Red Britain: A History

Marks, John S. And Labour Turned Left: A Critical Analysis. Blackpool: Labour Book League, 1950. Print. Pages 1-3

June 27, 1921



"Brothers, sisters, friends and comrades, I rise before you today in the name of unity, equality, and the left. Our party risks being torn asunder. The formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain in this year past seems to have put a strain upon this party and that is why I asked, quite cordially I might add despite Mr. Clynes' refusal to take part in these proceedings, that a conference be held, a joining of the Parties of Labour to discuss this question of how to move forward...

With these simple, broad words James Maxton began a seismic shift in his contemporary Labour Party. The Scottish radical, with the backing of the ILP's Richard Wallhead, had spent the weeks past calling desperately for a Labour Party conference, something which had become a seemingly annual tradition since 1906 until the rise of J.R. Clynes in the aftermath of the Great War. Clynes, a reformist and, in many ways, a tool of the war-time bourgeoisie had cancelled any discussion of a conference in 1921 every since wresting control of the party from the deserving MacDonald earlier that year. The fear, many analysts believed, was that MacDonald would be able to appeal to the broad base of the party in a conference setting much better then the moderate, removed Clynes who had become a symbolic enemy of the anti-war movement after leading Labour's participation in the National Government.

Yet it was form a very different direction that Clynes great change arose all at once. Maxton's clamor for an accepting of the new Communist Party into Labour's federated structure played well with the base. Accusing Clynes of being a tool of division, first during the war and now by opposing the hard left, Maxton pushed himself to the forefront, his calls for a conference gathering significant momentum among the unions who formed the core of Labour's structure. For his part Maxton might well be mistaken for a shrewd political calculator if it were not for evident heart-felt drive behind each of his decisions; it was, after all, the Communistic left that pushed Maxton over the edge, eventually allowing his capture of the Labour Party.

Sensing an insurgency, however, three more key actors emerged, sliding into place and allowing the Labour General Meeting of 1921 (held without the authority of the party's own leader.) First it was Albert Inkpin, the founder of the Communist Party and its first General Secretary who immediately announced that his party would accept any invitation to any conference, official or otherwise. The second was Bowerman. C.W. Bowerman had been of incredible importance to the founding and rise of the Labour Party as the primary vehicle of the voting working class. A prominent trade unionist, he had played a leading role in both the Social Democratic Federation and Progressive Party before throwing his considerable weight behind the Labour Party, soon thereafter becoming an MP in 1906. However most important of all was Bowerman's activism within the Trades Union's Congress which he became the head of in 1911. By actively tying the TUC with a sitting Labour MP he transformed and legitimized the party more than any other could. However during the war he had fallen out of favor and into prison for his pacifistic stance. Yet, unlike MacDonald and others, Bowerman's pacifism was treated as a secondary trait and thus he never became the symbol others did. With the war over and his influence quickly fading, Bowerman likely saw the General Meeting as his last chance. If he could flex the TUC's muscles perhaps he and his more Syndicalist view of the world could again be brought to the forefront of politics.

Finally, and only days before the conference, the most important piece of the puzzle -- at least in terms of legitimizing the Meeting -- fell into place. Ramsay MacDonald's decision, as the leading opponent of Clynes, to attend the Meeting turned grumbling into full blown rebellion. With him came even more MP's and representatives than many had thought possible and by day one of the conference it had become clear, to Clynes' dismay, that a quruom had been reached and thus any decision made at this meeting, should it recieve a large enough majority, would essentially become official policy of the Labour Party.

However before any of that happened it was time for a little fancy footwork, after all you had four men (Maxton, MacDonald, Bowerman, and Inkpin) all with differing ideologies within the left and all attempting to lead the Working Class into the post-war era....

Colour me interested. A very interesting PoD, early Labour history is fascinating. One wonders quite how Red this Britain will go.

So Britain is going to become Communist (Or Socialism?)

I like it

I'll be watching this. Always love early 20th Century political TLs...

I'll read.

