The Conservative government losing office was no great surprise; after a decade in power, damaged by cabinet resignations and defecting MPs, it had lost the will to govern. But the scale of their defeat in the general election of 1906, the utter collapse that saw the Tories win just 156 seats, down dramatically from 402 — that was beyond expectations.
The big beneficiaries were the Liberals, who gained over 200 seats — who only rubbed it in the Tories’ faces by creating the welfare state with pensions and National Insurance, by curbing the power of the House of Lords, and by legislating for Irish Home Rule. And as though that were not bad enough, the 1906 election also saw 29 MPs elected for the Labour Representation Committee, a grouping that promptly reconstituted itself as the Labour Party.
These were early days, and the Labour vote was less than 5% of the national total, but behind the parliamentary party were two million members of the trade unions. The demand to extend the franchise, to allow votes for the working class and for women, was growing and would become irresistible. The Conservatives had more to fear than even the radicalism of the Liberals: the future was surely socialist.
That, at least, was the conclusion of John Dawson Mayne, a former advocate-general of Madras and sometime Conservative election candidate whose dystopian fears serve as something of a precursor to our own Tory tailspin. So concerned was he at the terrible prospect confronting the nation that — at the age of 79 — he turned to fiction and wrote his first novel, The Triumph of Socialism, and How It Succeeded, published in 1908. Its premise is a landslide election victory for Labour as early as 1912. The new government introduces a minimum wage and an eight-hour working day, and nationalises the railways; it abolishes the House of Lords, turns churches into places of entertainment and makes divorce much easier. The King is exiled, and the National Anthem replaced by a hurriedly written new song, “God Save Ourselves”. The result is misery and mass starvation.
Mayne wasn’t alone in his concern. There was also William Le Queux, a prolific writer whose big hit had been The Invasion of 1910, which predicted — with great inaccuracy — the forthcoming war with Germany. Unperturbed by that event not happening on schedule, Le Queux published a new scare-story, in 1910 itself, entitled The Unknown Tomorrow: How the Rich Fared at the Hands of the Poor, Together with a Full Account of the Social Revolution in England. This was set at a more cautious distance, in 1935, and depicted a socialist revolution, under the slogan “Britain for the British”, that unleashes a Red Terror to rival Robespierre.
Then there was Ernest Bramah’s What Might Have Been (1907) — about a near-future when a Labour government has already been ousted by a more militant socialist regime — R.H. Benson’s epic Lord of the World (1907), set 100 years in the future but hinging on the election of a Labour government in 1917. Eclipsing all rival accounts, Benson’s ends with the rise of the Anti-Christ and the destruction of the Vatican in an air-raid, after which the only surviving cardinal flees to the Holy Land. “That place, father,” he asks a Syrian priest, gesturing towards a small settlement, “what is its name?” And the man replies: “That is Megiddo. Some call it Armageddon.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAn interesting piece of British political history. Thanks.
Why i subscribe.
I’d never heard of all those apocalyptic novels. They sound like great fun. And we should be grateful that the socialists in Britain were so mild. Unlike the Bolsheviks and the Maoists who ran up rather significant butcher’s bills.
Yep, so mild that the class divide is now wider than when they started out and the condition of the working poor barely improved. But hey, there are a thousand bureaucrats in City Hall earning more than £100k. So what’s not to like?
How ignorant of history can you be. The living standards of the working class in 1900 were wretched. Now they’re higher than the well off of 1900 and the middle classes of most non-European countries.
The improvements in living standards had absolutely nothing to do with Labour Socialism, which itself is an oxymoron. The only thing “working class” or labor-intensive about Socialism is the rhetoric.
Socialism is just Avante-Garde Academics telling actual laborers to follow them, be disgruntled and agitate for more pay and less work. That’s it. It teaches people to be resentful and throw fits because needing to work hard to “live with dignity” is “exploitation.”
I agree with you completely on socialism. I’m simply pointing out the fact that the working (and non-working) class are massively better off today than they were in 1900.
Its getting very popular amongst the young in the U.S though, which may worry you.
I’d say its less popular than it was 4- 5 years ago before they saw it in action.
I’m no socialist but your history is way out. There was a huge amount of self-organisation amongst the working class: credit and trade unions, the Labour Party, worked education etc etc – whether or not you agree with collective solutions or not. It is perfectly reasonable to call this movement socialist albeit with a very British flavour. There were also alliances with many middle class people and even a very few in the upper class!
