The British Labour Party and Welfare: The Legacies of the Attlee and Wilson Governments

The British Labour Party won the 2024 British general election. With that in mind, Vittorio Trevitt looks at the past Labour governments of Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson. He considers how these governments handled welfare policy.

Clement Attlee with John F. Kennedy in 1961.

The UK General Election held in July 2024 was a truly historic event, with Labour returning to office after more than a decade in opposition. The fact that Labour did so with such a massive majority means that they have a strong mandate to transform Britain into a fairer nation. Although the state of public finances has resulted in Labour removing universal Winter Fuel Allowances for most pensioners (ironically reversing a policy implemented under the Blair Government in 1997) and more cuts likely to follow, it is highly probable that as economic conditions improve there will be greater leeway for Labour to expand social provisions, such as fulfilling its proposals for extending rights to statutory sick pay and introducing free breakfast clubs in all English primary schools. In the past, Labour has encountered severe financial difficulties but has still managed to establish a broad array of social security grants that have done much to ameliorate the quality of life for ordinary households. Two former Labour administrations that Starmer and his ministers can look to for guidance are the Attlee Government of 1945-51 and the 1964-70 and 1974-76 Wilson Governments.

Attlee Government

The Labour Government that came to power in the first election following the end of the Second World War has long been held in high esteem not only by historians but also by Labour Party activists and politicians. Led by veteran Labourite Clement Attlee, it was by far the most radical and successful that Britain had experienced by that time. Although the country Labour inherited was in a parlous financial state (the legacy of World War II), Attlee and his ministers would not disappoint an electorate hungry for change after years of strife and sacrifice. Over the next 6 years, they drastically changed Britain for the better. One way it achieved this was through the construction of a comprehensive and universalistic welfare model. Although Britain had a long history of welfare provision, the Attlee Government greatly built on the existing framework by setting up a system that covered all citizens. One of the pillars of this new solidaristic edifice, the National Health Service, was notable in making free access to every form of healthcare (such as medical and dental care, eyeglasses and hearing aids) a right for every citizen; one that the service has continued to uphold despite frequent cuts and overhauls in the decades since its “birth.” The 1946 National Insurance Act set up a broad network of cash payments incorporating a range of risks such as old age, widowhood and funeral costs. Apart from the normal rates, increases could be made in national insurance paymentsfor particular cases. Also, where employers had failed to meet the contribution requirements of the Act, resulting in recipients losing partly or entirely the maternity, sickness or unemployment benefits that were theirs by right, such individuals could retrieve a civil debt from said employers representing the lost amounts. A Five Year Benefit Reviewwas also included, aimed at ensuring the adequacy of allowances in helping beneficiaries to meet their basic needs. Additionally, groups such as trade unions were enabled to set up their own schemes if they so wished.

The equally far-reaching Industrial Injuries Act passed that same year bestowed various cash grants upon workers suffering from work-related injuries such as disablement gratuities and special hardship allowances (aimed at workers unable to carry out their current lines of work or equivalent due to their injuries). Five distinct benefits were also made for dependents of workers who tragically lost their lives, while allowances were given in cases of approved hospital treatment, constant attendance and unemployability; the latter geared towards disability pensioners unable to take on any form of employment. In addition, the National Assistance Act introduced two years later established a non-contributory social safety net for those in need; providing support such as shelter and nutritional assistance.

The Attlee years also witnessed the passage of other welfare measures affecting different strata of British society.Dockworkers became entitled to pay in cases of unemployment or underemployment, while a state scheme for mature university students was set up. Regulations provided numerous pension entitlements for NHS employees while the National Insurance and Civil Service (Superannuation) Rules, 1948 provided for preserved pension rights with a compensation award in cases where individuals experienced the impairment or loss of opportunity to earn a further pension. As a means of helping people reach their potential, a special scheme was instituted in 1947 whereby individuals with a gift for skilled crafts became eligible for grants to undertake training in other locations if no suitable facilities existed near where they lived.

