In the freezing West Riding winter of January 1893, around 120 miscellaneous radicals and reformers met in Bradford’s Labour Institute — originally a Wesleyan chapel, later a Salvation Army barracks — to debate the creation of a new political body. Though history may remember this meeting for the uplifting oratory of the curiously-dressed MP for West Ham South, Keir Hardie (deerstalker, dogs-tooth knickerbockers, purple cravat, white canvas shoes), it proved a fractious gathering of unruly tribes.
The delegates chose as their treasurer one John Lister of Shibden Hall, a maverick local squire — and kinsman of the now-celebrated cross-dressing châtelaine of Shibden, Anne “Gentleman Jack” Lister. Bernard Shaw burbled; Keir Hardie thundered (not least against the public house, “strongest ally” of “the usurer, the sweater and the landlord”); Edward Aveling (Karl Marx’s son-in-law) observed in dismay; Dr Richard Pankhurst from Manchester demanded ideological purity. The squabbling throng, however, decided against any titular endorsement of Socialism. They named their newly hatched entity the “Independent Labour Party”. Independent, that is, of the Liberal Party political machine that had so far — and would for years to come — sponsored, supported and tried to control most “Labour” and trade-union candidates for public office.
It would have stunned most of the Bradford delegates (not to mention their many mockers) to know that, 130 years on, the descendant of the 1890s ILP stands poised not only to enter government again but to do so with a (potentially) enormous majority. And with a leader named for its oddly clad orator. Pundits routinely examine the longevity, plasticity and flair for re-invention displayed by the Conservative Party (they will be doing so again soon). Yet Labour’s survival as an electoral force from the 1890s into the 2020s calls for just as must perplexed scrutiny — even if the ILP itself first fused with MPs of the Labour Representation Committee into a broader “Labour Party” (with Hardie as the first parliamentary chairman), then split, then re-joined, then faded into oblivion.
Labour legend, embraced by friends and foes alike, tells of a movement divided first, last and always between Left and Right, between thoroughgoing socialists and moderate reformers. Indeed, that 1893 conference voted both for collective ownership of the means of production and for a raft of standard Victorian radical-Liberal policies: not just the eight-hour day, payment of MPs and graduated income tax but “the abolition of indirect taxation”. Good luck with that one, then or now.
The reality, however, was stranger, messier — and far more interesting. Labour began as a motley mash-up of rationalism and mysticism, self-interest and self-denial, practical sense and nebulous idealism. It was (and maybe is) deceptive to carve simple binary lines into this over-stuffed fruitcake of a social force.
Hardie’s biographer, Kenneth O. Morgan, records that the passions of the ILP’s oddball prophet included “thought transference”, “belief in a previous incarnation for humans and for beasts alike”, Druids, fairies, faith-healing and “the sustaining force of Mother Earth”. When he had an affair with the much-younger feminist Sylvia Pankhurst, Hardie would read her “extracts from Shelley, Byron, Scott, Shakespeare and Whitman” over scones and tea at his Holborn flat. Hardie’s current namesake, bound to a doctrine that might be dubbed Extreme Normalism, sadly has little to say about all that.
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.
SubscribeAmusing review of Broady’s and Blue Labour’s Cruddas’s recent books. While I’ve been a member for almost two decades now , I’d not realised what a weird & wonderful mix went into the original party punch bowl.
Very entertaining article that, whilst it entirely overlooks the xenophobia that also played a significant part in the early days as well as the Fabian enthusiasm for novel eugenics, Stalin and sterilisation of the poor, at least recognises that Labour has always been, above all else, a vehicle for the nation’s curtain twitching middle class busybodies and obsessives.
A good review. We need to be reminded that Labour, particularly the ILP, had a moral radical dimension seeking the betterment of ‘man’. Today we have politicians who emphasise the dreary administration of regulation, with emphasis on the economy and materialism.
If Labour could recover its idealism, and support family and community it would attract a new constituency. Does anything in the current Labour manifesto excite you or show vision?