Modern progressive and politics however is indeed almost entirely detached from the modern working class, but bears in my view little resemblance to a socialist movement, quite happily with the most unequal society we’ve had in a long time. Economic factors just aren’t as important for the progressive movement, it is all, race gender and identity
You’re talking about a variant of Socialism heavily influenced by Marx. London was his base of operation. Marxist Socialism is a dialectical. Theres two components: Economic (Base) and Cultural (Superstructure).
The two movements ping pong back and forth. When one stops working, the other takes hold. Right now you’re seeing emboldened Orthodox Marxists because the cultural stuff has alienated so many people. But they’re two sides of the same coin.
I get it, many laborers are just normal people that welcome class conflict if it improves their standard of living in the short term. They know not what they advocate. But that standard of living improvement always comes with hyperpolitics and more State intervention, which is the entire goal of revolutionary progressive movements.
People are actually much better off in real terms than 100 years ago – so “barely improved” is absurd. There are structural forces in the modern capitalist economy which tend to lead to concentration, although the notion that the UK is some sort of minimal low tax night watchman state is also ridiculous. The state spends a lot with mediocre outcomes, railways and the health service most notably. There are no easy solutions; we need a state that probably does less, but that it does do far more competently.
May I also recommend ‘The Chilean Cub’ by George Shipway? *
(*Published 1971.)
Socialists have worked out that mission-creep is more effective than revolution. They will get there in the end.
Well, they were certainly right about the incompetence. We should never forget that it was a socialist chancellor who, by breaking the link between housing costs and interest-rate policy, brought about the largest upward transfer of wealth in our history. Let’s not even talk about his partner and the illegal wars, the collapsing borders, the dumbing down of education …
Such is the threat to Britain’s finances and culture, I would happily join a Jan 6 type protest to mark the transition to a Labour government.
Rather than being an insurrection, I would at least expect these happenings to have the length and scope of the recent London protests in support of the Palestinian intifada.
However, I fear that violence would also be the result as the Met police openly attacked the conservative activists and in doing so, be fully supported by the British political establishment.
Yes, only the right type of protest will be tolerated.
This article literally lists all the amazing achievements of Labour that have unquestionably improved society whilst initially being opposed by conservatives – and you want an insurrection to prevent any more of them?
Consumed so much for your hatred of the ‘other’ that you forget to love your own country.
Of course Labour have done some good in office, although some of their achievements (such as “our” NHS) are not half as impressive as they like to pretend. The glorious reforming government of 1945, for example, that we endlessly hear eulogised, was so popular that it lasted six years.
I’ve just finished reading Alwyn Turners book about this period, Little Englanders, it’s brilliant. Informative, eye opening and very very funny. A real romp through the musical hall era. Thoroughly recommend.
The real worry that many of us have is that the Labour Party does not seem to like Britain or its citizens that much. As a mid-ranking home office official told me recently, ‘we need mass migration to counterbalance the people who voted Brexit.’ (She was much more explicitly hostile when describing the people she thought were the Brexit voters.) She is a Labour voter, natch.
A Labour government can hardly be any worse than the current Tory incompetents, and might be a whole lot better under Starmer’s leadership. Whatever individual civil servants and Labour activists may think, Starmer is not going anywhere near reversing Brexit, nor is he in favour of mass migration.
You assume that the rank and file will keep Starmer once in power.
I’m not so sure, I give him a year at most before the rabid left make their move.
Correct. If Starmer doesn’t implement the Great Revolution and Gosplan 2.0, then it’ll be knife time for him in short order.
I agree there’s not much difference between Sunak’s Tories and Starmer’s Labour. For those of us who are Thatcherites (i.e., real conservatives), that’s rather the problem.
I find the concept of working class some kind of bizarre fantasy that all MP’s indulge in to establish their street cred. Given the millions that are unable to work(disabled!) added to the millions that won’t work, (mental elf issues) it beggars belief that such a class exists outside the occasional soundbite of an MP who has nothing else to offer.
I am quietly confident that Labour, led by Starmer, will a) win the next election and b) be a complete disaster.
As a party they are ideologically unsuited to the challenges that lie ahead, and one would be pushed indeed to describe any of the shadow front bench as burdened with brilliance. I have every expectation that they will revert to type, fail to reform the ailing state institutions, genuflect to identity politics, appease the unions and shake empty the piggy bank. One which last point perhaps the outgoing Treasury Secretary (whoever that is at the time) will leave a little note for his/her successor “Good Luck! There really is no money left this time.”
As I wrote in the Spectator comments section yesterday, Labour had better enjoy election night. Within two years, they’ll be as popular as the Tories are today.
keep 80% of the population happy and you’ll never have revolution. Doesnt matter if they vote Labour or Tory. ‘Control the courts and the coinage and let the rabble have the rest’, as the ruling class have said adinfinitum.