In 1946, certain pensioners with disabilities that added to wear and tear became entitled to a new clothing allowance, while a couple of years later greater eligibility for special education allowances for children was introduced. The 1948 Local Government Act generalised various powers to pay subsistence and travelling allowances to members of local authorities while also providing payments in cases where council business attendance led to financial loss. The 1947 Agriculture Act incorporated several forms of compensation, such as for disturbance and improvement, while the 1948 Criminal Justice Act provided for the enforcement of payments of compensation or damages. Under the 1948 Children Act, local authorities were empowered to care for children who were orphaned, deserted or unable to be looked after by their parents due to circumstance. Amongst its many provisions included accommodation for children reaching 3 years of age, along with grants for students to help them with the costs of maintenance, training or education. A year later, a system of legal assistance was inaugurated that entitled most people to free legal support in both civil and criminal cases.

Impact of the Attlee Government

The extent to which the social security legislation of the Attlee Government dramatically improved people’s lives can be gauged from a poverty study conducted in York in 1950 by the legendary researcher and humanitarian Seebohm Rowntree; using that location as a representative sample. A follow up to a previous survey carried out in the same area in 1936, it estimated that the percentage of working-class people in York who lived in poverty stood at 2.77% in 1950, compared with 31.1% 14 years earlier. Although the study undoubtedly overestimated the extent to which poverty fell during that period, it nevertheless highlights the fact that the Welfare State established under Attlee did much to diminish the numbers experiencing hardship. G.R. Lavers, who co-authored the report, argued that the largest improvement since 1936 had come about as a result of the welfare reforms instituted since 1945, going as far as to claim that the Welfare State had greatly overcome poverty. This assertion gave Labour a positive message to convey to the public during the 1951 election campaign, but despite their efforts would be voted out of office; not returning to power until 1964 under the leadership of former minister Harold Wilson.

Wilson Governments

Like Attlee’s Administration, Harold Wilson and his ministers inherited a nation in a difficult economic position; one that eventually resulted in the currency being devalued. This culminated in detestable austerity policies including higher charges for school meals. Also, In a dubious move, one that undoubtedly reflected exaggerated perceptions of welfare fraud that persist to this day, a “four-week rule” was instituted in July 1968 in certain places. This involved social assistance benefits being removed from recipients after this time if it was believed that there was suitable work available. Assessing the impact of this measure, one study edited by the anti-poverty activist and future cabinet minister Frank Field provided the estimate that 10% of those affected by the rule subsequently ventured into crime as a consequence of their losing their benefits. Despite a ministerial claim that this policy had been a success in tackling benefit fraud, Field’s study suggests that it was a misguided decision that caused unnecessary hardship.

Nevertheless, for most of its period in office Labour not only boosted public spending but also rolled out a programme of radical welfare reform that did much to lessen inequality. New benefits were introduced concerning risks that previously had been left uncovered by the Attlee welfare laws. Redundancy pay was set up, along with income supplements for beneficiaries such as unwell, injured and jobless persons; the latter to lessen the impact of unemployment for skilled employees. New allowances for partially incapacitated men were also established, with increased amounts were permitted in certain cases.

The 1965 Solicitors Act allowed for grants to be paid in hardship situations, while other laws introduced varying forms of compensation for those affected by compulsory land purchases and damage. National Assistance was superseded by a new Supplementary Benefits Scheme; an overhaul carried out partly to prevent detailed individual enquiries. Reflecting this philosophical shift, changes were made, for instance, to rent allowance payments for non-householders (previously, these had been dependent upon a household’s make-up). Although not without its faults, it was a definite improvement over the previous social assistance arrangements. Higher benefit rates were provided and, although the allowances under the new scheme were mostly the same as under National Assistance (with exceptions such as an additional allowance for long-term claimants), what differed was the fact that the new scheme sought to ensure that benefits would be given as a right to those who met the means-tested conditions, while seniors were entitled to an income guarantee. Measures were also carried out with the intention of enabling widows and women whose marriages had dissolved to receive higher pensions, while regulations established improved levels of financial assistance for disabled people (such as an allowance for severe disabilities), and allowed for Christmas bonuses to be disregarded in the estimation or calculation of earnings when determining national insurance payments. Local tax rebates were created to assist less well-off ratepayers, and the 1965 Matrimonial Causes Act was designed to helpwomen by means of ordering alimony and other forms of payment to the concerned parties. Additionally, measures were undertaken to tackle homelessness and deliver residential services to persons who are ill and living with disabilities.