Laski, Harold J. A History of Worker's Movements in Britain. Blackpool: Labour Book League, 1943. Print. Page 92

Conference and Chaos



Following Maxton's speech on June 27th the General Meeting quickly passed a resolution welcoming the Communist Party into the federation that was the Labour Party. However from there the conference began to collapse. Inkpin's speech, thanking the Party for admittance was disturbed by a heckler near the front of the crowd. At first it seemed as though the meeting would go on unflustered. However Inkpin decided to 'seize the moment' as he would later say, inviting the man, then unknown, up to the stage. Expecting an easy debate with an unknown within the party, Inkpin was instead confronted with Arthur Greenwood, perhaps the most famous policy-man of the day and the head of the Labour Party's research division since 1920. Though the men had never met (and Inkpin had never heard of Greenwood) their fates were now irrevocably fused.

What followed was perhaps the most important impromptu debate in British left-wing history. Greenwood was clearly the more intelligent of the two, even though the crowd lay on Inkpin's side, and ran intellectual circles around the latter. Speaking largely in the abstract, Greenwood avoided Inkpin's attempts to force the debate into the positive and physical. Finally frustrated Inkpin began shouting over Greenwood, his plain having failed entirely. Then Greenwood began to laugh. A working-class man by birth, taking the laugh as an affront, Inkpin did what we all would do, he took three steps forward, grabbed Greenwood by the cuff of his shirt, and hit him. The room was silent. And then the room was chaos. A riot had begun. Within minutes brawls had broken out between the two fringes, the pro-Clynes moderates who had attended in the name of openness, and the communists who, though newly welcomed, remained for the time being a small movement. Caught in the middle were the broad coalition of trade unionists, pacifists, and left-labourites who had made the Meeting possible. In the end, at the bequest of Richard Wallhead, the chairman of the ILP who was already frustrated by his lack of any major significance at the meeting, welcomed the police in to regain control of the building.

However the next day, using the violence as a guise, the hard right conservative William Horwood, then Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (the head of London's police system) refused the Labour members reentry into their convention location. The police quickly pushed milling members along and, although there was minor outbreaks of violence, Horwood essentially succeeded at preventing the Meeting from proceeding. A gathering of leaders soon thereafter attempted to make plans for a new venue or perhaps simply a delay, however Bowerman protested as most trade unionists, his strongest constituency, needed to return to work sooner rather than later. Thus the General Meeting came to an end, however the chaos was just beginning within the Labour Party.

You write very well, and all this talk of general meetings and brawls is exciting and reminds me of the early volumes of my own The People's Flag.

Scott, C. P. "The Struggle For the Hearts and Minds of Labour: A Political Year in Review." The Guardian [London] 30 Dec. 1921: A4-A5. Print.

The Struggle for Labour



From the Guardian, 30/12/1921...

Oh what a turbulent year for the so-called vanguards of the working-class. Just two years ago I wrote an editorial for this paper discussing how they'd become legitimate, how by expelling the radical pacifists and playing an active role in the war-time government, the Labour Party had shown itself able to play a real role in the parliamentary world. While I said I doubted if they would (or could for a party so narrowly defined) form a mass majority government, the potential of Lib-Labour coalition against the Tories seemed in the future a certain possibility. Certainly Labour had recast itself as, if a bit radical, at least responsible and capable. Then came this year past.

First was MacDonald's challenge, the radical statist-anarchist (only a man like Ramsay could manage a contradiction like that) had been set aside with ease however and harmony and legitimacy seemed the certain future of the Labour Party. The moderate wing had won and a parliamentary future was all but inevitable, or so it seemed. Then came Maxton. The little known Scott challenged Clynes leadership from a new position, claiming the dedicated trade-unionist had Labour in a "stranglehold." In reality Clynes had simply been protecting his party, with its strange federated structure, from the radical influence of the Communists, whom he refused to admit. The balance of power was gentle already. Clynes had on his side a coalition of the leaders of the party-proper, the Fabian intellectuals, and the broad rank-and-file of the trade unionist movement, always aware of what truly radical change and revolution might mean for them and their families. On the other side the minority, union leaders, the pacifistic ILP, and the left-wing of the party proper who, due to the aforementioned federated structure, were over-represented in the party leadership. Any admittance of the Communists threatened to tip the scales to the left and alienate once and for all the average working-class man.

