60th Anniversary History Project

THE YOUNG FABIANS: 60TH ANNIVERSARY HISTORY PROJECT

YOUNG FABIANS

Foreword by Mark Leonard

Edited by Milo Barnett and Hollie Wickens

©

2021 Young Fabians

The Young Fabians’ 60th Anniversary History Project

First published November 2021.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher or editor, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law, where the source of information is acknowledged as this publication.

Please send a copy of the document in which this publication is used or quoted to the publisher and editor. For permission requests, write to the publisher or editor, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator”. Like all publications of the Fabian Society, this report represents not the collective views of the Society, nor necessarily the views of the editors nor the writers of the forewords, but only the views of the individual writers. The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement.

Typeset and Cover Design: Robin Wilde: https://robinwilde.me. The editors would like to thank Labour Party Graphic Designers for putting them in touch with Robin.

The moral rights of the author have been asserted.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

To find out more about the Fabian Society, the Young Fabians, the Fabian Women’s Network and our local societies, please visit our website at www.fabians.org.uk

Images used under license:

Blue plaque: available from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:THE_SITE_OF_17_OSNABURGH_STREET_WHERE_THE_FABIAN_SOCIETY_WAS_FOUNDED_IN_1884.jpg. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Boer War Artworks: available from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boer_War-_removing_the_wounded_after_battle_from_Skion_ Kop._Brush_and_wash_drawing_by_H.M.Paget,_1900._By_courtesy_of_Wellcome_Collection.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Boer_War-_British_soldiers_tending_the_wounded_Boers_after_a_battle_at_Potgieter%27s_Drift._Watercolour_by_H.M._Paget,_1900._ By_courtesy_of_Wellcome_Collection.jpg. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Photo of John Kirkland: courtesy of UKCDR, available from https://www.ukcdr.org.uk/person/john-kirkland/

Greek Junta poster: available from: https://picryl.com/media/guilty-greek-military-junta-long-live-a-democratic-greece

Photo of Nehru: available from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jef_Rens_et_Jawaharlal_Nehru_-_1947.jpg. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Glasgow Donald Dewar Statue: available from: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sonofgroucho/11570650893/in/photolist-iCsBoV-qr3kZ-tobcud8R1NG-75Lmpe-75LpMR-Q4noXE-Q5Lp6v-X5EcQo-BLHDk-4c3T27-PEv5p-7RsQDU-aqmdxw-PDULq-75LrvB-TazxDL-PD5tY-3aJVhH-mFhFv-75QfFo-75QjnW-75Logc-75Lqkt-2gC7kN2-75LptP-75QkkQ-75QiVh-75LmwB-75Qi1W-75Ls8H-75Qio1-75QcS5-75Lq3X-75Lmj4-75QiR375Qj73-75Lr6g-75Qg3b-75Lq7g-75Lj1v-75QfPC-75Qizb-75QjZS-75Ln4a-75Qi6d-75QfiW-75LqVD-75LjNV-75QeAm. Licensed under the Creative Commons Generic Attribution 2.0 license.

This project and pamphlet are dedicated to the late Dick Leonard, founder of the Young Fabians.

MARK LEONARD FOREWORD ON THE LIFE OF THE YOUNG FABIANS’ FOUNDER, DICK LEONARD

My father Dick Leonard, who died at the age of 90 on 24 June 2021, would have been thrilled about the publication of this fascinating pamphlet which tells the story of a political movement so central to the creation of modern Britain, and a key part of redefining its links with the wider world. The Fabian Society did not just spur his own political awakening; it was intimately bound up with some of the most seminal events in his own life. Dick was a participant in many of the big stories documented in the different chapters of this pamphlet – establishing the Young Fabians, supporting the Fa-

bian Colonial Bureau and work on decolonisation, meeting some of the global leaders who had been Fabians, and working as an active participant in the struggles over Europe and during the SDP-Labour split that are documented in this volume.

Born a year after the great depression in 1930, one of the most troubling events in his childhood was being evacuated to a boarding school during the Second World War. As a child he began supporting the Labour Party and was proud to collect voting returns for the party on his bicycle in the 1945 General Election. Seared by the ex-

perience of the War, he became a ‘conscientious objector’ and risked imprisonment to avoid military service. In the end a court mandated that he take on ‘clerical duties of national importance’ - which he did at the electricity board - and he had to forgo the university place he had secured studying politics with Harold Laski at the London School of Economics.

At Fabian meetings Dick encountered many of the great people who built the Labour Movement and the modern welfare state including Attlee, Bevan, Gaitskell, Morrison. And he was delighted to be appointed Assistant Gener-

al Secretary of the Fabian Society in 1955 where he was interviewed by a panel that I think included GDH and Margaret Cole, Harold Laski and Harold Wilson. As the youngest candidate in the 1955 General Election - where he fought the hopeless seat of Harrow West - Dick has been on the Bevanite wing of the party. But while at the Fabian Society he got to know Tony Crosland who had a profound impact on his outlook and political philosophy. Dick became convinced by his ‘revisionist’ creed and was persuaded that the pursuit of equality was more important than the means used to further it. Later, when he was elected as the MP for Romford in 1970, he became Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to Crosland but also maintained close links with the pro-European social democrats who had gathered around Roy Jenkins. Whilst at the Fabians Dick set up the Young Fabians in 1960, as an attempt to resurrect the ‘Fabian Nursery’, a project he was encouraged in pursuing by the former Chancellor Hugh Dalton. Dick was also active in furthering the aims of the Fabian Colonial Bureau: he told me a story about driving Zambian independence leader Kenneth Kaunda back to London from Oxford, and the two of them having to push his decrepit Morris Minor car when it broke down in a snowstorm.

