Strife

Strife   noun: angry or bitter disagreement over fundamental issues; conflict

A Wordsmith Post

There has always been disagreement between Trade Unions and the Labour Party. Schisms of political interest, dogma and practical politics when Labour were in government. It still exists today.

In the 1960’s the fluctuating economy was not helped by the Unions and their practice of bringing industry to a halt over pay claims and other disagreements about working practice and conditions. Many politicians during that decade believed that Unions were disrupting any progress with modern technology. The same decade of Harold Wilson’s famous speech about the “white heat of technology”.

Barbara Castle believed that it was this constant cycle of disruption by Unions that was preventing the progress of democratic socialism that previous Labour stalwarts such as Nye Bevan, had aspired to. The belief that the individual labourer in their daily work should be the contributor and beneficiary of society; but without an entrepreneurial industrial society there would be no economy. Mrs Castle believed that at that point in time, during the 1960’s, it was the Trade Unions that were disrupting that position.

I called her Mrs. Castle in that last paragraph. As did my brother Peter when he wrote a report of the delivery of a White Paper in Parliament called “In Place of Strife”. He prepared his report probably for syndication in more than one newspaper when he was the Parliamentary Correspondent for Central Press Features. I found it at the British Newspaper Archive, in the Coventry Evening Telegraph, dated August 1969.

The article was headlined – Barbara’s Bill May Be The End – and it is only halfway through the article that Peter refers to Mrs. Castle. I mention this because I realise that a reporter produces ‘copy’ that is submitted for sub editing. My guess is that Peter’s copy would have been submitted to his office where it may have been reshaped for distribution to the various newspapers who then in turn would probably need to sub edit the article to ensure space on the page. I am also presuming that the sub editor would have been giving the piece a title to suit its readership. I wonder if Peter originally named Barbara Castle in full in his original copy.

In 1969 everybody knew Barbara Castle as a politician, a Cabinet Minister and as a familiar speaker on television and radio.

Barbara castle is long regarded as a key figure in bringing about equal pay in UK legislation. She was born in 1910 and had served as a member of parliament for Blackburn from 1945 to 1979 becoming one of the longest serving female MPs in British history and was at that time 1 of only 24 women MPs. She was the first woman to become Secretary of State for employment and productivity from 1968 till 1970 during which time she intervened in the Ford Dagenham dispute which resulted in equalizing pay for women workers in the car factory at Dagenham.

Barbara Castle was also instrumental in preparing the White Paper on industrial relations, ‘In Place of Strife’.

Amongst its many proposals were plans to force trade unions to call a ballot before a strike was held and the establishment of an industrial board to enforce settlements in industrial disputes. Harold Wilson’s cabinet was divided over the issue. Divisions quickly appeared within the cabinet when the proposals were presented with opposition led by the home secretary James Callahan.

This is the background story that Peter was reporting on.

Trade union legislation, now that the government have decided its form, presents Mr. Wilson with two separate problems both flowing from the same source. As Prime Minister he faces the threat of a programme of industrial action stemming from acute dissatisfaction with the strike regulations.

As leader of the Labour Party, he must also cope with the possibility that the strain produced by this bill will prove too much for the already frayed ties between labour and the unions.

Barbara Castle was leading the move to do something about breaking the power of the Unions over the Labour Party. Two Unions at that time, the print unions and electrical unions were causing economic challenges with industrial action and disruption that Harold Wilson’s government could not see an end to without introducing laws to control strikes. Wilson supported Castle in a position that was designed to break the power of the Unions over the economy. The main requirement in the White Paper was that there had to be a secret ballot of all members before a Union could call a strike.

The threat of industrial unrest is the greater one for it is highly unlikely that the unions will hive off from the party – not at any rate on this issue.

That the unions are not likely to leave the party is a matter which ought to dismay all individual members of the Labour Party, and everyone with a vote, for that matter.

At first glance that last point that Peter makes might be misconstrued as opinion and not reporting. He continues with some statistics on the fact of life that all Labour Party members were living with:

The Labour Party in 1967, the last year for which figures are available, had 6,294,614 members.

Of these 5,539,000 belonged through their trade unions. Only 733,000 were individual members through local parties.

The unions enjoy great advantages through affiliation. They find the formal political link a highly valuable one.

Opponents of the White Paper, led by James Callaghan in Cabinet, were concerned that this could be a dangerous straw to break their political back in the General Election of 1970. That the loss of support from Trade Unions would destroy the position they had gained. Peter gave three reasons for why this might not be the case.

In case union leaders still think the price of sponsoring candidates and of contributing block sums of money to the party in the form of affiliation fees and to election fighting funds, is too high for services received, 3 considerations should ensure they retain the link.

First, to abandon the party at this time would be to reduce even further labour’s chances of regaining power at the next election.

Secondly the Tories can only be less acceptable than labour as a government – Mr. MacLeod made it clear, for instance, that the conservatives would improve on Mrs. Castle’s bill.

And thirdly, the unions would then have to devise some alternative methods for exerting a special political influence in the legislature.

Mr Macleod was Iain Macleod, the Conservative Shadow Chancellor.

It seems self-evident from the turbulent economic times of the 1960’s that something had to change, and Peter saw that this could only really come from within the Unions themselves. However, they would collectively vote against it with their mighty block votes at the Labour Conference that year.

The unions have tended to use their special relationship with the government in an obstructive fashion since Mr. Wilson became Prime Minister. And the union’s ability to dominate the proceedings at party conference can on occasions be little short of monstrous. Let us look forward to October. It is probable that most individual Labour Party members support it and will vote for it in other words the bill should have every chance of endorsement, the government being given approval to go forward.

But the unions looked very strongly like voting against anti strike legislation and defeating the motion of support.

If all trade union members became more involved in politics as individuals, noted Peter, the influence that the Trade Unions had over the Labour Party would be different. It was about the financial influence over the governing party.

One solution, of course, would be for all members of the unions who pay the political levy to take more interest in politics. But they do not, and they do not look like becoming any more active in the near future.

The fact that the party relies on the unions for so much of its income puts an even more serious light on the situation- and not just for Labour Party members. It means the unions at present have a powerful and direct financial hold over the men who governed this country.

Peter’s article is crafted so well because his observations were based on just that, what he saw in front of him on a daily basis in Parliament, in daily life as a trade union member and himself as a citizen.

But say the unions, the big business corporations are pouring even larger amounts of money into the coffers of the Conservative Party. And that is precisely the point.

Labour would then be given the incentive to put its finances on a better footing and improve the organization in the country. 12 shillings a year seems an incredibly small sum to pay for your political convictions. Ironically, it is the trade unions who so often block proposals to increase the party’s subscriptions!

Twelve shillings was the annual subscription for membership of the Labour Party in 1969, worth about £8.45 in today’s value. In 1969 that would have been nearly a week’s wages for me.

It was never going to happen, Peter knew this, because he could see before the White Paper was voted out that the status quo would remain.

The unions themselves would be free to devote more time to their principal role. And they would not be susceptible to appeals for comradely sacrifices which Labour Governments sometimes make during, for instance, industrial disputes.

The government would then feel far more free to pursue policies which do not meet with the approval of the leaders of our unions.

It is unlikely to happen. And that, in a nutshell, is why Mr. Wilson need not worry over much about the future of the marriage between labour and the unions.

I am preparing this post at a time when Unison, the largest trade union in the UK in 2026, is now deciding to reduce its funding to the Labour Party by 40% because it is not representing their members views and values in quite the way that Unison would like. History comes in cycles.