The social security record of Wilson’s first administration can be justified by the impact its policies had on those living on low incomes. In 1970, the amount that benefits and taxes added to the incomes of those earning £315 annually was more than twice the equivalent amount from 1964. Measurements have also suggested that the number of individuals living in poverty was far lower in 1970 than in 1964; further justification of Labour’s welfare record from the Sixties. One such benchmark, utilising a 1970-based absolute poverty line, has suggested that the percentage of poor Britons fell from around 20% to around 15% by the end of Wilson’s first premiership. Wilson’s last government from 1974 to 1976 would also see further landmarks in social security, with various laws passed that established new entitlements including invalidity pensions and mobility and invalidity care allowances for the disabled, earnings-related pensions, and Child Benefit; a universal payment which for the first time included financial support to families with at least one child and enhanced the amount of assistance allocated to low-income families.

The administrations in context

In a way, both administrations reflected the spirit of the times that they governed in. In the decade or so following the end of the hostilities, several war-torn nations in Europe came under the leadership of left-wing coalitions that expanded their social aid systems, while even poorer nations led by progressives including Burma (Myanmar), Guatemala, Iran and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) undertook reforms in this field. Similarly, during Wilson’s first stint as prime minister several developing nations led by reformers throughout the Sixties like India, Turkey, Honduras and the Philippines also embarked upon their own programmes of welfare innovation. The revolutionary social security reforms implemented under Attlee and Wilson therefore reflected broader geopolitical trends during their incumbencies.

The record of the Attlee and Wilson administrations shows that even under dire economic circumstances there is much that can be achieved in strengthening the social security structure that has done much throughout the decades to prevent and mitigate poverty in the United Kingdom. Like their forebears, the Starmer Government must never lose sight of Labour’s goal to make Britain a nation free of injustice. A more generous welfare system is a prerequisite to this. Although it is likely that it will take time until the financial situation improves to the point that Labour will be able to pursue looser, more expansionary fiscal measures to attain its reformist vision, the Starmer Government must nevertheless reinforce the Welfare State as an effective tool against the scourges of poverty, as most Labour governments have done so in the past. The welfare records of the Attlee and Wilson ministries are ones that the new Labour administration can learn greatly from today.

 The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The First British Labour Government – What did it Achieve?

The British Labour Party has long been at the forefront of progressive social change in the United Kingdom, introducing such policy innovations over the years as the NHS, comprehensive education, and the national minimum wage. Labour has also left its mark in local government, where historically the party has often been successful in putting its socialist principles into practice. Early Twentieth Century Labour councils built a reputation not only for providing more generous levels of social assistance in comparison to non-Labour councils, but also for fostering improvements in education and public health, lowering rates for municipal gas and electricity rates, and serving as good local employers. However, it is nationally that Labour has had the greatest impact on people’s lives; a trend that started exactly 100 years ago.

Vittorio Trevitt explains.

Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald (middle of bottom row in lighter suit) and his ministers in January 1924.

This January marked the centenary of the formation of the First Labour Government. The product of an inconclusive election the previous month, in which the Conservatives won the most seats but were unable to win a parliamentary vote of confidence, Labour was able to form a minority government with the backing of the Liberal Party.

The coming to power of the First Labour Government has long been of great interest, due to the fact that it marked the first time that Labour, a democratic socialist party committed to radical social change, had come to lead the United Kingdom. Unsurprisingly, Labour’s ascension caused mixed reactions, with elements of the press incredulous at the thought of socialist “wildmen” running Britain, while the Annual Register, by contrast, referred to this historic event as representing ‘A revolution in British politics as profound as that associated with the Reform Act of 1832’. It also led to an overhaul of the two-party system, where for decades power had alternated between the Conservatives and Liberals; their traditional rivals. It was now Labour that held the mantle of chief rival of the Conservative Party; a role that it has continued to play to this day. Symbolically for a worker-oriented party, the new prime minister Ramsay MacDonald was the first person from a working-class background to hold that notable position.

