¹ The best and most recent is McKenzie, R. T., British Political Parties; The Distribution of Power within the Conservative and Labour Parties (New York, 1955)Google Scholar.

² Two exceptions, both British, are: Cole, G. D. H., “The Labour Party and the Trade Unions”, Political Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 18–27 (Jan.–Mar., 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Roberts, Ben C., “Trade Unions and Party Politics”, Cambridge Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 387–402 (Apr., 1953)Google Scholar.

³ Party initiates speak of the “political side” of the labor movement as the constituency labor parties and the Parliamentary party, and of the “industrial side” as the organized trade unions.

⁴ In 1951 the 183 unions in the T.U.C. had 8,020,079 (84.6 per cent) of the 9,480,000 British trade unionists within their ranks, and the T.U.C. had close understandings with non-affiliated unions claiming a total membership of over 700,000. Thus about 92 per cent of organized labor is directly or indirectly related to the T.U.C. H.M.S.O., Ministry of Labor Gazette, Vol. 60, No. 11, p. 375 (Nov., 1952)Google Scholar.

⁵ “Rules and Standing Orders”, in Trades Union Congress, Report of the 84th Annual Congress, September 1 to 5, 1952, p. 560Google Scholar. Hereafter the annual report of the T.U.C. will be cited as T.U.C. Report, followed by the year.

⁶ Of the 31 members who left the Council between 1945 and 1952, 18 had served for nine or more years, and the average length of service for all 31 was 10.2 years.

⁷ Of the 35 members of the 1953–54 Council, 25 were general secretaries of their unions. T.U.C. Report 1953, p. 3.

⁸ “Rules and Standing Orders”, T.U.C. Report 1952, p. 565Google Scholar.

⁹ In the 60 years between 1893 and 1953 there have been only six General Secretaries, and one of the six held office for only three years.

¹⁰ Conversation with Mr. J. A. Walton, T.U.C. Press Officer, Nov. 23, 1953.

¹¹ This is no place for a discussion of the representative nature of union policy; however arrived at, the views of non-party members as well as of party members must be considered.

¹² Bevan has his campaign financed in part by the N.U.M. and also receives £150 a year from the union. The Times (London), March 24, 1955, p. 7Google Scholar.

¹³ Roberts, Ben C., “Trade Unions and Party Politics”, Cambridge Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 387–402, at p. 393 (Apr., 1953)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Party, Labour, Report of the Fifty-First Annual Conference of The Labour Party, 1952, p. 233Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as Party Report [year]).

¹⁵ There are now 28 members, but for the period considered here the Executive consisted of 12 trade unionists, seven persons representing the constituency parties, five the women's sections, one from the socialist societies, the Treasurer, and the Leader of the Parliamentary Labor party as an ex-officio member. In 1953 the Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary party was given ex-officio membership on the Committee.

¹⁶ Party Report 1947, p. 145.

¹⁷ Roberts, op. cit., p. 393.

¹⁸ T.U.C. Report 1952, p. 62.

¹⁹ Party Report 1952, pp. 34, 59.

²⁰ Under the terms of the 1927 Trades Disputes Act the individual member had to “contract in”—that is, sign a separate form to allow the union to use part of his dues, the “political levy,” for political purposes. Since the repeal of this provision by the Labor Government in 1946, a member must “contract out” if he does not want to pay the political levy.

²¹ The N.U.M. is said to claim that it declares its membership for the T.U.C. on the average number of members for the given year, but pays party fees for all members who pay any dues at all during the year. The suspicion is, however, that the large affiliation is an effort to increase its influence in the party.

²² See, for example, Party Report 1949, p. 24, for Conference approval of the Executive's statement on United Europe Committee, and Party Report 1950, p. 164, for approval of the statement on the Schuman Plan.

²³ E.g., “Challenge to Britain,” 1953; “Labour and the New Society”, especially p. 223 of Party Report 1950; “Labour Believes in Britain,” 1949, especially p. 212 of that Report; and “Let Us Face the Future,” 1945.

²⁴ Statement by Mrs.White, E., as given in The Times (London), Sept. 7, 1953, p. 4Google Scholar.

²⁵ The Cooperative party puts forward only candidates who are acceptable as Labor party candidates and who are generally indistinguishable from other Labor candidates both before and after the election. In the 1951 General Election there were 16 such Members elected.

²⁶ All quotations from “Standing Orders of the Parliamentary Labour Party (revised, March 1952)”, in Party Report 1952, Appendix VII, p. 201Google Scholar. During Labor's first term, 1945–50, Standing Orders were suspended in view of Labor's large majority and the individual members enjoyed a maximum of freedom.

²⁷ Thus John Parker, himself a Labor M.P., says: “… the Annual Party Conference lays down the policy of the Party and its instructions must be carried out by its Executive, affiliated organisations and representatives on local authorities and in Parliament.” Parker, John, Labour Marches On (Penguin, 1947), p. 42Google Scholar.

²⁸ Party Report 1920, p. 148.

²⁹ For a good account of this see Martin, Kingsley, Harold Laski (London, 1952), pp. 169–72Google Scholar.

³⁰ But the party's 1951 Handbook, p. 301, states the case unequivocally: “The Parliamentary Labour Party is an autonomous body, with its own Standing Orders, and electing its own leaders. Labour M.P.s, like other members of the Labour Party, accept the principles and programme of the Party and are, of course, elected on that basis. But the conduct of Government and Parliamentary proceedings, including all measures necessary to carry out the Party's programme, are entirely within the discretion of the responsible Ministers and the Parliamentary Party.”