However Maxton's call for a "General Meeting" was answered by the ambitious left, ever seeking an opportunity for self-advancement. Yet it was the reentry of the TUC's own demigod Bowerman onto the national stage and the foolish acquiescence of MacDonald (who thought he could heard the cats of the far-left) that allowed the Meeting the quorum it desperately needed. Of course, as we know, the Meeting ended a patented disaster after fist-fights and riots as Bowerman was forced to release his hungry workers so they could return to their wage-earning lives, but not before the Communists were sneaked through the back door and into Labour.

It was Bowerman again who acted first after this. Hoping to further centralize his power over the Trades Union Congress, he unilaterally created the new position of General Secretary (aka dictator of the proletariat.) But it was Arthur Greenwood who led the unexpected strike back. The intellectual hero of the moderate left since his exchange with Inkpin during the General Meeting prior to his assault lead the charge against Bowerman, claiming the TUC was meant for the workers, not for advancing the political careers of the far-left. With the tacit support of Clynes he lead an important campaign for the new position. However Bowerman's embedded position could be shaken. Albeit with questionable tactic, the veteran saw off the young upstart. Yet Greenwood's desperation to save the unionist movement could not be diswayed. Again with Clynes tacit support, he lead a rebellion among small scale trade unions against the growing industrial nature of the TUC and formed the ADU (Alliance of Democratic Unions.)

It seemed for a moment that the Labour Party would collapse (we are now in September for those keeping track). Bowerman reacted harshly to Clynes strong lobbying against him and called for a new leadership election, despite one less then a year before. Clynes however rejected the call but realized he needed support. That support was found in the form of the ILP's Wallhead. R.C. Wallhead, despite his fame as a committed opponent of the Great War, saw the need for unity in the party and in exchange for becoming the party's first Deputy Leader, he swore the support of the ILP's loyal delegation to the Clynes leadership. Bowerman was outraged and quickly began consulting with MacDonald and Maxton, his key allies in the party leadership. MacDonald urged Bowerman to bide his time, however Maxton, tired of taking the back seat to MacDonald as a secondary leader the party's left (having returned there promptly after the collapse of the General Meeting) had a different plan. On September 27th Maxton led a mass withdrawal from the Labour Party and formed the Workers' Party with the explicit expectation that they would rejoin the Labour Party as a member organization, rather than via the direct membership as before, thus, they believed, increasing their influence and autonomy within the greater organization. Three days later Bowerman, without the opposition of the moderates who had left for the ADU, announced the TUC had passed a motion to affiliate with the Worker's Party in addition to their broader affiliation with the Labour Party.

Still there was more to come. At a regular caucus meeting on October 4th the ADU was denied entry as they were not official affiliates of the Labour Party. Immediately the TUC, Worker's Party, and Communist Party asserted that they would not consider ADU membership a possibility, despite, it might be added, the general acceptance of the Worker's Party into the federated structure in the name of unity. Still, at first it seemed the party leaders, thanks to the support of the ILP and the Co-Operative Party, would be able to overrule attempts at blocking affiliation. However it was announced on the seventh that the TUC would abandon the Labour Party entirely if a competing union structure (in this case the ADU) was allowed in. This turned out to be the deciding factor and the next day the ADU's application was handily defeated.

In response the ADU began considering other options and just last month, on November 11th, they announced their intent to form the Democratic Labour Party as an entity legally separate from the Labour Party proper, though with the intent of electoral cooperation similar to what is seen in the Co-Operative Party and early Lib-Labour groupings. However immediately the TUC began conspiring, even going so far as working with industry to avoid the competition the ADU brought. And just as quickly unions and individual workers began fleeing the fledgling ADU. Their reasoning, however, was much more practical than ideological. In the wake of the infighting brought by the miner's strike and further broad, large-scale transport and mining strikes seemingly inevitable, being caught separate from the main working-class apparatus was silly and potentially dangerous. A few of the re-affiliating unions formed the IDS (Internal Democratic Society) however it was clear that the momentum was on the side of the TUC. Yet, several unions have remained on the side of the democratic Greenwood-led rebellion and it remains to be seen what next year will hold and if the DLP (Democratic Labour Party) will survive until the next election and if so what influence it will have.