Apart from the symbolism of Labour finally holding the reins of power after years in opposition, it is important to ask oneself what the Party actually achieved in office. One should not, I believe, celebrate a socialist government coming into being if it is unable to implement policies of social justice that represent the ideals of democratic socialism. The First Labour Government’s actions, however, certainly lived up to these.

War’s end

Labour came to power during a period following the end of the First World War when a number of other socialist parties came to power throughout Europe for the first time, either as senior or junior partners in coalitions. In Germany, the Social Democratic Party (the nation’s longest-established party) formed an all-socialist administration, while other European states like Hungary, Poland, Estonia, and Austria witnessed members of social-democratic parties assuming ministerial positions in office, enabling their members to have the opportunity to drive and influencepositive social change. British Labour was no different, although numerous policy proposals put forward during Labour’s time in opposition failed to see the light of day, hampered by the Party’s minority status in Parliament. A proposed capital levy never materialised, while Labour failed to secure passage of a number of bills such as one aimed at regulating rents and a private bill focusing on shop assistants’ hours of work. Despite these shortcomings, Labour succeeded in implementing a broad range of reforms during their relatively short period in office, many of which left an indelible stamp on society. Duties on certain foodstuffs were reduced, while improvements were made in financial support for the unemployed. Benefits were increased by a fifth for men and women, eligibility for payments to dependents was widened while more people were brought under the umbrella of unemployment insurance, and a statutory right to cash benefits was introduced. The government also acted to improve conditions for pensioners; raising pensions and extending the old-age pension to all those over the age of 70 in need. In regards to earnings, action was taken on trade boards, with the number of minimum rate enforcement inspectors increased by a third, Grocery Trade Boards revived (after having previously lapsed) and an official investigation launched into certain sections of the catering trade. Additionally, machinery for fixing minimum wage rates for agricultural workers (which was dismantled in 1921) was re-established.

Infrastructure

Emphasis was placed on developing infrastructure, with money made available for drainage, roads, and repairs and improvements for dwellings dating back to the First World War. Also of significance was the setting up of Royal Commissions on schooling and health insurance to formulate plans for delivering future changes in those areas (with the latter focusing on the uneven coverage of health insurance in Britain, amongst other aspects of the system), together with a Royal Commission on mental illness law, whose work culminated in important developments in provisions for people with mental illnesses in later years. Agricultural research received a sizeable cash injection, while the Small Debt (Scotland) Act offered support to poorer individuals in that part of the UK, with provisions such as a rise in the amount that could not be attached from wages and the direct payment by instalments of sums found due in small debt courts in rent arrear cases. As a sign of the spirit of the times, a parliamentary motion was adopted in March 1924 calling on the government to establish a Commission of Inquiry to look into the setting of minimum pay scales for working people.

The grant terms of the Unemployment Grants Committee, a body set up 4 years earlier to provide grants to local authorities offering work schemes to jobless persons, were also improved. More areas, for instance, became eligible for grants, while a 6 month probation of 75% or 87.5% of wages was eliminated and a stipulation introduced whereby contracts had to include Fair Wage Clauses. Provisions for war veterans and dependents were also improved, in keeping with the commitment made by Labour in its election programme to ensure “fair play” for this segment of British society.

True to its progressive principles, the First Labour Government reversed various austerity measures introduced in the years following the Armistice, which had entailed cutbacks in areas such as health, education, and housing. Cuts made to the educational system (including the abolition of state scholarships to universities) were reversed, a grant for adult education was bolstered, and an easing of regulations on the construction of schools was carried out. Efforts were made to reduce the number of unqualified teachers, while class sizes in elementary schools were brought down.Reflecting a policy adopted by Labour a year earlier to make universal secondary education a reality, the government increased the number of free secondary school places available; a policy development that resulted in nearly 50% of all secondary school children receiving their education for free by 1931.

Housing Act of 1924

Arguably the most radical measure of the First Labour Government was the Housing Act of 1924. The result of the work of health minister John Wheatley, this far-reaching piece of legislation, which raised government subsidies to housing let at regulated rents, facilitated the construction of more than half a million homes, increased the standard of council housing built, and included a fair wages clause for those involved in the building of these homes. This landmark law was, according to one historian, the First Labour Government’s “most significant domestic reform,” and to me represents a perfect example of progressive politics in action.

