The Labour Party Conference (1936)

From the November 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party held its thirty-sixth Annual Conference at Edinburgh in October, under a woman Chairman, Mrs. Adamson. The usual complacency which characterises Labour conferences was there, though somewhat shaken by internal criticism. The debate on supporting the National Government's policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War provided one example among many of deep differences inside the Labour Party. A resolution before the Conference asked for endorsement of the Executive's policy of non-intervention. Leaders supported the resolution and leaders opposed it; even members of the Executive, who were responsible for framing it, were unenthusiastic about it. All who spoke expressed their sympathy for the Spanish Government, but non-intervention was regarded as a stern duty. To supply the Spanish Government with arms, it was argued, would divide the nations of Europe into two camps, those supporting the Government and those supporting the rebels. Such a position would be dangerous and likely to lead to a European war. No speaker expressed any doubt that intervention had taken place, and that Italy and Germany had broken the neutrality agreement entered into with the governments of Great Britain, France and Russia, and had sent arms to the rebels. So the fear of war was responsible for the Executive’s decision. “It is no good talking about intervention unless you mean that you are ready to fight, and it may mean having to fight,” said Mr. Grenfell, M.P., who seconded the resolution on behalf of the Executive.

About the help given to the rebels there was no doubt in the minds of the delegates. The Chairman, in her opening address, said: “Unquestionably, the rebel forces have been assisted by the supplies they have received from and through the Fascist powers.” However, non-intervention was the order of the day, and a card vote resulted in the resolution being carried by 1,836,000 to 519,000. (Daily Herald, October 6th.)

Conference Supports, then Opposes, Non-Intervention

Having made the decision that non-intervention was preferable to the risk of war, Conference, in a few days, completely changed its mind. On Thursday, October 8th, two envoys of the Spanish Government appeared on the platform, Senor de Asua, Deputy Speaker of the Spanish Parliament, and Senora de Palencia, Madrid correspondent of the Daily Herald. They received a tumultuous welcome.  

Addressing the delegates, Senor de Asua said : "We have proof and facts that the rebels are getting arms from Germany and Italy —and that is since the non-intervention pact was made.” He further declared that the Balearic Islands were virtually in the hands of Italy, that Italians commanded rebel troops in Majorca, and that rebel warships had Germans among the crews.

Senora de Palencia gave a harrowing account of Government militiamen in the firing-line, armed only with sticks. Of the Moors, who are fighting with the rebels, she also said: “If they take a town or a village, not a woman is respected, not a church is respected." Conference was swept off its feet. Mr. Attlee and Mr. Greenwood were sent to London to interview Mr. Chamberlain, the Deputy Prime Minister, to acquaint him with the “evidence" that the non-intervention pact had been broken by Italy and Germany. The result of the interview was reported to the Conference on the last day of its sitting. Mr. Attlee submitted a long statement, which declared that: —

“The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, having heard the report of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, together with further documented information that has been placed before it, emphatically declares its conviction that the Fascist powers have broken their pledges of non-intervention, and endorses the demand made by our leaders, that the investigation of the alleged breaches of the Spanish non-intervention agreement should be pressed forward with the utmost speed . . . and in the event of its being found that the agreement has been ineffective . . . the French and British Governments . . . should take steps forthwith to restore to the Spanish Government its right to purchase the arms necessary to maintain the authority of the constitutional Government in Spain. . . ." (Daily Herald, October 11th, 1936.)

Mr. Chamberlain had promised the investigation demanded, so Conference accepted the statement of the National Executive unanimously. The change of mind was amazing. A few days earlier the policy of non-intervention had been endorsed because of the fear that war would result from intervention. Logically the change of mind could only be justified if this fear had proved to be groundless. The opposite was the case; Conference was warned by the leaders of the “risks involved" in the change of policy.

What exactly the Labour Party expected to get by asking for investigation, it is difficult to discover. The British Government is doubtless quite well aware what has been going on, and if there have been violations of the non-intervention agreement, then, as Lord Strabolgi pointed out, the Government’s advisers will know all about it without being told by the Labour Party. Moreover, as the British Government has decided that non-intervention is in line with capitalist interests, then they will doubtless postpone investigations until such time as the facts, being disclosed officially, will no longer embarrass them. The newspapers generally reported that the second decision, to support intervention if investigations showed the allegations against Italy and Germany to be true, put delegates in a much happier mood than the earlier decision. That cannot be doubted. It is not the first time that the odd mixture of political adventurers, sentimentalists, lawyers, and happy but ignorant trade union officials, which make up the Labour Party, has salved its conscience by such a gesture. The foreign policy of the Labour Party has usually been tied to the tail of the Government which happened to be in power, and its Spanish policy has been in line with that tradition. The decision to adopt a “dangerous" policy when there is no longer any danger in it, and when it is useless to the Madrid Government it pretends to help, is typical of political hypocrisy, as rife in the Labour Party as anywhere. Russia has fallen into line with same policy of proposing to help when the time for help has passed.