Beyond the obvious question of the DLP there stands several important developments and questions for Labour as they head into the new year. Firstly, now more than ever they have divided into an unstable and extremely multi-polar organization (a guide to the major key players is included at this articles conclusion). The question is can the Labour Party survive or will it divide and slowly die as we've seen beginning to occur across the Atlantic with the American Socialist Party. Second, how will voters and workers react to this instability. Voting Labour today is ambiguous, you don't know who the leader will be tomorrow and what they will do. With the same true in unions as well, will anyone trust Labour with their vote, much less their livelihood? And finally, will a divided and distraught Labour be able to hold on to it's foothold among reformers, or will they return to the Liberal Party where they truly belong?

Only the future will tell...



A Guide to Key Players in the Labour Party

J.R. Clynes- The son of a labourer named Patrick Clynes, he was born in Oldham, Lancashire, and began work in a local cotton mill when he was 10 years old. At the age of 16, he wrote a series of articles about child labour in the textile industry, and a year later he helped form the Piercers' Union.

In 1892, Clynes became an organiser for the Lancashire Gasworkers' Union and came in contact with the Fabian Society. Having joined the Independent Labour Party, he attended the 1900 conference where the Labour Representation Committee was formed; this committee soon afterwards became the Labour Party.

Clynes stood for the new party in the 1906 general election and was elected to Parliament for Manchester North East, becoming one of Labour's bright stars. In 1910 he became the party's deputy chairman.
During the Great War Clynes was a supporter of British military involvement (in which he differed from Ramsay MacDonald), and in 1917 became Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Food Control in the Lloyd George coalition government. The next year he was appointed Minister of Food Control, and at the 1918 general election he was returned to Parliament for the Manchester Platting constituency.

Clynes became leader of the party following the war and currently represents the party's moderate wing.


Arthur Greenwood- A relative newcomer to the national stage, Greenwood came to prominence as a policy adviser and researcher and took part in a famous debate with Inkpin on the nature of Communism and the Soviet Revolution during the General meeting on June 27th.

Since then Greenwood has become the de facto leader of Labour's right and founded the Alliance of Democratic Unions as a direct challenge to C.V. Bowerman's unchallenged rule over the world of contemporary unions. Since then however his movement has struggled and the ADU's rejection of Labour affiliation forced him to create the smaller Democratic Labour Party.


C.V. Bowerman- Born in Honiton, Bowerman moved to Clerkenwell in London at an early age. On leaving education, he worked as a jeweller and then a compositor. In 1872 he briefly worked for Hour newspaper before moving to the Daily Telegraph. He joined the London Society of Compositors in 1873 and became its General Secretary in 1892, a post he held until 1906.

In 1893, Bowerman joined the Fabian Society, and in 1897, he was elected to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, the body which later became the General Council. In 1901, was elected as a Progressive Party alderman on London County Council, a position he held until 1907.

Bowerman was the President of the TUC in 1901, and the Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee from 1911 until 1921, when he became the organisation's first General Secretary. Today Bowerman is a key leader on the party's syndicalist left and many expect an upsurge of strike activity in the near future as he attempts to consolidate his position as the unions' leading man and push the left-wing of the party into power.


Albert Inkpin- Albert Inkpin was born on 16 June 1884 in London. Inkpin was employed as a clerk and was a member of the National Union of Clerks from 1907.

Inkpin became convinced of Marxism and joined the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) in 1906 and was chosen as an Assistant Secretary the following year. He followed the SDF into the new British Socialist Party (BSP) in 1911, continuing in an Assistant Secretary capacity in that new organization.

In 1913, Inkpin was elected the General Secretary of the BSP. Inkpin was a committed internationalist and anti-militarist, an opponent of the Great War, and a delegate to the Zimmerwald Conference. This placed him at odds with former SDF leader H. M. Hyndman's support of the British participation in the conflict. This tension between the Left and Right the BSP ended in 1916 with Hyndman and his co-thinkers departing the group. Inkpin assumed the editorship of the BSP's weekly newspaper, The Call at this time.

Inkpin and the more radical elements were thus in a position of firm control of the BSP organisation after 1916 and were well able to join the unity discussions which lead to a Communist party in Great Britain in 1920, a party which gained important affiliation with the Labour Party, raising the importance of Inkpin earlier this year.