Despite these noteworthy accomplishments, Labour’s aforementioned lack of a legislative majority meant that it was unable to implement (in comparison with future Labour administrations) a programme of radical change, and lasted less than a year before losing the support of the Liberals and failing to win a snap election. In the run-up to this election, Labour was confronted with accusations that it was “soft” on the USSR, as arguably demonstrated by its recognition of and promise of a loan to the latter; decisions which possibly contributed to its electoral defeat.

The fate of Labour’s first administration was sealed by the controversy surrounding the “Campbell Case,” in which the government dropped a case put against the left-wing journalist John Campbell, who was accused of encouraging British troops to commit acts of mutiny by calling on soldiers to ignore orders to fire on striking workers if ever told to do so. A vote of confidence was held which Labour lost, and in the subsequent election, the Conservatives returned to office with a massive majority of seats in Parliament. Anti-communist propaganda deployed by Conservatives during the election campaign arguably contributed to Labour’s loss, with various Tory candidates equating the Labour Party with communism or leading Britain down this path. Both the Campbell case, along with the government’s building of bridges with the Soviet Union, gave ample ammunition for right-wing propagandists.

What helped their successful anti-socialist crusade was the publication in the Daily Mail (a few days prior to the election) of the Zinoviev Letter. Presumably from Communist International president Grigory Zinoviev to an official of the British Communist Party, the letter encouraged British communists to foment revolution. Although its authenticity remains open to debate, its likely that this document played a part in turning potential voters against Labour, bringing its first stint in power to a premature end.

Conclusion

In spite of its brevity in office, and the challenges it faced, it is to Labour’s credit that it was able to do so much, while demonstrating to voters that Labourites were democrats who believed in change through constitutional means and could be trusted to safely run the country while also being a credible alternative to the Conservatives. Undoubtedly, the positive achievements of the First Labour Government under the circumstances it found itself in demonstrated both Labour’s effectiveness as a governing party and its commitment to changing Britain for the better.

The lesson that progressives can learn from the record of the First Labour Government is that social change can be achieved even when a reforming administration lacks a majority in the chambers of power, as long as there is the will to do so. At the time of writing, Labour looks set to emerge victorious in the upcoming general election. If it does, a Starmer Administration should, in the face of a difficult economic situation, do its best to carry out as much in the way of social-democratic reform as possible if it wishes to make Britain a more just society for all in the years ahead. To do so would not only be to the benefit of ordinary people, but would serve as a great tribute to the memory of the First Labour Government.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Red Menace – Britain’s Communist Scare of the 1920s

Three decades before McCarthyism made its name in the USA, Britain experienced her own version of a “Red Scare” in the 1920s. The British press and the Conservative Party went through strenuous efforts to convince the British public that the Bolsheviks were trying to gain a foothold in Britain and advance the Communist cause. Steve Prout explains.

UK Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald with Christian Rakovsky, Head of the Soviet diplomatic delegation, in 1924.

Post War Britain

The political demographics in Britain had changed in the interwar years. The electorate had expanded to include all males under the age of twenty-one. Many had fought in the war and were returning home to a land promised “fit for heroes” which did not materialise. All women over thirty were now eligible to vote for the first time.

These changes had made their impacts on the long-established two-party dominance of the Liberals and Conservatives in British politics as the Labour had now emerged as a credible political party. They began their first government in 1924 much to the surprise of everybody even the party itself. Alarmists were claiming that socialism was gaining a damaging foothold consequently were opening the doors to Bolshevism. The right wing-controlled media would try to ensure the public believed that this was the reality.

The economy was now becoming under pressure and the post war boom was starting to wane exacerbating already tense industrial relations. Strikes were regular and union membership was growing. The mining industry was feeling the adverse effects of competition from the German and Polish mines who had now challenged British exports in the European market. It gave further concern to the already nervous Conservatives

Socialism was new to the British and its intention were not completely understood. Being as the Russian Revolution was still fresh in people’s minds the combined efforts of the press and Conservatives would blow the picture out of all proportion, but what was happening in Britain was as remote as it could get from the recent events that happened in the USSR.