A central theme in Dick’s life was Britain’s troubled relationship with Europe, one of the themes of the pamphlet. As a new MP he made the life-changing decision to vote

against the Labour Party Whip in the 1971 votes on joining the European Community, joining forces with 68 other Labour rebels who were led by Roy Jenkins. When the boundaries of his Romford seat were redrawn he decided to seek selection elsewhere but was not able to get selected, no doubt because he had ‘voted with the Conservatives’ on British Membership of the European Community. He lost his seat in 1974 but continued working on Europe as a journalist first for the Economist and then the Observer. He wrote the definitive guide to the EU, which remains in print and is now entering its 12th edition.

Dick’s political life was defined by historic debates about the realignment of the left. I remember as a child in Brussels when he travelled to London to take part in a Fabian AGM that would decide whether Social Democratic Party (SDP) members could remain in the Fabian Society. In his despair that Labour had lost its way, Dick ended up joining the SDP under the leadership of Roy Jenkins, although he found the idea of leaving the Labour Party so painful that he could not bring himself to join the SDP when it was first launched. He was very happy to rejoin the party he loved some time after the 1992 General Election.

The Fabian Society did not just play a role in Dick’s professional life. It was here that he also met many of his oldest and closest friends. Most importantly it was at a Fabian Summer School in Oxford in the summer of 1960 - at the end of his

Mark Leonard is the founder and Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, and an acclaimed political science author and broadcaster. Mark’s father is Dick Leonard, who founded the Young Fabians in 1960.

tenure at the Fabian Society - that he met Irene Heidelberger on the croquet lawn in Oxford. She had been brought along by her socialist mother in the hope of improving her English. This improbable encounter was the defining relationship of his life and led to an inspiring marriage that began in 1963 and continued as strongly until his death. I remember as a child in the 1970s being taken to various Summer Schools when Dick was Chair of the Fabian Society. He was certainly happy when many decades later, I myself became involved in the Young Fabians as Vice Chair and co-founded its magazine Anticipations, although he did not tell me at the time about his role in establishing the grouping.

My father would have been very excited by the Fabian History project as his last two decades were spent working as a historian. In this capacity he has written or co-authored a number of books on contemporary and historical British politics – several published with or launched in conjunction with the Fabian Society. The final volume of his 1,000 page study of British Prime Ministers – Modern British Prime Ministers: from Balfour to Johnson – was completed just a few weeks before his death and will be published in late 2021. His only big regret was that so few of these PMs had been Fabians because of the dominance of the Conservative Party, something he hoped would change if his friend Keir Starmer should win the next General Election. 

MILO BARNETT & HOLLIE WICKENS INTRODUCTION

TheFabian Society was founded in 1884 and its youthful counterpart was founded by the late Dick Leonard in 1960. In this extraordinary period of political development and across today’s most pressing issues, the Fabian membership and their ideas have been instrumental in influencing not only British history but that of the world. Their legacy traces across the globe from the policies of the early Indian Republic to the rise of the megacity of Singapore. This collective project has been able to explore the fruit of this rich archive and our contributors cover a broad canvas of Fabian History stretching from the 19th century to the present day.

Will Barber Taylor considers youth and its contribution to the movement. Eric Paessler draws some timely conclusions from an analysis of the 1981 SDP Labour split. Amy Dwyer interviews John Kirkland, secretary of the Young Fabians 79-80 about his own experiences, and the importance of engaging voters and young people with the

issues of international development. Ciara Garcha confronts the complexities and contradictions of socialist imperialism, whilst Ethan Penny dips into the archive to chart the specific concerns driving Fabian Euroscepticism in the 20th century. Nathan Farrington highlights the immense contribution that Fabian principles have had in shaping many international political systems and philosophies, and speaks for all the contributors in making the point that the lessons learned from the past should be utilised effectively to realise their true value. Tom Roberts celebrates the work of the Young Fabians in regards to devolution. Mark Whittaker fittingly concludes by offering his own reflections on the Young Fabian’s most recent experiences of Covid, and the challenges and opportunities presented by Lockdown.

We Fabians have an impressive record, yet our historiography has not been as proclaimed as widely as it should. There have been three general histories of the Fabians, with the most recent pub-

lished in the 1980s. This means that we still have an exciting opportunity to bring many different elements of our history to the forefront. This project is a first and we would hope, a worthy step in promoting our history from a range of writers with diverse backgrounds and interests which ensures the widest possible range of points and thought processes. Everybody involved in this pamphlet should be enormously proud of their contribution.

Thanks in particular for the origination of this project must go to Hollie Wickens whose hard work has helped to produce this pamphlet in all its glory. We are hoping that this collection will be a springboard for future projects, whether directly linked to the Fabians archive or to wider British political history, and look forward to hearing more from members current and former to add to our wider understanding of both Fabians and the Young Fabians over time.

Milo Barnett is the editor of the Young Fabians’ 60th Anniversary History Project, as well being a member of the Young Fabians Executive Committee based in North East England. He is also studying for a part time MSt, and his dissertation will look at the Fabians and the 1945 Labour Government.

Hollie Wickens is the founder of the Young Fabians’ 60th Anniversary History Project, and Secretary on the Young Fabians’ Executive Committee. She works in politics, and is also studying part time for an MA in Politics & Contemporary History.