James Maxton- Born in the then burgh of Pollokshaws (now Pollok, Glasgow) in 1885, James Maxton was the son of two schoolteachers. He would himself later enter that profession after his education at Hutchesons' Grammar School and the University of Glasgow.

Maxton had whilst studying at the University of Glasgow described his political loyalties as lying with the Conservatives. He soon came to socialism, however, and in 1904 he joined the Barrhead branch of the Independent Labour Party (ILP). Maxton's move to socialism was heavily influenced by John Maclean, a fellow student at Glasgow University.

Maxton was a vociferous opponent of the Great War. He was a conscientious objector, refusing conscription into the military, and instead being given work on barges. During this time he was involved in organizing strikes in the shipyards. Maxton was arrested in 1916, charged with sedition. He was subsequently found guilty and imprisoned for a year.

In 1918, Maxton was elected to the National Council of the Labour Party. He and Ramsay MacDonald were responsible for moving the motion at the Labour Party's National Executive Committee which dictated that Labour members of the wartime coalition government resign from it in preparation for the 1918 general election.

Maxton is widely credited as the man behind the General Meeting earlier this year and has since come to the head of the Worker's Party, a Labour Party affiliate to the left of the party proper. Furthermore Maxton is a noted Scottish nationalist and it should be of intrigue to see how his growing influence effects the national discussion in that regard.


Ramsay MacDonald- MacDonald needs little introduction and has been a man of prominence in British political circles for decades, being widely credited as one of the founders of the modern Labour Party. Born of farm labourers, he was originally active in the Lib-Labour circles as well as within the early ILP. After the formation of the Labour Party, he soon rose to become one of its most prominent members and then, in 1911, Party Leader.

However his political career took a nasty turn with the outbreak of the Great War. His stubborn opposition to the popular democratic crusade left him with few friends and fewer supporters. By wars end he had spent some time in prison for refusing to back down and his claims and for attempting to organize groups of draft dodgers.

Yet, perhaps due to his charisma and undoubted dedication to his career, by 1920 MacDonald was again one of the leading figures in Labour, resulting in his leadership challenge. Yet he was unsuccessful and while he maintained a position at the head of Labour's ideological left, he was weaker for having failed.

Today his position is weaker still. The formation of the Workers' Party and the breakaway leftist faction of Bowerman and Maxton now threatens MacDonald's decade-long assumption of dominance among party ideologues. Only the future will tell if he can ever rise again as party leader and, more over, if we will even be talking of him still in one years time.

This is very detailed and I love the depth to which you're going to craft a British far-left division as intricate as contemporary Russia's, or that of Spain in the 1930s.

One small note - I believe The Guardian was still called the Manchester Guardian at this time - the name change came in the 1950s I think.

Very interesting, you don't see too many TLs set in the inter-war period about Britain, I'll be watching with interest. I can see many anti-socialists being happy about the split before panicking about the Worker's Party trying to start revolution. How is the Lloyd George Coalition handling this? Is this spreading support for maintaining coalition with the National Liberals among the Conservatives?

The following timeline is taken from the appendix of the third volume of DH Lawrence's authoritative textbook, Movements in British History (c)1927..

January 1922



January 3- Under the orders of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, William Horwood, Communist Party founder and general secretary Albert Inkpin is arrested. The charges rest on his attendance of the Third International in Moscow which, contrary to legal precedent, Horwood has decided constitutes a "foreign government" thereby allowing Inkpin to be tried for treason. There is great fear within the left that general animosity towards the communist movement amongst those of the legal profession might actually allow for a conviction, despite clear precedent showing otherwise.

January 6- Despite widespread outcry and clear legal precedent, Lloyd George announces that his government will not seek to intervene against the arrest of Inkpin. The same day Horwood refuses the Communist leader bail, thus ensuring that he will spend at least some time in the prison.

January 7- Willie Gallacher, a Scottish trade unionist and politician calls on the TUC to organize a "strike for freedom" against the government. Calling on the I.W.W. authored slogan "an injury to one is an injury to all," he claimed that if British workers allowed a "single among your ranks to be silenced" then soon every worker, and eventually every citizen of Britain would suffer the same fate.