The Conservative and the First Labour Government

The success of the Labour Party’s first election victory that came as a surprise to everybody including the Labour Party itself and so began this fabrication. The Conservatives stirred up anti Soviet hysteria that they could connect to the Labour Party and thus damage their image. They had plenty of material to exploit and mould into the fearful image they wanted to project. This is what we would call today “Fake news” but it did have its effect.

The new Labour Government immediately attracted unflattering quotes and Churchill, true to literary form, offered no restraint himself by announcing that “The enthronement of a socialist government is a serious national misfortune”; elsewhere on the same topic the Chairman of the Leeds and Yorkshire Bank clearly expecting a blooded coup stated, “now is the time for unflinching courage.” Their fears were completely unfounded.

Labour in fact kept to the mainstream path of politics and the status quo of British politics remained unviolated. By the time Labour had achieved office the members that were of a Trade Union affiliation comprised less than half (98 out of 191). Furthermore their membership was no longer exclusively working class - middle and upper classes had also joined their ranks. For a myriad of reasons many viewed old guard politicians as the reason for the cause of the Great War which still remained unforgiven and left deep scars in every village and town in Britain.

Another subtle fact also ignored by the antagonists was that Labour also actively avoided recruiting communists into their ranks, a fact the press chose to overlook. Only two MPs, Walther Newbold and Shapurji Saklatvala, for a short amount of time were on the benches in the House of Commons. The former quickly lost his seat and his enthusiasm from communist ideals. In fact, they repeatedly refused Communism in both the Party and the Trades Union Congress.

Even if Labour were a radical party, they did not command a majority in Government to bring any change about as they depended on the support of the Liberals to vote in their favour in the House of Commons. The reality was Labour also lacked experience, and the economic and political picture of this period was one that required stability not radicalism so in effect they were realists. As MacDonald would remark they were “in office but not in power. “

Labour’s early recognition of the USSR in 1924 created another furore. So did the financial negotiations on trade that ensued but came to no fruition. The Labour Government in fact showed no favouritism to the USSR. The talks of a loan to the Soviet Union were subject to certain conditions, one being the satisfaction of the war debt owed to Britain. There was an idea of opening British goods to the Soviet market that would help Britain’s floundering economy. There was nothing in these negotiations to indicate a blossoming friendship.

Much to the media’s silent disappointment, there would be no socialist revolution.

The Russian Revolution and its aftermath

The USSR was still augmenting its post revolution position and was far too weak economically and militarily to even consider further communist expansion beyond its borders. She was still recovering from losing a succession of wars with Poland where she ceded ninety percent of her lucrative industrial lands. She was isolated with no dependable allies, the exception being the Rapallo Treaty with her former and future adversary, Germany.

This did not stop the British press - it was determined to manufacture a threat and another opportunity came along in the form of a fake document called the Zinoviev letter purported to be from Moscow ordering underground communist sedition in Britain. It coincidentally appeared and was published while MacDonald’s first Labour government was in office. The incident was more akin to a damp fuse than a major incident. Taylor terms it “a puzzle of no historical importance” and it did not actually cause the demise of the first Labour Party. Its authenticity was questioned by the King himself, but it did not reach the public ear and it would have been too late for his words to have any impact.

Internally the USSR had a multitude of problems meaning her energies had to be focused on these issues, namely the famines which resulted in Lenin appealing for help from the wider world. Lenin even contemplated on back-pedalling on some of his communist policies to introduce a limited degree of private enterprise to combat the economic devastation. Any talk of worldwide revolution within the ranks in the USSR was purely fanciful words expressed only by the deluded and the wishful thinking idealists. The media had to look elsewhere and further afield that place was in China.

The Chinese Uprisings

In March 1927, another opportunity was seized upon by the media. In Nanjing, China local soldiers began looting the British, US and Japanese embassies in what was known as the Chinese Uprisings; six foreign nationals were killed two of whom were British which resulted in an immediate demand for retribution. The media immediately saw this as tangible evidence of a Red Menace showing its hand and threatening British interests. Meredith Atkinson summed up the anti-Soviet hysteria spread at the time by comparing it with the crusades of previous centuries: “All Holy wars fade into insignificance beside the fanatical Jehad of the Red International.” This was an exaggeration.