³¹ But there are trade unionists in the House who are not official union candidates: “The number of active trade unionists is, of course, much higher. For instance, N.U.D.A.W. had a panel of seven ‘official candidates,’ all returned, and a further eleven members returned for other seats.” Labour Research, Vol. 34, pp. 134–35, p. 134 fn. (Sept., 1945)Google Scholar. “… the Railway Clerks Association in addition to the 9 official candidates on its parliamentary panel had 13 other members contesting seats as Labour candidates, and 6 were elected.” Labour, Vol. 7 (N.S.), p. 351 (Aug., 1945)Google Scholar.

³² McCallum, R. B. and Readman, A., The British General Election of 1945 (London, 1947), p. 74Google Scholar.

³³ As a matter of fact, the trade unionists frequently complain that their potential candidates are ignored by the constituency parties. See the report on the 1954 Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers' conference at which “speaker after speaker” charged that trade union candidates “were being pushed into the background in favour of ‘barristers, solicitors, and pseudo-intellectuals’.”—The Times (London), May 8, 1954, p. 2Google Scholar.

³⁴ Nicholas, H. G., in The British General Election of 1950 (London, 1951), p. 62Google Scholar, says that 111 of 140 trade union candidates were successful; but his table on p. 61 lists 110, the figure given by the party in Party Report 1950, p. 5.

³⁵ Butler, D. E., in The British General Election of 1951 (London, 1952), p. 42Google Scholar fn., says that 103 of 137 were elected. The Party Report 1952, p. 5, says it was 105 of 139, but the full list as given in Party Report 1951, pp. 185–203, indicates that the figures were as above—104 of 137.

³⁶ Nicholas, op. cit., p. 61. J. R. Clynes, writing in 1937, maintained that “Trade Union Candidates enjoy no preference with regard to the choice of constituencies described as ‘safe seats,’ except in a few areas where the coal industry provides almost the sole occupation. Even there, many candidates have been chosen because of their personal merits and qualities, in fair competition with men who have been miners.” Clynes, J. R., Memoirs 1924–1937 (London, 1938), p. 278Google Scholar.

³⁷ Flanders, Allan, in Trade Unions (London, 1952), p. 142Google Scholar, says: “On the whole the trade union-sponsored candidates tend to get the safer seats because the unions are disinclined to spend their members' money on supporting a candidate whose chances are slight.”

³⁸ Party Report 1952, p. 65. Hemsworth is a constituency in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

³⁹ Ibid. Morgan Phillips, the national Secretary, in replying to these two delegates said: “Unfortunately it is in our safest seats that we have our smallest membership. It may be that they have not the same incentive for developing their individual membership” (p. 66).

⁴⁰ H.C. Deb., Vol. 476, 5s, col. 2523 (June 29, 1950)Google Scholar. O'Brien's union was not affiliated to the party (until May, 1952) and he sits as a C.L.P. candidate from a Nottingham constituency.

⁴¹ The Times, in commenting on the trade union group's initiative in urging a debate on Government economic policy in early 1954, had this to say about its influence in the Parliamentary Labor party: “There was a time when the trade union group exercised a considerable influence, but since 1940 they have been a dormant force. If a revival is in prospect it may well have an important effect on the balance of power within the movement.” The Times (London), Feb. 5, 1954, p. 3Google Scholar.

⁴² See a speech by Jack Jones of the iron and steel workers “on behalf of the ordinary rough-necked back benchers ….” H.C. Deb., Vol. 518, 5s, col. 1598 (July 30, 1953)Google Scholar.

⁴³ The best account of this is in Davis, Samuel, The British Labour Party and British Foreign Policy 1933–1939, unpub. diss. (Univ. of London, 1950), pp. 360 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ H.C. Deb., Vol. 430, 5s, cols. 566 and 569 (Nov. 18, 1946)Google Scholar. Brown's was the major loyalist speech in the debate on the left-wing foreign policy “rebellion” of November, 1946.

⁴⁵ H.C. Deb., Vol. 457, 5s, col. 135 (Oct. 27, 1948)Google Scholar. See also A. E. Tiffin, then Assistant General Secretary of the T.G.W.U., who declared in 1949 that pacifists were actually warmakers because they aided aggressors. “Democracy and Defense”, T.G.W.U. Record, Vol. 29, p. 94 (Sept., 1949)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Francis Williams, in his biography of the most powerful trade union leader of the 1940's, declares: “It is not possible to begin to understand Bevin without understanding the strength of his loyalties and his sense of outrage when these loyalties seem to him to be set aside …. [His] insistence upon their absolute importance was his own greatest single contribution to the Labour Party.” Ernest Bevin; Portrait of a Great Englishman (London, 1952), p. 197Google Scholar. For a more critical evaluation of Bevin's demanding loyalties see Roy Jenkins, , Pursuit of Progress (London, 1953), pp. 32–33Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ McKenzie, , British Political Parties, p. 586Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Conversation with A. E. Carthy, Assistant Secretary of the T.U.C. International Department, Oct. 22, 1953.

⁴⁹ It is said that some T.U.C. officials have privately confessed that they would rather negotiate with a Conservative than with a Labor Government, because the latter says that it also represents, and knows what is good for, millions of working class people, whereas the T.U.C. does not have to share with the Tories its right to speak for the working class. This is, of course, not susceptible of proof, and is probably not a widely-held view among trade unionists.