January 11- After several days of avoidance and press-hounding, as well as growing calls from other sectors of the trade unionist movement, Bowerman rejects the idea of a strike as the support simply was not there. It's hard enough, he claimed, to get a coherent strike on bread and butter, wage issues, much less on removed and seemingly isolated issues such as this.

January 12- Gallacher, in response to Bowerman's refusal, calls for the first meeting of the Clyde Workers' Committee, initially formed in opposition to the Munitions Act, since the end of the Great War. He pitches the plan directly to the local meeting of the United Vehicle Workers, which he is a member of from his time working at Albion Motors, and is well received, the local pledging its support.

January 14- Despite a lack of official support in any other industry Gallacher convinces the United Vehicle Workers in Glasgow, one of the most left-wing unions in arguably the most left wing place in Britain, to strike. It begins quite peaceably. Participation from non-automotive workers is minimal due to job concerns, however Albion does not attempt to break the line as they feel the strike action will peter out on its own.

January 21- For the last week it has seemed quite likely Albion's prediction would be correct. However things are about to change dramatically. While the strike hasn't spread, it has remained firm in Glasgow, despite the UVW national office's attempts to dissuade them. Albion Motors now decides to 'strike' back, demanding all workers return to work under pain of dismissal. The line holds however and rioting breaks out when the company attempts to bring in scabs. Three dozen arrests are made and two police officers and one scab are hospitalized with resulting injuries.

January 23- After two more days of rioting the UVQ decides it must act on a larger level, declaring a strike against all Albion Motors plants.

January 24- The company agrees to reinstate all striking workers if the UVW calls of the strike. After the initial offer is shot down they even offer to cover medical expenses of injured workers. This puts the national union in a bit of a bind. The UVW has essentially no goal from their strike other then supporting the local branch. However the local branch will not come off strike until Inkpin is released but Albion Motors as an individual company has absolutely no control over the case and thus striking against only them seems senseless. However if they end the strike now they will be actively abandoning their Glasgow local. The situation seems wrought with contradictions and threatens to break the union.

January 25- After emergency meetings of the UVW national committee fail to break the deadlock, it becomes clear they have no choice but to abandon Glasgow if they want to save the union. At around 7 PM the decision becomes official and all workers are told to return to work. James Maxton quickly breaks his conspicuous silence on the proceedings thus far, condemning the UVW national office and announcing his solidarity with the striking Glasgow workers. He calls on all locals in the area to attend an emergency meeting scheduled for the next day.

January 26- The Industrial Union of Vehicle Workers (IUVW), backed by a mix of Workers' Party and Communist members, is declared with Glasgow as it's founding local. Hoping to avoid infighting, Bowerman agrees to admit the new union to the TUC despite the presence of the competing United Vehicle Workers. During the Glasgow unions' conference an agreement is reached to launching a series of solidarity strikes to be called "cycle strikes." The unique idea aimed to reconcile the competing goal of solidarity and necessity among the working class for a wage. The concept is simple and widely agreed to by local unions. Essentially every day a different industry (or sometimes 2) would experience strike action for that day before it changed to a different industry the next. Business owners acquiesce and most will allow their workers to miss work essentially unpunished, fearing retaliatory action will result in a general strike or worse.

January 29- During press conferences both the Prime Minister and the London Police make it clear they have no intent of bending to the the Glasgow strikers. Inkpin will stay in jail.

January 31- Responding to both the assertion that Inkpin will remain in prison, at least for the time being, and the successful demonstration of power in Glasgow, inspired organizers in London decide to begin organizing the possibility of a similar cycle strike. While it remained to be seen whether the less radical London proletariat (who lacked the Red Clydeside experience) would respond similarly, it was clear labour had developed a powerful new weapon and that the Inkpin saga was far from over.

This is really good stuff. Definitely subscribed

Interesting, it seems that things are escalating. Will this be the start of "Red Britain" or shall this cover a failed revolution by the Worker's Party and the radical elements of the TUC? I eagerly await further developments.

Hmm I think I've always been underestimating the chances of the far left in Britain. This is a very good TL! Keep it up.

How far do you plan to take this?

Good start.

EnglishCanuck said:

Hmm I think I've always been underestimating the chances of the far left in Britain. This is a very good TL! Keep it up.

