that the party is committed to a “dynamic economy”, with the new clause IV stating that: Labour will work in pursuit of these aims, with trade unions, co-operative societies and other affiliated organisations and also with voluntary organisations, consumer groups and other representative bodies. Pinterest The Labour party logo. Photograph: PA This therefore signalled the shift in Labour’s values. In its 1996 manifesto New Labour, New Life For Britain , the party set out its “third way” or centrist approach to policies. It was repackaged as newly reformed party, which had adopted a red rose as its logo in 1986, that had altered clause IV and now endorsed market economics. Many political commentators see this ideological shift as key to Labour’s successive electoral victories from 1997 to 2010. Why are we talking about it now? Although the abolition of clause IV had seemed to signify a pragmatic realisation that mass nationalisation had to be consigned to the annals of British history, this was not shared by some on Labour’s left. Pinterest Jeremy Corbyn.

Photograph: Niall Carson/PA Corbyn suggested in an interview with the Independent on Sunday , that he could consider bringing back the original clause IV as part of a commitment to take some “necessary things” into public ownership. Asked if he wanted to restore the clause to the party’s constitution, he said: I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that’s restoring the clause IV as it was originally written or it’s a different one, but I think we shouldn’t shy away from public participation, public investment in industry and public control of the railways. He added: I’m interested in the idea that we have a more inclusive, clearer set of objectives. I would want us to have a set of objectives which does include public ownership of some necessary things such as rail. But a spokesman later clarified his position, maintaining that Corbyn was not saying he wanted a return to “the old clause IV” and that he did not want “a big ‘moment’ such as that”. “His leadership would be the opposite of top-down changes,” the spokesperson said.

“He says we need some forms of public ownership in some cases, such as rail, on which matter Labour needs to reflect more closely the views of the majority of the public.” To what extent has "new" Labour abandoned traditional socialist principles - A-Level Politics - Marked by Teachers.com To what extent has &quot;new&quot; Labour abandoned traditional socialist principles Extracts from this document... Introduction To what extent has "new" Labour abandoned traditional socialist principles Many consider "New" Labour to be operating under a deceptive title due to the fact that the party has abandoned so many of the principles traditionally associated with Labour policies. The foundation of the long-established socialist principles, which formed the basis of "old" Labour policies, was clause IV of the 1918 Labour constitution. "Common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" was the single socialist slogan which underpinned the ethos of old Labour; equality. The welfare state was a major component of old Labour's manifesto. Clement Attlee who won labour its first overall majority in 1945, was responsible for implementing the "cradle to grave" welfare system which aimed to ensure the poor had equal access to basic public services.

It was as part of this system that benefits for the unemployed and the National Health Service were introduced. ...read more. Middle Since old Labour represented the workers, the party had a large electorate. However, in 1980 a changing social demographic meant the proportion of the working class population decreased and instead Britain became a country in which the middle class formed the majority. In 1981, after the election of Margret Thatcher, the party was divided over how to adjust its policies. Half the party believed Labour should alter its policies so that they belonged in the centre of the political spectrum, and thus appeal to the new majority middle class electorate. However, this section of the party lost the internal argument this resulted in many Labour M.P's leaving the party to form the Social Democrat Party. The remainder of the Labour party, led by Tony Benn and Michael Foot, pushed the party's policies to the far left of the political spectrum. The manifesto for the 1983 general election later became known as the longest suicide note in history; Labour gained only 27.6% of the vote in this election. ...read more.

Conclusion From the Liberal Democratic trail of thought, New Labour supports many constitutional reforms, such as devolution of power and reorganisation of the House of Lords. New Labour has already funded the new Scottish parliament and implemented other laws supported by the Liberal Democrats such as the Freedom of Information Act. One of the few policies which remains from traditional socialist principles of "old" Labour is the aim of social justice. New Labour defines this as helping the "excluded" by improving state education and increasing benefits for working families on low incomes. In conclusion, I believe that to a great extent Labour has abandoned traditional socialist principles, the most publicised example of this being Tony Blair's very poor relationship with the Trade Unions; the same organisations that initially formed and funded "old" Labour. However, the one major policy which remains intact is Labour's commitment to the welfare state, even if this involves partial privatisation of state services such as schools and hospitals. ...read more. The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section. Found what you're looking for?

Start learning 29% faster today 150,000+ documents available Labour Labour Last Edited: 23rd March, 2015 This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. Many consider "New" Labour to be operating under a deceptive title due to the fact that the party has abandoned so many of the principles traditionally associated with Labour policies. The foundation of the long-established socialist principles, which formed the basis of "old" Labour policies, was clause IV of the 1918 Labour constitution. "Common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" was the single socialist slogan which underpinned the ethos of old Labour; equality. The Blair ‘New Labour' project was shaped by the party's experience of eighteen frustrating years in opposition, during which time profound changes in the UK were brought about by the Thatcher and Major governments. Labour found itself having to adjust to, even accommodate Thatcherism, following four successive general election defeats. The party was also angered by what it saw as the deleterious effects of Conservative rule, in terms of widening inequality and deepening social division.