The Labour Party and Armaments

Conference turned its attention to armaments. The following is part of a resolution moved by Mr. Hugh Dalton on behalf of the Executive: —

That in view of the threatening attitude of dictatorships, which are increasing their armaments at an unprecedented rate, flouting international law, and refusing to co-operate in the work of organising peace, this Conference declares that the armed strength of the countries loyal to the League of Nations must be conditioned by the armed strength of the potential aggressors.

The Conference therefore reaffirms the policy of the Labour Party to maintain such defence forces as are consistent with our country’s responsibility as a member of the League of Nations, the preservation of the people’s rights and liberties, the continuance of democratic institutions, and the observance of international law.—(Daily Herald, October 7th, 1936.) 

Lord Arnold, who was opposed to the resolution, described it as a "masterpiece of inconsistencies, ambiguities and contradictions. . . . France did not care twopence about the League, except insofar as her own interests were concerned. . . . France had been breaking pledges year after year . . . but . . . continued to pay lip service to the League." He claimed that “the resolution meant rearmament, to which Conference was asked to agree in the name of Collective Security, and because of the menace of Fascism, but after the next war there would only be another ‘ism,' new horrors and new dictatorships. . . . Another war would never settle anything."

Mr. Lansbury opposed the resolution because he did not know what it meant. The mover, he argued, had inferred that it meant that the Labour Party would support the Government’s policy of rearmament in Parliament, whilst the seconder had implied the opposite. Mr. Dalton, who moved the resolution, had said : —

“I judge that a Labour Government, if it came to power to-morrow, would have to face the world situation, and I contend it would be compelled to increase British armaments." (Daily Herald, October 7th, 1936.)

Mr. A. Henderson, who seconded, said he was a “confirmed believer in the collective peace system . . .  the past failures of the League of Nations were not due to the failure of the peace systems but to failure to apply it." He mentioned nothing about rearmament. Moreover, he omitted to explain why the failure to apply the peace system was not due to the failure of the League of Nations. Mr. Morrison, supporting the resolution, stated a viewpoint the direct opposite of Mr. Dalton’s. He said ”it did not mean the support of the Government’s national competitive rearmament programme,” and that “it was in no way a departure from the policy which this Party had approved for years past." If that were true it would be difficult to explain why delegates had spent all day airing their disagreements about it. Moreover, Mr. Morrison’s further statement of opinion, that "the totality of armaments of all the peace States, joined together for the positive organisation of peace, must bear relationship to the totality of the arms of the potential aggressors,” is about as clear as the resolution he was supporting. Mr. Morrison is known for his forthright and expressive language, but that statement compares unfavourably with many made by that genius in vacuous phrases, the late and derided leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. Who are the peace States? Who the potential aggressors? Who is going to decide? What capitalist dictatorship or democracy is there that does not proclaim its peaceful intentions? Perhaps Mr. Morrison will deal with the question some time. Brought down to reality and penetrating the vagueness (perhaps intentional), the statement points to pacts in preparation for a future war.

Mr. Attlee, in winding up the. discussion on the resolution, was almost insulting to the intelligence of the delegates. He said there was “nothing in the resolution which bound the Parliamentary Labour Party.” Thus, after a day’s discussion on a resolution which was carried by 1,738,000 votes to 657,000, the resolution was interpreted by the leaders of the Party as meaning (1) support for rearmament, (2) support for the League and Collective Security (Mr. Henderson), (3) the Status Quo (Mr. Morrison), (4) nothing (Mr. Lansbury), and (5) that it was non-committal and gave a free hand to the Parliamentary Labour Party to do what they liked about it (Mr. Attlee). Three cheers for leadership would have completed the irony of that resolution. What is astounding is that a Party which accepts “the risk of War” should be evasive about supporting a policy which provides arms to fight war.

The debate was enlivened by some acrimonious exchanges between the leaders. Mr. Bevin accused Mr. Morrison of the ”worst piece of tightrope walking” he had ever seen at a conference, and Lord Arnold expressed the hope that, in the event of war, “Mr. Noel Baker and the trade union leaders would make for the front line trenches.”

