X Close

The allure of a Labour dystopia The Tories have always sought solace in doom

(Leon Neal/Getty Images)


March 20, 2024   6 mins

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.”

No one else was quite that apocalyptic, but all these books had the same theme: the arrival of Labour in Parliament was a harbinger of national decline and disaster. The policies of the various fictional governments were much the same as well. Socialism means economic incompetence; the dismantling of defence; the abolition of the churches, the House of Lords and the monarchy. It was essentially unpatriotic, un-British.

Were these concerns rooted in reality? Probably not. Labour wasn’t a revolutionary party even then, seeking reform through Parliament. Ramsay Macdonald, one of the new Labour MPs elected in 1906, could sound ominous when defining socialism — “The State is going to take over the means of production into its own hands, and private property will come to an end” — but he was also keen to soften the blow: “Suddenness and revolution are not the socialist ideal.” The role of Labour at this stage was to drag the Liberal government to the Left, securing, for example, legal rights for trade unions. In the great conflict between the Commons and Lords, Labour called for the abolition of the Upper Chamber, but that was as extreme as it cared to be.

And anyway, not everyone was consumed by doom. Despite the nightmare visions, some in high society adopted this fashionable new creed of socialism. Daisy Greville, the Countess of Warwick and a former lover of Edward VII, went beyond even the Labour Party, and disapproved of the trade union movement on the grounds that it “only postpones the revolution”. She joined the much more radical Social Democratic Federation, probably the only member of the party who ever hired a private train to take her home after a Marxist discussion meeting. Such figures proved irresistible to satirists. “I am nothing if I am not a socialist,” declares a countess in Philip Gibbs’s novel The Street of Adventure (1909). “I do so pity the poor Poor. I have taken them up as a hobby, and I find it ever so much more elevating and ennobling than poultry-keeping.” In Saki’s The Unbearable Bassington (1912), Lady Caroline Benaresq declares herself a socialist so that she can “disagree with most of the Liberals and Conservatives, and all the Socialists”.

There were also warnings that these wealthy patrons represented a source of temptation for decent working-class politicians. Saints in Society, the debut novel of Margaret Baillie-Saunders, was published in 1905 — even before the Party was officially created — and follows a poor printer from a South London slum who’s elected as a Labour MP. Embraced by the establishment, he loses sight of his roots, his values and himself. He loses touch with his wife as well. “Now, my dear, don’t be silly,” he tells her; “there are matters you can’t, as a woman, be expected to understand.” But of course, it’s she who remains true to their original ideals, while he is corrupted by wealth and prestige.

What’s striking about all the fiction that poured out after the 1906 election is how rapidly the lines of attack on Labour were laid out. And then how very enduring they’ve proved to be. Workers on the boards of companies? Advocating that policy was evidence of Tony Benn’s lunacy in the Seventies. A minimum wage? It would lead to economic ruin, warned the Tories when it was finally introduced in 1998. High taxation? That’s a perennial, as is weakness on defence — hence Keir Starmer’s determination not to show an inch between him and the government on Ukraine or Israel.

The dystopian novels exaggerated, of course, but the fears they expressed were genuine and widespread at the time. Ramsay MacDonald complained that so many people saw socialists as “Mad Mullahs”, hell-bent on “the overthrow of ancient institutions, social organisations and the moral conscience”, and there was no shortage of those.

“The fears they expressed were genuine and widespread at the time.”

A century ago, MacDonald himself went on to become Labour’s first prime minister, embodying Margaret Baillie-Saunders’s fable of the worker seduced by society. Born the illegitimate son of a housemaid and a farmworker, now he could hobnob with the highest nobs in the land. And he revelled in it. As a contemporary commentator noted, MacDonald “enjoys the glory of richly embroidered uniform and white knee-breeches”.

And if that first Labour government didn’t achieve a great deal, it did at least, MacDonald believed, serve to reassure, ending the most extreme predictions of national ruin. As he told the King — he would have approved of that namedrop — he and his colleagues had done much “to dispel the fantastic and extravagant belief which at one time found expression that they were nothing but a band of irresponsible revolutionaries intent on wreckage and destruction”.

He was right. There was still talk of extremists bent on wrecking the nation, but by the Twenties it centred not on Labour but on communists. There was a newly popularised phrase, “the lunatic fringe”, to describe those who, in David Lloyd George’s words, “are always crying for the moon and will take nothing terrestrial in its place”. By definition, a party of government was not on the fringe; it was firmly in the mainstream. Macdonald had set the standard for the future — one where, as we saw yesterday, a Labour shadow chancellor can give a lecture to the City on the importance of “securonomics” and “long-term growth”.

Since Macdonald, just three Labour leaders have won a general election: two were public schoolboys, Clement Attlee and Tony Blair, while Harold Wilson, who went to grammar school, had his own children privately educated. In any event, despite his modest origins, Wilson was a thoroughly respectable member of society, an Oxford don and the recipient of an OBE for his work as a civil servant before he even entered Parliament. In the same way, Starmer — soon to become the fifth man to win — earned his knighthood as the Director of Public Prosecutions a year before he stood for election. Labour has been accepted as a government only when led by those who could move comfortably in establishment circles, smoothing away the fears of wild-eyed insurrectionaries.

Or, as one of Oxfordshire’s landed gentry observed after Macdonald’s government fell in 1924: “Well, we have been through a revolution, and our throats are still intact.”


Alwyn W. Turner is a cultural and political historian.

AlwynTurner

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

29 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
7 months ago

An interesting piece of British political history. Thanks.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Why i subscribe.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
7 months ago

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.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
7 months ago

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?

Arthur G
Arthur G
7 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

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.

T Bone
T Bone
7 months ago
Reply to  Arthur G

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.”

Arthur G
Arthur G
7 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

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.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

Its getting very popular amongst the young in the U.S though, which may worry you.

T Bone
T Bone
7 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I’d say its less popular than it was 4- 5 years ago before they saw it in action.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
7 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

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

T Bone
T Bone
7 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

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.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
7 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

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.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

May I also recommend ‘The Chilean Cub’ by George Shipway? *

(*Published 1971.)

Mr. Swemb
Mr. Swemb
7 months ago

Socialists have worked out that mission-creep is more effective than revolution. They will get there in the end.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
7 months ago

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 …

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
7 months ago

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.

R E P
R E P
7 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

Yes, only the right type of protest will be tolerated.

Christopher Semple
Christopher Semple
7 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

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.

Damon Hager
Damon Hager
7 months ago

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.

Dominic English
Dominic English
7 months ago

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.

R E P
R E P
7 months ago

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.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
7 months ago
Reply to  R E P

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.

Neiltoo .
Neiltoo .
7 months ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

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.

Santiago Excilio
Santiago Excilio
7 months ago
Reply to  Neiltoo .

Correct. If Starmer doesn’t implement the Great Revolution and Gosplan 2.0, then it’ll be knife time for him in short order.

Damon Hager
Damon Hager
7 months ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

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.

John Howes
John Howes
7 months ago

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.

Santiago Excilio
Santiago Excilio
7 months ago

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.”

Damon Hager
Damon Hager
7 months ago

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.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago

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.