WILL BARBER-TAYLOR

YOUNG MEMBERS OF THE FABIAN SOCIETY, 1884 – 1959

Why, at the turn of the 20th Century, would a young person join the Fabian Society? This was a question that fascinated me when I first pitched this piece to Hollie some months ago. When the Fabian Society started back in 1884, Britain was a staggeringly different place to the place it is today and not just in terms of politics but in everything else. In 1884, Britain still had a Liberal Prime Minister, William Gladstone. The Labour Party, and even its precursor the Independent Labour Party, were 16 and 9 years away from being founded respectively.

Advances in the rights of working people were coming slowly and it was only in 1884 that Parliament’s 3rd Reform Bill ensured greater suffrage and extended the franchise to millions more people.1 However, this still did not extend the right to vote to 40% of men and all women of legal age in Britain.2 Similarly, housing conditions, though

improved since the start of the century, were still dire for the poorest. Andrew Mearns’ The Bitter Cry of Outcast London, published in October of the previous year3, shocked the nation by revealing the extent of poverty and poor living conditions in urban South London. Mearns wrote that he found “Poverty, rags and dirt everywhere. The air is laden with disease breeding gases…Many of its denizens would gladly break away from the dismal, degrading life they are leading if only a way were made for them to do so.”4

It was at this point of change that the Fabian Society was founded, on the 4th of January 1884. It is perhaps ironic, given the society’s continuing resolution to oppose aligning itself with one or another splinter group in the Labour Party, that the Fabians were themselves founded as a splinter group.5 The precursory society, the Fellowship of the New Life, was founded by

the 43-year-old Scottish intellectual Thomas Davison. Drawing upon ideas of social justice from the Italian priest and thinker Antonio Rosmini, Davison decided to create a group to promote discussion.6 He was joined by a group of seasoned activists including future founding members of the Fabian Society itself. However, the group were not what would be considered young by the modern Young Fabians membership requirements – they were in their late thirties and early forties.

The rather eclectic purpose of the Fellowship of the New Life did not help it survive. That a more focussed group was founded a year after it, and that the Fellowship would finally cease to be before the end of the 19th Century, demonstrates that whilst Davison had high ideals, they did not easily translate into a functioning organisation. The Fabian Society, in contrast, proved to be a far more

The Young Left, painting by Bertha Newcombe. Depicting George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb and Graham Wallis

robust organisation. As Edward R Pease, author of the history of the early Fabians wrote, “The Fabian Society was founded for the purpose of reconstructing society in accordance with the highest possible moral principles.”7 These intentions to make the world better have their roots in the Fellowship of New Life but the Fabian Society proved to have a greater reach than the Fellowship.

This was principally due to the essays published by the society. They helped attract a great deal of attention to the group, as the Kilkenny Moderator commented less than a decade after the society’s founding:

“A few years ago, the Fabians were merely a society of young Londoners who used to meet once a week in some hired chamber in the great Babylon, where they regaled the inner man with tea and cake; after partaking of which carnal nourishment they addressed themselves to the feast of reason and the flow of the soul”8

That the Society was described as young even at this early stage perhaps gets to the root of why the Fabians were more successful than their immediate predecessor – they had a clearer direction and a more vigorous, youthful membership. The Kilkenny Moderator’s piece continues by describing how “the little volume of Fabian Essays ‘caught on’, to use a slang phrase common in London, and the young Fabians whose names were appended to those articles, like Lord Byron, awoke one morning to find themselves famous.”9 That the Fabians, in the words of the Moderator, had achieved the status of having become “to the Socialists of Great Britain what the Club of the Jacobins became to the French Revolution”10 not only demonstrates the appetite for what the Fabians were preaching, in contrast to Gladstone’s Liberals and the Conservative Party, but also the determination of the young

membership of the society to press their ideas on the public and reach new people, greatly expanding the reach of the group from London to further afield.

The Fabians' newfound fame not only attracted supporters but detractors too, who used its youthful membership against the organisation. A year after the Moderator’s glowing praise for the group came “The Farce of the Fabians”11 an article that ridiculed the group for having become “tired of being taken seriously”12 and that “all their big talk on social questions must not be taken too seriously, that it has only been their little joke”.13 The author portrays the Fabians as being not simply out of touch but frivolous, remarking that they had “flowing hair and motley garb… curly hats were much in favour and were obviously too essential a part of the get up to be removed during the evening.”14

The attacks on the attire of the Fabians is not unusual to politics and the emphasis on the bohemian nature of the style of presentation has been an attack lobbied at the Fabians since their inception; that they were overly intellectual and too middle class to be a part of the workers’ struggle. The youth, both of the organisation and its members, was also part of the assault set out in the article – the implication that this youth meant a lack of maturity, of an inability to properly argue ideas. The attempts to attack the Fabians as being unserious didn’t work, of course, and over the successive years the group grew from strength to strength. Whilst they were attacked by supporters of the Liberal Party as “coming forward with a beautifully ideal programme… which has small chance of becoming law”15, the society was hard at work in spreading the message of socialism and working towards getting Labour candidates elected to Parliament.