Communist Affiliation Turned Down

The resolution supporting Communist Party affiliation to the Labour Party was defeated by 1,728,000 votes to 592,000. (Daily Herald, October 9th, 1936.) Another, which asked for a “united front of all political bodies which are engaged in working-class propaganda, was defeated by 1,805,000 votes to 435,000. (Daily Herald, October 10th, 1936.)

Reference back of that part of the Executive’s report to Conference, which had declined to put a ban on the acceptance of honours, was carried by 185 votes to 174. This result was received with acclamation. A minor victory for the rank and file, but it is doubtful whether Labour M.P.s and trade union officials will be absent from the honours lists in the future.

Strangely, or perhaps significantly, there was an absence this year of resolutions recommending the nationalisation of this or that industry. What reformist proposals were dealt with were of a minor kind and limited to such proposals as the utilisation of the surplus in the unemployment insurance funds to increase benefits, the abolition of the six-day waiting period for unemployed men and women, the ”rejuvenation” of depressed areas ”by schemes of land reclamation and prevention of coast erosion.” The absence of important issues, apart from those on foreign affairs, was reflected in a petty row on a small matter between Mrs. Gould and Miss Ellen Wilkinson. The latter wanted the Executive to lead the Communist-inspired unemployed march from the depressed areas around Newcastle to London. Mrs. Gould suggested that Miss Wilkinson’s oratory, plus propaganda films, would be more suitable to draw public attention to the misery in the depressed area. Charges of lack of feeling for the unemployed were made by Miss Wilkinson, because Mrs. Gould did not agree with her.

Labour League of Youth in Trouble

The Executive’s recommendations regarding the Labour League of Youth were adopted unanimously. The main recommendations were: —

(a) Disband the National Advisory Committee of the League;

(b) Not convene the Conference of the League next Easter;

(c) Suspend the publication of the New Nation, the journal of the League; and

(d) Age limit to be 21 instead of 25.

The League had made things awkward in wanting to take part in discussing and shaping Party policy. That has been stopped. If the League appears again it will be more in the nature of a Boy Scouts organisation.

Opposition to Trade Union Dominance 

According to reports from Labour quarters, this year’s Conference was the worst in years. There was much dissatisfaction among delegates, particularly those representing the local constituency Labour Parties. One matter in particular, according to Forward (October 7th), caused critical comment: that was the way in which the trade unions, by means of the block vote, can obtain an overwhelming decision even when the majority of delegates from the constituency Labour Parties are opposed to the decision. The block vote means that trades unions affiliated to the Labour Party can vote to the full strength of their members who pay the political levy to the Labour Party. An enormous number of these are not otherwise members of the Party. The Labour League of Youth question was a typical example of the way in which the block vote operated. This was purely a domestic question concerning the Labour Party, and yet, despite the fact that a majority of the constituency party delegates were in favour of a resolution to retain the age for membership of the League of Youth at 25, it was defeated by 1,731,000 votes to 542,000. A meeting of 250 angry constituency delegates was held under the chairmanship of Sir Stafford Cripps after the Conference had closed. The result was that a committee was set up to go into the question of the relationship of the trades unions and the Labour Party. As a result, the Executive Committee will be presented with demands for a number of reforms. The chief demands will be: —

(1) That the election of the constituency party representatives be made only by delegates of the constituency parties.

(2) An alteration in the present basis of representation which would give constituency parties a greater voice in party matters at annual conferences.

(3) That there should be a variation of the present method of card voting.— Forward, October 17th, 1936.)

'Strange that the demand for democracy should be heard in the Labour Party in the 36th year of its existence!

It may be that the Labour Party has passed the peak of its strength, that it will never again be the Government except in coalition with the Liberals or some other capitalist group. The uncertainty and lack of confidence among the leaders at Edinburgh certainly seemed to indicate that they were conscious of this. That arrogant self-assurance in themselves as the saviours of mankind, which characterised conferences in the days before there was the least chance of them becoming the Government, is now completely absent. Each succeeding annual conference exposes more clearly the non-Socialist character of the Labour Party. The result is discontent among numbers of its members, who, because of their lack of understanding, had expected something quite different from the Labour Party when it grew to strength and influence.

The harm the Labour Party has done to the cause of Socialism can only be cleared up by Socialist understanding. That is the task of the Socialist Party.

Harry Waite