The ‘high politics’ of Labour party factionalism, 1950–5 - by Robert

Crowcroft
“This article will suggest that perhaps the period can also be seen through the lens of the ‘high
politics’ school, in terms of a prolonged power struggle between key politicians, and the allies that
surrounded them, over the question of the future leadership of the party. As will be examined, the
protagonists, while certainly exercised by the policy issues they faced, in fact utilized them against
one another in order to strengthen their own position and to damage rivals.” P. 2

“Bevan had chosen a political position by virtue of its being the opposite of that of his adversary.
Consequently, by early 1951 he was, whether consciously or not, searching for a suitable pretext on
which to revolt in pursuit of this vendetta.” P.9

“Its focus upon the things that politicians do, say and are most interested in, and its attention to
factors such as ambition, rivalry and friendship, perhaps offer an equally incisive guide to the
environment of the Labour party as more ideological examinations. Whatever their differing
ideological inclinations, the nature of politics inevitably presents political actors with the scope and
discretion to engage in these contests for ascendancy.” P. 30

“The behaviour of politicians is directed at a party audience in their efforts to gain power; they are
concerned with defining their position to that audience in a bid to attract the support necessary to
secure this power. The environment in which they do so is an organizational one. Howell’s
examination of ‘high politics’ in this organizational context has demon- strated the potential of such
an approach to offer a more multi-faceted perspective than has existed previously.” P. 31

“‘much may be said for the view that political sociology will flourish best by turning attention to the
innumerable questions which are still unanswered about the power, habits and intentions of the
British political elite of the day before yesterday” Cowling, Nature and limits, p. 174

“Jonathan Parry notes, there was never a complete fit between parliamentary and popular politics:
‘each world had its own cultures, traditions and priorities, and effective connections can be made
between them only once historians are clear what these were’ by J. Parry, The politics of patriotism:
English liberalism, national identity and Europe, 1830–1886 (Cambridge, 2006), p. 33.

Lawrence Black- what kind of people are you?

“Parties are not reactive, but active agents. Language is important in this, but so are political
communication, internal and informal party culture, and how these define and construct a party’s
audience – in short, political culture.” P. 24

“Parties were not at liberty to construct politics irrespective of their supposed audience and were
also constrained by their lack of resources and by the resistance of voters to party appeals. Close
correlation between party and people is further tempered by their partial knowledge of each other.”
P. 24

“Belief in humans’ capacity to improve presupposed a current need for improvement. Labour’s
progressive dilemma was to articulate reform without criticising (and risking losing the support of)
those they hoped Belief in humans’ capacity to improve presupposed a current need for
improvement. Labour’s progressive dilemma was to articulate reform without criticising (and risking
losing the support of) those they hoped to benefit.” P. 34-35

Jon Lawrence, Speaking for the People. Party, Language

and Popular Politics in England, 1867-1914-

“popular politics must focus greater critical attention on the relationship between political
activists, of whatever persuasion, and those they seek to represent politically. We must recognise
that precisely because this relationship is one of 'representation' it must constantly be negotiated
and renegotiated..” p. 61

“In studying popular politics we are therefore studying the interaction between the world of
'formal' and 'informal' politics, conscious that the relationship between the two is never
unmediated, and that our analysis must therefore always be sensitive to the tensions and
ambiguities in the relationship between 'leaders' and 'led'” p. 61

“"Labour politics were not simply the natural outgrowth of a more mature, assertive and
homogenous working class" p. 160

The Forward March of Labour Halted? Eric Hobsbawm

“Both the working class and the labour movement since then have been passing through a period of
crisis” p. 1

“So, from the point of view of the ruling classes, it was absolutely essential to gain or maintain the
political support of an important section of the working class in one way or another. They could not
hope to offset an independent class conscious party of the proletariat by mobilising the majority of
peasants, petty craftsmen and shopkeepers, etc., whether with or against the working class.” P. 1

“In 1911 they included about 75 per cent of the population, in 1931 about 70 per cent, in 1961 64
per cent and in 1976 a little over half.” P. 1

“A hundred years ago the sector of white-collar work in the widest sense employed only a tiny
number of wage-earners” p. 2

“The army of labour was constantly growing. But in the second place, the relative backwardness of
mechanisation by 20th century standards gave the British worker whose manual skill and experience
was indispen- sable—and this included others besides appren- ticed craftsmen—considerable
strength in collective bargaining. British trade unionism was therefore already strong or potentially
strong, even in indus- tries in which, elsewhere, it was notoriously weak, as in cotton-mills.” P. 2

“In the first place the rise of tertiary employment—white-collar and profes- sional employment—
produced a new form of labour aristocracy which identified directly with the middle class.” P. 3

“If we look at the political expression of class consciousness, which means in practice, support for the
Labour Party, the picture is even more troubling.” P. 7
Plan- Political history: the state of the field.

1. Intro – The study of british political history has developed throughout the 20 th century, with
three main schools of thought being held. The first modern position was one bsed largely on
socio-economic forces, held by men such as Hobsbawm etc, and that these translated almost
naturally and inevitably, idneed without explanation, into political results ( i.e labour grows in
power as a result of the enfranchisement of the working classes after 1918). The second
school is high politics… the third the new political history….

2. Socio-economic, hobswabawm, often Marxist, seems too focused on simple factors, lakc of
proper exppalantion for things like working class voting conservative, even before 1918 but
certainly and crucially afterwards, otherwise wouldn’t a 70& working class country surely
only ever return labour govenrments, in fact conservatives are largely more susccesufl than
labour during this priod and sometimes have almost half or more of the working class vote.
Cannot simply be explained by white collar votes alone….

3. High politics- something of a reaction maybe either to new political history or socio-
economic emphasis? Certainly is interesting but seems to lay too much strength on just a few
important elites, claims to not be exclusing factors outside parliament, i.e the party as a
whole, the general public, the media, economic background,c alss dsitinctions, etc, but does
seem to be too focused on the parliamentary political parties, or even just on the few key
individuals in a party at one time i.e the labour elite of the 1950s in crocroft’s piece.

4. New political history- associated woth individuals like jon Lawrence and Lawrence black,
does seem to soemtihng of a synthesis between the two viewpoints of high politics and
socio-economi factors. Seems politics as very much a discourse- in a cultural sense, a
cispourse based upon the linguistics between political party and voter or general public,
understanding the two-way relationship between voters and leaders, and how just as socio-
ecoomic forces can shape the fortunes of political parties so can political parties shape the
environment of the ordinary voter, using particular signs and signals to coerce the electorate
into recivieirng their messages in a certain way, or aspiring to a certain ideal espoused by the
political leadership –( e.g Thatcher and aspiring workers with buying your own council
hosues? ) does seem to be the most accurate reflection of the situation in political history at
the moment but the fact that high politics does seem to be held by such modern works does
suggest that it is far from dead and that the new political history cannot simply be seen as
the one and dominant force in current thinking on british political history.

5.