Whilst the record of electing socialist members of Parliament was

patchy, partly due to the various disagreements between groups like the Independent Labour Party, the Social Democratic Federation and the trade unions, there was clearly some hope and the enthusiastic members of the Fabians did not give up. The Fabians assisted in Hardie’s election in West Ham in 1892 and were instrumental in helping Ben Tillett come within 2,700 votes of winning West Bradford, sending speakers and raising money for Tillet’s campaign.16 This demonstrates how much the Society had grown, but still Labour struggled to break through into Parliament: as the fact Hardie lost his seat in 1895 testifies. Young Fabian members however kept the fire burning by setting up means for co-operative societies and trade unions to borrow books, sending out over 200 boxes of books at a time to be circulated across the country.17 It soon became apparent however that only by creating a specific group for Labour candidates, rather than having a variety of different socialist candidates standing under a mixture of banners, would Labour succeed. The formation of the Labour Representative Committee in 1900 served to codify the struggle for strong working class representation around one political party; others, of course, existed but it was Labour that would eventually be the most successful. The Fabians, alongside the Independent Labour Party, the TUC and others sent the delegates to the conference that formerly founded what would become the Labour Party.18

Yet the event is not only important because it heralded the creation of a singular body to stand for Parliament to represent working class interests: but because it demonstrated a beginning of stronger trade union control over the broader socialist movement. The governing committee was made up of two representatives of the ILP, two from the SDF, one Fabian and seven trade union representatives19

demonstrating both the direction of political movement on the left, and where the power was beginning to coalesce.

Whilst the LRC’s foundation was a demonstration of what would come in the future, it was not immediately successful. The group stood 15 candidates in 1900 and only two were elected – Hardie for Merthyr Tydfil and Richard Bell for Derby.20 Ironically, Bell had in fact been born in Merthyr.21 Bell’s election also showed the growing strength of the trade unions over the selection of Labour candidates – Bell was a strong trade unionist as was Will Crooks who was elected to serve Woolwich in 1902 –Crooks was also a Fabian. It would take slow breakthroughs in Clitheroe, Barnard Castle and Woolwich for Labour to gain recognition as a political force.

It would not be until the 1906 General Election, however, that Labour made considerable gains, thanks in part to an election pact between Ramsay MacDonald and Liberal Chief Whip Herbert Gladstone to allow Labour candidates a free shot in certain constituencies against the Conservatives, limiting the amount of candidates that Labour could stand but ensuring their election. The Liberals won a landslide and Labour gained 29 seats. It was as Labour seemed to finally be gaining a grip on power that the

Fabians opened their first youth organisation – the Fabian Nursery. Set up to encourage younger members to become more active in the society, it helped to revive the youthful element of the society that had been somewhat less prominent than in the early days of the society.

The Nursery’s aim, to primarily spread information about socialism, is clear from one of the very first lectures given such as “Popular Misconceptions of Socialism”.22 Similarly, building on the wider Fabian Society’s use of library exchange schemes to get books on politics and socialism across the country, the Nursery produced a pamphlet called “A Guide To Books For Socialists”23 advising readers on which books were best for learning about socialism and left wing political doctrine.

The members of the Nursery were diverse. The first editor of the Nursery’s publication, Fabian Nursling, was the future chair of the Town & Country Planning Association Frederick Osborn.24 Other members included Amber Reeves25, the feminist writer who was at the time entangled in an affair with fellow Fabian H G Wells26; F L Stevens, future Labour candidate for Peterborough in the 1930s27; Hannen Swaffer, a journalist and critic who helped develop the Daily Mirror28; future Labour Prime Minister

Clement Attlee29; St John Ervine the biographer30; the poet Rupert Brooke31; Rosamund Bland, daughter of Hugh Bland, one of the “Old Gang”32 and adopted daughter of the author E L Nesbitt33; Frederic Keeling, founder of the Cambridge University Fabian Society and assistant editor of the New Statesman34; the novelist and journalist Dame Rebecca West35 amongst many others. It is not surprising that Reeves, one of the group’s prominent members, was involved with Wells given that Wells’ attempt to overthrow the executive in 1906 and turn the group into a socialist party36 had inadvertently helped create the group. Many of the members of the Nursery were children of already established members, such as Reeves, whose mother had been instrumental in founding the Fabian’s Women’s Group.37 Though the group was probably about seventy in all, some were infrequent members. These included Attlee, whose work in the East End meant he only attended the occasional meeting.38

Whilst the Nursery was not as well respected and integrated by the society as today’s Young Fabians is, they were financially supported by the society40 and some members spoke at wider Fabian Society events.41 The Nursery’s impact was perhaps greater in terms of what its membership would go on to do

later than its own initial influence. However, the group grew through the 1900s and by 1912 were, alongside the Fabian Society itself, subject of Rose Maccaulay’s satirical novel Views and Vagabonds.42 The novel, set amongst a group of “Bright Young Things” satirises idealistic young socialists, centring on Benjamin Bunter or “Master Benjie”43 an upper class socialist determined to improve both the lot of the working class and himself and turns his back on his aristocratic mother Lady Lettice in order to become a blacksmith.44 The novel ably mocks both overly idealistic activists as well as reactionaries –a fine example being Lady Lettice, in full Lady Bracknell, remarking to the Vicar:

“”It’s all this silly socialism,” said Lady Lettice Bunter. “They pick it up, you know, like measles. More particularly at St. Martin’s — my son’s college. Benjamin got a bad attack. So, he’s a blacksmith.”

The Vicar nodded assent. “An unusual young man,” he observed. “They don’t as a rule become blacksmiths, however bad the attack.”