Click to expand...

Indeed if you look at Red Cydeside (mentioned in passing here) and the OTL future 1926 General Strike, the hard left was quite present in inter-war Britain.

Unknown said:

How far do you plan to take this?

Good start.

Click to expand...

My hope is for it to be an extensive long term project and any feedback as such will be very helpful.

EnglishCanuck said:

Hmm I think I've always been underestimating the chances of the far left in Britain. This is a very good TL! Keep it up.

Click to expand...

The far left was always there but the development was stunted by many being locked up during the War, the Labour and TUC leadership wanting to avoid looking radical after the Bolsheviks so the far left such as Maxton, Inkpin, Pollitt and Gallaghar had to use other methods such as the National Minority Movement, the Communist Party and attempting to radicalise the Labour Party from within which I also explored in my TL "A Great Third Way" (shameless advertising ahoy).

I'm guessing that MacDonald teaming up with Maxton is the POD which causes the far left, controlled by MacDonald after he took charge and sidelined many of them, to unify further and continue trying to push the party leftwards before splitting as a result, which could cause many anti-socialists to go nuts over this as they are happy about the socialists fighting each other but worrying about how these radicals are striking and probably seeking to destroy the British way of life.

The 1922 election will be interesting, if there even is one, with Labour and the Worker's Party at each others throats, causing a split in the socialist vote and allowing the Conservatives to gain an even larger majority.

Blackadder mk 2 said:

The far left was always there but the development was stunted by many being locked up during the War, the Labour and TUC leadership wanting to avoid looking radical after the Bolsheviks so the far left such as Maxton, Inkpin, Pollitt and Gallaghar had to use other methods such as the National Minority Movement, the Communist Party and attempting to radicalise the Labour Party from within which I also explored in my TL "A Great Third Way" (shameless advertising ahoy).

I'm guessing that MacDonald teaming up with Maxton is the POD which causes the far left, controlled by MacDonald after he took charge and sidelined many of them, to unify further and continue trying to push the party leftwards before splitting as a result, which could cause many anti-socialists to go nuts over this as they are happy about the socialists fighting each other but worrying about how these radicals are striking and probably seeking to destroy the British way of life.

The 1922 election will be interesting, if there even is one, with Labour and the Worker's Party at each others throats, causing a split in the socialist vote and allowing the Conservatives to gain an even larger majority.

Click to expand...

The Workers' Party at this point is still a part of the federated Labour Party. It was still a highly decentralized organ in these times which (time and off) included the Independent Labour Party as well as the societies and unions, thus setting a precedent.

The initial POD in this was the decision to appease Maxton's calls (which existed in OTL) to allow the Communist Party into the Labour Party as well. As radical as that seems today, it was a hot topic internal issue of the era. Their entry, however, as we've seen by both the General Meeting and the Inkpin arrest, is not as influential in its own right as it is as a catalyst causing further tensions between the left (MacDonald, Bowerman, and Maxton) and the right (Clynes and Greenwood among others).

Abe Lincoln said:

The Workers' Party at this point is still a part of the federated Labour Party. It was still a highly decentralized organ in these times which (time and off) included the Independent Labour Party as well as the societies and unions, thus setting a precedent.

The initial POD in this was the decision to appease Maxton's calls (which existed in OTL) to allow the Communist Party into the Labour Party as well. As radical as that seems today, it was a hot topic internal issue of the era. Their entry, however, as we've seen by both the General Meeting and the Inkpin arrest, is not as influential in its own right as it is as a catalyst causing further tensions between the left (MacDonald, Bowerman, and Maxton) and the right (Clynes and Greenwood among others).

Click to expand...

Ah, okay then. I do wonder if they will follow the OTL ILP's example and dissociate with the Labour Party if the party during the Great Depression proves to not be sufficiently socialist, though that is all speculation on my part.

Interesting, I did come across said topic and chose to go the OTL route since many on the far left who would back such a thing would have joined the Communist Party and therefore contribute to the vote threat to Labour while also hoping to avoid Bottomley's glare, it is refreshing to see that someone recalls MacDonald's activities on the left of the party, I wonder how his career will progress from here, I can't wait to see more.