The Comintern (a Soviet backed international organisation founded in 1919 to expedite the spread of communism) was no tangible threat anywhere and it played little part in the unrest in China. The disquiet was more down to Britain’s application of her imperialism that resulted in unequal commercial and trading terms. Nationalistic fervor rather than any communist intent was the underlying driving force all along and Britain was seeing this grow in her possessions around the globe, namely Iraq, India, Ireland, and Egypt. The truth was that the British failed to recognize the changing times and an Empire that was becoming untenable to maintain.

The typical British response was to use force to re-impose their authority as they did in Iraq and Ireland failing to realise that their own heavy-handed suppressive ways did nothing to calm the discontent or arrest the Empire’s decline - if anything it accelerated it.

The Home Front and the aftermath of the General Strike

The judiciary, law enforcement and the government all but abused their positions to suppress any communist presence or opinions. Britain had only recently become a proper more inclusive democracy in the early part of the century with expanding the electorate, but it appeared people could still be persecuted for their political beliefs if it were not palatable with the newly elected Conservatives.

The Home Secretary William Joynson-Hicks whom HG Wells described at the time one as somebody who “represents the absolute worst element in British political life” was particularly energetic in these endeavours. Hicks was renowned for his ruthless persecution of members of the British Communist Party. In 1925 he would be instrumental in the imprisonment of twelve individuals just based on their political beliefs, one of who was Harry Pollit, the General Secretary of the British Communist Party.

This antipathy was evident in his early political career when he called Kier Hardie a “leprous traitor.”  Hickson was a strange and contradictory individual who on the one hand was a firm supporter of the female vote but on the other could discard democratic ideals.

The General Strike of 1926 for all its grand scale and disruption only resulted in four thousand arrests out of millions of strikers. There was minimal property damage and Churchill's forebodings of mass violent action and sedition failed to happen as only a thousand of those arrested served a prison sentence. The strike was unsuccessful and did not require the use of any governmental emergency powers. The desire revolution never existed in mind or body of the people or the strikers, but this did not stop Churchill trying his best in being typically provocative by labelling British workingmen as the enemy. Bellicose and true to form he used a newly founded British Gazette to loudly promote this distorted view. His attitude during the strike was one of a minister being on a war footing and demanding an “unconditional surrender” of the strikers rather than seeing it as a genuine protest with genuine grievances and concerns

Attitudes in 1925 emanating from the Trade Unions were about negotiation, as AJP Taylor remarked, and were not about Bolshevism. Incidents of striking by 1925 were only a tenth of what they were in 1921, further pointing to evidence that any intensity was diluted. Most union leaders did not see class war as a tool for change. The old class arguments were outdated and were replaced by more progressive attitudes. Ernest Bevin in fact wanted to work with the employers to bring change.  The press of course continued its antagonistic line unnecessarily.

Conclusion

The Red Menace incident was an isolated piece of British history that was forgotten amid the headlining events that shook Europe between the two world wars and the. It is interesting and frightening how the British government could easily meander around the judicial and democratic ideals to deal with opposing political views for a threat that was essentially contrived by themselves.

Had this have been a decade later in the 1930s then there would have been some justification for a Red Menace as the USSR executed its purges, intervened in Spain, and allied itself to the Nazi Regime in 1939. Even so, this does not excuse the political suppression at home or abroad.

The inter war years do have their interesting aspects as we see how Britain came to terms with the changes following the First World War and how she behaved in the build up to the second.

What do you think of Britain’s 1920s communist scare? Let us know below.

Now, read Steve’s article on Britain’s relationship with the European dictators in the inter-war years here.

References

Ariane Knusel -British Conservatives, the Red Menace and Anti-Foreign agitation in China 1924-1927 – Cultural History 2013- Edinburgh University Press

AJP Taylor – English History 1914-1945 – Oxford University Press

Extracts from Chronicles of the Twentieth Century – Longman -1987

Jonathan Dimbleby -Barbarossa: How Hitler Lost the War – Penguin Books 2021