“But Benjie has a fad about working with his hands,” his mother explained. “He seems to think it’s the only respectable sort of work a man can do. Anyhow he’s sure it’s the work for him; though he has a head too, really.””45

Whilst the novel, like the earlier essay The Farce of the Fabians, is mocking in part it is also a reflection of the impact that the Fabians made that an entire novel could be written about the group and have appeal to a wider audience. Indeed, it was not the only work of fiction to use Fabianism as a byword for idealism; Gladys Unger’s 1920 play “A Man In Mary’s Room” similarly makes fun of an implied association between being a member of the Fabian Nursery and being idealistic and upper class.46

It was, of course, not all mockery. The Fabian’s Nursery was during the 1910s producing articles in publications like the Labour Leader instructing workers how best to utilise the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 190647, arranging lecturers across the country48 and rallying support for the Labour Party in by-elections and local elections. The greatest change came in 1914 when war was declared. Both Rupert Brooke and Frederic Keeling were killed during the conflict49, while Amber Reeves' brother Fabian, named after the society their parents loved and of which they were a member, was also killed.50 By contrast Attlee was memorably wounded in the buttock51 and used his army rank of Major in subsequent campaign literature.52

The First World War created a split on the left with as many Labour and Fabian Society members arguing for pacifism and that Britain should not participate in the war as those arguing that Britain had to take part in the war. There had been similar disagreements between members and socialists at large over Britain’s participation in the Boer War over a decade earlier53 but the scale of the First World War meant that both the disagreements and the casualties were on a much larger scale.

It was through the war, however, that Labour got its first representation in government – several Labour MPs gained minor roles in Asquith’s Ministry; Arthur Henderson was President of the Board of Education for just over a year before being demoted to Paymaster General54; both George Roberts55 and William Brace held junior positions in the government also.56 During Lloyd George’s administration the influence of Labour increased with George Barnes becoming Secretary of State for Pensions57; George Roberts and William Brace also continued to be part of the government58 and were joined by J R Clynes, Stephen

Walsh, John Hodge and George Wardle.59 Though these appointments would prove scandalous to some, they represented a further watershed for the Party – not only had they gone from being outside Parliament to inside it, they now for the first time worked in the government. This gave MPs not only greater experience of the workings of government but greater public recognition – it demonstrated to the public that Labour MPs could help to steer the ship of state without it crashing. This would help Labour eventually displace the Liberals as one of the two major parties and further it on a path to governing in the majority rather than as a minority coalition partner.

Yet, whilst the war provided opportunity for Labour to promote itself it also radicalised many members of the wider Labour movement. The Russian Revolution of 1917 provoked feelings that had always existed but became more pronounced, of disgust and distaste for both the monarchy and the then current system of government. It also directed many members of the left to attack the Fabian Society, primarily because of the perception that its membership at the time was mainly middle Class. Labour chose not to go down the revolutionary path, however and the attacks against the party and the Fabian Society became less prominent.

The Fabian Nursery, which had been dissolved during the war due to its membership becoming inextricably involved in the First World War, was revived in 1922 by F L Stevens. Stevens, originally from Mexborough outside Sheffield in South Yorkshire60 was a vibrant chair of the revived society. Almost solely through sheer enthusiasm he kept the society going, encouraging young socialist groups in Sheffield which became active not just in lecturing but engaging in local Labour politics.61 Stevens would become Chair of the Manchester

Fabian Society as well and later in life invest his energies in pursuing a career as an MP; his right-hand man Ernest Davies would similarly attempt to become an MP. Whilst Stevens failed in his ambition, Davies would go onto to be the Labour MP for Enfield from 1945 –1959.62

During the late 1920s and early 1930s the Fabians Nursery would continue to be active, and young Fabian members continued to be crucial to the organisation. The disappointment felt by many towards Ramsay Macdonald’s government, however, made many feel disillusioned and some began to drift away from the group. This would change with the rise of fascism across Europe. Invigorated by the fight against fascism, young people became more engaged with the Fabian Society. Not only did the Fabian Nursery send a petition to the government over support given by certain groups to the fascists who attempted to topple the left-wing Spanish government63 (the consequences of which would eventually result in the Spanish Civil War64), but they also challenged the old guard to seats on the Fabian Society’s executive.

During the 1934 Fabian Society elections, four young candidates stood to be elected to the Fabian Society’s national executive. They were F W Bacon, Gordon Esher, John Barter and Francis Meddings. Their argument was that:

“Fascist parties are new and can offer to young people positions of responsibility. Socialist bodies, if they are to retain their hold, must make the same offer.”65

The feelings expressed by the candidates were common amongst young people during the 1930s. The desire to tackle fascism head on drove many to fight in the Spanish Civil War, whether as active soldiers or in the medical corps helping the injured. The continuing influence of the “Old Guard” and their adherents meant that many of the more enlivened young members once again fell into the background or took their energies elsewhere.

This isn’t to say there weren’t still active young Fabians, but rather that events overtook the society. The Second World War, like the First, swept many young members into the army or ambulance services, breaking any activity up till after the war ended. By the time the war in Europe ended, Labour would once again be sweeping its way to office with a former Fabian Nursery member leading it as Labour’s second Prime Minister. Yet, the interest sparked in Attlee’s former “young Fabian” status did not naturally translate into young Fabian members being at the heart of the organisation. The Fabian Nursery, after its revival in the 20s and 30s, seemed a memory. Discussion was made of young Fabians but they tended to be young Fabians of the

past with Aly Russell’s 1949 book on the society providing an insight into young members but ones who had long since thrown off the guise of youth.

It would not be until 1960, the year in which America elected its youngest President John F Kennedy66, that there would once again be a defined group to represent young people in the Fabian society, a group that thankfully still exists today and is clearly thriving.