The process of Labour party modernisation that began with Neil Kinnock in 1983 was driven by electoral imperatives that became stronger with each subsequent defeat. Historically the Labour party was broadly in favour of socialism as set out in Clause Four of the original party constitution and advocated socialist policies such as public ownership of key industries, government intervention in the economy, redistribution of wealth, increased rights for workers, the welfare state, publicly-funded healthcare and education. Beginning in the late-1980s under the leadership of Neil Kinnock, and subsequently that of John Smith and Tony Blair, the party moved away from socialist positions, adopting free market policies. This led many observers to describe the Labour Party as Social Democratic or the “Third Way” rather than democratic socialist. Blairism has been viewed as a continuation of traditional social democracy, concealed by better marketing and a “modernized” image. After 1918 the Labour Party traditionally presented its policies as ‘socialist', emphasizing the importance of a large state-controlled sector of the economy, relatively high levels of taxation, and comprehensive state-organized welfare provision. In office, the 1945-50 government of Clement Attlee is widely credited with successful radical reform.

The Attlee Government created a mixed economy through the nationalization of a number of strategic industries and public utilities, as well as Keynesian ideas of economic management. In comparison, New Labour, as revised Clause 4 indicated, had come to accept that the economy should be regulated by the market and not by the state. Blairism therefore built on Thatcherism and did not try to reverse it. This particularly applied in relation to the core elements of economic Thatcherism- privatization, union power, taxation and degulation. Beyond this, the first Blair government granted semi-independence to the Bank of England in the setting of interest rates. A welfare state was established involving a commitment to full employment, universal social security, free universal state-funded health care and extensive state-funded social housing. Attlee also laid down a foreign and defence policy based on NATO, bilateral cooperation with the United States, and the development of nuclear weapons. Such approaches set the framework for government for the next twenty to thirty years. When Neil Kinnock took over the leadership with a mission to modernise the party and make Labour electable again. He ditched the policy of nuclear disarmament and made it clear that Mrs Thatcher's anti-strike laws would not be reversed.

A major distinction between Old Labour and New Labour was the latter's enthusiasm for reforming the constitution. During Blair's first government, 1997-2001, a bold series of constitutional reforms were introduced. These reflected a liberal desire to strengthen checks and balances by fragmenting government power and to bolster individual rights. However, many have argued that Labour's conversion to constitutional liberalism was only partial. For example, plans to consider alternatives to the Westminster voting system were quickly dropped and enthusiasm for constitutional reform declined after 2001. Blair's approach to welfare was different from both the Thatcherite emphasis on “standing on your own two feet” and the social-democratic belief in “cradle to grave” support. This was reflected in unprecedented increases in health and education after 1999, the wider use of “targeted” benefits (as opposed to “universal” benefits), an emphasis on the idea of “welfare-to-work” and attempts to reform the public services. Blair's belief in welfare was based on what has been called “social entrepreneurialism”, the idea that the public services should be more market-orientated and consumer responsive.

Public-private partnerships, such as “private finance initiatives (PFIs), were also more widely used to, for example, build schools and hospitals. A key Blairite belief has been the idea that rights should always be balanced against responsibilities. In this sense, Blairism was influenced communitarianism. The desire to strengthen social duty and moral responsibilities was reflected in the so-called “respect agenda”, under which new public order laws were introduced (introducing ASBOs), the prison population rose steeply and a series of new anti-terrorism laws were passed. This also led to allegations that New Labour had endangered a range of vital civil liberties. Labour's historical ‘core vote' (industrial working class union members) has also been shrinking since 1970's. The unions helped create the Labour Party. Blair has cast aside tradition in the quest for votes. Traditional ‘blue collar' union membership has declined since 1970's, whilst professional ‘white collar' unions have grown. Labour now needed to attract more funding from rich donors. This has often led to accusations of corruption. Public perception of unions in 1980's was negative. Union activity seen as militant by many.

In 1997 it was revealed that Bernie Ecclestone had loaned Labour £1m. It was believed that he had done so to ensure that a future Labour government would not ban tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1 racing. In 2002, Indian steel tycoon, Lakshmi Mittal gave Labour £125,000, it was thought, in return for Tony Blair's help in buying a Romanian steel company. From 2005-07 a criminal investigation probes whether £14m of loans to Labour were given by wealthy businessmen in return for peerages (seats in the House of Lords) Even now there is huge disagreement over where Labour stands ideologically, despite the insistence of both Blair and Brown that the emphasis has always been upon the restoration of traditional Labour values of fairness, justice and social inclusion. There had been an earlier attempt to update Labour's ideology while in opposition in the 1950s, which had focused very heavily upon the need to bring about greater equality of outcome through the tax and benefit system. In conclusion, there is little agreement over the extent to, and even the ways in which Labour has changed.

'New' Labour could be seen as bringing socialism up to date - the values haven't changed (social justice, equality of opportunity, community, partnership, rights); instead, its policies acknowledge that society has changed. 'New' Labour is thus in the tradition of democratic socialism, but with a much reduced stress on unions, public ownership, state provision, and even redistribution. Alternatively 'New Labour' could be seen as a radical transformation, from democratic socialism to social democracy.

Question: In 1995 the Labour Party abandoned which part of its constitution?
Answer: Clause IV