To return to where this piece began; why would someone who was young want to join the Fabian society at the end of the 19th century? The answer is simple and one that still applies today; to change society. The Fabian Society, and in particular the Young Fabians, represent intellectually honest debate at its best. Whatever we may all disagree upon, we can all surely agree on the importance of our duty to create new ideas and to encourage others to do so too. At a time when Coronavirus has made the world look bleaker than ever before, with the scale of the Labour Party’s journey back to government seemingly more pronounced than at any time in our lifetimes, it is crucial that we talk, we discuss, we engage. The very first young Fabians knew this and we know it today – inaction is the enemy of change, apathy is the greatest weapon our opponents have against us and it is one that we must never let them use.

Will Barber Taylor is the Universities and Unions Outreach Officer for the West Midlands Young Fabians Society and Chair of the University of Warwick Young Fabians Society. He is also the host of the British political podcast Debated.

References

1. K. Lakshmana Murthy, A Peep Into the Work & Life Style of British in India, (India: Lakshmi Publication, 2001) 14

2. Colin Pinkington, The Politics Today Companion To The British Constitution, (United Kingdom: Manchester University Press, 1999) 134

3. Gareth Stedman Jones, Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship Between Classes in Victorian Society, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971) 142

4. Andrew Mearns, The bitter cry of outcast London : An inquiry into the condition of the abject poor, (London: James Clarke and Co, 1883) 31

5. Edward R. Pease, A History of the Fabian Society, (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1916), 26

6. Pease, History of the Fabian Society, 26

7. Pease, History of the Fabian Society, 235

8. Anon, “A New Force in Politics”, Kilkenny Moderator, 4th Nov 1893, 2

9. Ibid

10. Ibid

11. H Dendy, “The Farce of the Fabians”, The Charity Organisation Review, (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1894) 268

12. Ibid

13. Ibid

14. Ibid

15. Anon, “Harcourt Triumphs” Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin review; and Forfar and Kincardineshire advertiser, 20 July 1894, 4

16. Pease, A History of the Fabian Society, 128

17. Fabian Society, Annual Report Vol 37 – 44, (London: Fabian Society, 1920) 18

18. Paul Adelman, The Rise of the Labour Party 1880-1945, (London: Routledge, 2014) 30

19. Adelman, Rise of the Labour Party, 30

20. Henry Toch, British Political and Social Institutions, (London: Pitman, 1962) 26

21. Joe England, Merthyr: The Crucible of Modern Wales, (London: Parthian Books, 2019) 214

22. Fabian Society, Annual Report 1973, (London: Fabian Society, 1973) 11

23. Pease, History of the Fabian Society, 189

24. St John Ervine, “The Attlee I Knew In The Fabian Nursery”, Belfast Telegraph, 3 August 1945, 4

25. Sally Alexander, Women's Fabian Tracts, (Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 2013) 2

26. Sarah Watling, The Olivier Sisters: A Biography, (Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 2019) 43

27. Anon, “To Oppose Lord Burghley – Career of a Labour Candidate”, Northampton Mercury, 7 Sep 1934, 15

28. Ervine, “The Attlee I Knew”, 4

48. Pugh, Educate, Agitate, 95

49. John Maynard Keynes, FREDERIC HILLERSDON KEELING. In E. Johnson & D. Moggridge (Eds.), The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes (The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, pp. 319-320). Royal Economic Society. doi:10.1017/UPO9781139524230.028

50. Ralf Dahrendorf, LSE: A History of the London School of Economics and Political Science 18951995, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) 131

51. John Bew, Citizen Clem, (Great Britain: Riverrun, 2016) 3

52. Ibid, 120

53. Pease, History of the Fabian Society, 131

32. Ibid

33. Elisabeth Galvin, The Extraordinary Life of E Nesbit: Author of Five Children and It and The Railway Children, (London: Pen & Sword Limited, 2018) 113

34. Ervine, “The Attlee I Knew”, 4

35. Ibid

36. Galya Diment, H G Wells and All Things Russian, (UK: Anthem Press, 2019) 220

37. Watling, Olivier Sisters, 43

38. Ervine, “The Attlee I Knew”, 4

39. Ibid

40. Patricia Pugh, Educate, Agitate, Organize Library Editions: Political Science Volume 59 One Hundred Years of Fabian Socialism, (Oxford: Routledge, 2010) 94

41. Pugh, Educate, Agitate, 94

42. Anon, “A Kindly Satirist”, Pall Mall Gazette, 16 Feb 1912, 9

43. Rose Maccaulay, Views and Vagabonds, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1912) 38

44. Ibid

45. Ibid

46. Anon, “The Grand Quignol”, Westminster Gazette, 16 Dec 1920, 4

47. Member of the Fabian Nursery, “Don’t Be Tricked – Insurance Companies and Workmen’s Claims”, Labour Leader, 8 August 1912, 4

54. Randolph Spencer Churchill, Winston S. Churchill: 1914-1916. Companion, (London: Heineman, 1966) 470

55. “George Roberts”, Charles Clarke, Men Who Made Labour, ed Alan Haworth and Dianne Hayter, (Oxford: Routledge, 2006) 157

56. John Gorman, Images of Labour: Selected Memorabilia from the National Museum of Labour History, London, (London: Scorpio Publishing, 1985) 181

57. David Robertson, A Dictionary of Modern Politics, (United Kingdom: Europa Publications, 2004) 270

58. Ibid, 270

59. Ibid, 270

60. Anon, “Career of a Labour Candidate”, 15

61. Ibid, 15

62. Labour History Review: Volume 64, (London: Society for the Study of Labour History, 1999) 271

63. Anon, “Protests Against Aiding Rebels – Government Blamed”, Daily Herald, 20 August 1936, 4

64. Ulrich Herbert, A History of Twentieth-Century Germany, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) 284

65. Special Correspondent, “Capturing Fabian Seats”, Daily Herald, 9 April 1934, 8

66. Robert Dallek, JFK: An Unfinished Life, (Great Britain: Penguin Books, 2004) 302

THE SDP-LABOUR SPLIT A WATERSHED MOMENT IN FABIAN HISTORY

Introduction

Throughoutmodern British political history, the Fabian Society has been decisive in shaping Labour policy. However, its close-knit allegiance to the Labour Party found arguably its fiercest challenge in 1981, when intra-par-

ty factionalism caused the Social Democratic Party to split off from Labour. With both camps ideologically, privately and professionally deeply interlinked, the Fabian Society found itself in the midst of a party-political tussle over its long-

term future. In this chapter I will try to illuminate this watershed moment, with lessons that are pertinent to Labour’s future as well as its past. 

The1980s saw a deeply rooted schism in the Labour party erupt, dividing the party into two parts, the seceding one of which later came to form the Social Democratic Party (SDP).1 On the 25th January 1981, 4 senior moderates (nicknamed by the media the ‘Gang of Four’)2 from the Labour party launched the Council for Social Democracy, by proclaiming the Limehouse Declaration. The Declaration emphasised the ‘calamitous outcome’ of the Labour Party Wembley conference in January 19813, which saw Labour commit to nu-

clear disarmament and withdrawal from the European Economic Community.

Apart from disagreement with the new political direction of Labour, the SDP faction had felt antagonised by the increasing movement of the party to the left as well as the rise of the Militant movement. Further, they were critical of shifts between the constituency and the parliamentary party level, fearing the former had been infiltrated by Militant.4 The Militant tendency arose from Trotskyist groups5 within Labour that organised around

the Militant newspaper after 1964, who rose to particular prominence in the 70s. All of these concerns were compounded by then-leader Michael Foot’s hesitation to counter these developments.6

The Limehouse Declaration was a symptom of significant underlying political turmoil. Intra-party factionalism, anxieties over shifting influences and ideological alliances, and changes in strategic priorities had all contributed to the SDP-Labour schism in 1981. These tensions are also set against the backdrop of a disappointing 1979

The Limehouse Declaration

Labour campaign in the general elections, which resulted in a resounding win for Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives over the Labour Party, led by incumbent Prime Minister James Callaghan.7 Further, the ‘Gang of Four’ also feared the rising influence of the trade unions, which must further be set in context against the Winter of Discontent: wherein political difficulties surrounding trade union protests

for higher pay rises were exacerbated by a devastatingly and historically cold winter, isolating many remote areas of the UK.8

The ‘Gang of Four’ included Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rodgers and Shirley Williams, who were all prominent politicians, and either were or had been sitting Labour MPs. The SDP initially included 14 MPs, 13 of whom had defected

The ‘Gang of Four’ in the Fabian Society

Theseheavy intra-Labour disputes were also reflected in the Fabian Society and many other organisations on the left.10 Many of the SDP defectors had been intricately involved in the Fabian Society, with numerous personal friendships and professional alliances tested over the course of the split.

All 4 members of the ‘Gang of Four’ had been members of the Fabian Society. Whereas David Owen joined the Society in 1960, Roy Jenkins (1957-1958), Bill Rodgers (19661967) and Shirley Williams (19801981) were all Chairs of the Fabian Society. Both Rodgers(1966-1967) and Williams (1960-1963) were also General Secretaries of the society. The ‘Gang of Four’ had previously worked together in the Fabian Society and the Manifesto Group, which was a parliamentary alliance of British Labour MPs. They had successfully garnered significant support amongst council leaders.11 Notably, Bill Rodgers’ time as General Secretary of the Fabian Society indicated his firm intellectual foundation.12 He in particular had been dismayed by the increase of the left’s influence in the party, firmly standing in the ideological lineage of the gradualist, reformist, social democratic part of the party.13

Rodgers was an old friend of Shirley Williams, having studied at Oxford together.14 Shirley Williams

had been travelling a lot in 1980, either lecturing at Harvard or spending her time writing a book at the Policy Studies Institute in London.15 Her parents were intellectual socialists, and she herself had spent her whole political life in the labour movement, having joined the party in her teens.16 At the mere age of 20, she had run a Labour candidate’s election campaign. Three years later, she was already running for her own constituency. Between 1970 and 1974, Williams had enjoyed a period of popularity in the Shadow Cabinet, which resulted in her promotion into the Cabinet in 1974.17

It was therefore particularly the defection of Shirley Williams - former General Secretary and then Chair of the Society - that had challenged the established alignment of the Society with Labour. When co-founding the SDP, she took with her a number of members of the Fabian Society’s Executive Committee, including then-Treasurer John Roper, John Cartwright and David Sainsbury.18 Further, numerous benefactors left as well, setting the Society temporarily in financial uncertainty.19

One of the most prominent points of controversy was the question of how to treat the SDP defectors within the Society. Society regulations had specified that only members of the Labour Party (or people eligible to join) were permitted to

from Labour, with one from the Conservatives.9 The party in itself would however be a short-lived project. Initially, the SDP formed an electoral alliance with the Liberal Party for the 1983 and 1987 general elections, which resulted in a 1988 merger to form the Social and Liberal Democrats, nowadays known as the Liberal Democrats. 

serve on the society’s Executive. However, it remained unclear how these rules applied to mere membership in the Fabian Society. A ballot of the members settled the contention and affirmed that the Society would continue its affiliation with Labour, whereas SDP members could only be non-voting associate members.20 Baroness Dianne Hayter later described the tense AGM as ‘one of the most disagreeable and difficult days of my professional or personal life’. Indeed, many party and Society members found themselves politically opposing former personal and political friends, with two members of Labour staff even losing their spouses to the SDP during the split.21 John Smith MP was a notable example of a Fabian member who stayed despite many of his personal and professional friends leaving, which is, as he claimed, due to him being comfortable with the unions, which David Owen and the rest were not.22 Baroness Hayter concedes that this personal rift between SDP and Fabian Society members would persist for a long time to come.23

Following its secession, the SDP quickly forged an alliance with the Liberal Party in an alliance that would last through the 1983 and 1987 general elections, during which they successfully managed to hold more than 20 percent of the votes in elections.24

found itself well-connected with the London-based social-science establishment, in part due to the network of the former Fabian Society members.25 It also remained linked to the Policy Studies Insti-

Timely Lessons

Overall, the SDP split arose from anxieties over internal fissions between MPs and party activists, emanating from those following the social democratic tradition in the Labour Party.28 Fears over shifts of influence towards trade unions and activists over Parliamentary Labour Party members were compounded by then-leader Michael Foot’s initial reluctance to counter the rise of the Militant tendency.29

In retrospect, the SDP appeared to

Erik Paessler is a recent graduate from King's College London in European Politics BA and current student at the University of Oxford in MPhil Politics: European Politics & Society. His research interests include comparative European politics, differentiated integration in EU and electoral politics in Europe.

ed her research prior to the split. 26 Overall, the party had the backing of significant intellectual talent, in no small part due to members of the Fabian Society.27

fully weathered, with the Fabian Society providing a crucial platform for intra-party debates surrounding the new orientation of Labour following the resounding defeat in the 1983 general elections. 

have not had the profound impact on the future of the party and the Society as some might have predicted. The ideological tensions that arose in organisations of the left were reflections of the internal factionalism prevalent in different political camps of the left. The Fabian Society was no different – the structure of the organisation was hit harshly by personal and professional quarrel over the open revolt of ‘the Gang of Four’. Interestingly, understanding the challenges in the 80’s seems timely today. In-

ternal factionalism and a failure to address the changing demands of the electorate, which caused the SDP split30, can be markedly traced in Labour’s recent struggles. All the more soothing that, in hindsight, both the party and the Society turned out just fine, despite losing significant intellectual prowess to the SDP. The Fabian Society continued to be loyal and allegiant to the Labour party, paving the way for a political platform on which the successes of the 90s would be prepared. 

References

1. Cook and Stevenson, Longman, 95.

2. Scott, “Social Democratic Party.”

3. Williams et al., “New Council”, 2.

4. Howse, “Gang of Four.”

5. Webster, Labour Party, 13.

6. Courea, “Labour Split.”

7. Politics 97, “3 May 1979.“

8. Hay, “Winter,” 545-46.

9. Courea, “Labour Split.”

10. Fabian Society, “Our History.”

11. Hayter, “Backwards Glance.”

12. King, SDP, 35.

13. Ibid., 34.

14. Ibid., 41.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Hayter, “Best of Times."

19. Ibid.

20. Fabian Society, “Our History.”

21. Hayter,“Best of Times.“

22. Watson, “Life and Work of John Smith MP.”

23. Hayter,“Best of Times

24. Denver and Bochel, “Merger or Bust,” 403.

25. King, SDP, 234.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Hayter, “Backwards Glance.”

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

AMY DWYER INTERVIEW: JOHN KIRKLAND

Aspart of the Young Fabians History Project, I interviewed John Kirkland OBE about his time as Secretary of the Young Fabians, his work since then and what he thought of the modern Young Fabians.

Hi John, it’s great to be able to sit down and discuss with you your history with the Young Fabians and the work that you’re doing at the moment.

What was your main motivation for the work that you’re doing at the minute in international development?

I actually got into international development by accident, and not until my early 40s. I was invited to give a talk in Bangladesh about how to access European research funding, which was an area that I had been involved in. I was blown away by the experience, both good and bad. I felt there were an awful lot of really sincere people

trying to do their best, but that the whole education system and many other systems were just not working effectively. I came back from this experience and wanted to do something about it, and it was a few months later by chance when I saw a vacancy for a job as Director of Human Capacity at the Association of Commonwealth Universities. I didn’t know much about the developing world but I did know a lot about universities and I stayed there for 18 years. The ACU was a body with around ⅔ of its members in the developing world, and so this brought me into that field.

My motivation to go into international development stemmed from my recognition that the issues were bigger, sharper and even more important internationally than they were domestically. At the end of the day, the issues that can be seen in the developing world are magnified versions of the domestic issues that we have in the UK. The

barriers seem deceptively easy to overcome and I think the more you get involved and the more you talk to people, the more complex it becomes. So it was quite a life-changing thing in mid-career really.

Absolutely. I’ve been following your work with the Association of Commonwealth Universities and I think it’s really interesting. You mentioned barriers and this is something that we’ve spoken about multiple times, the barriers to careers in international development for young people from working class backgrounds.

What would you say to young people who want to work in international development but feel that they lack the connections to access these careers?

First of all, I absolutely say go for it. It’s a hard place to get into. The reason why I feel quite strongly about it is that there are a lot of barriers that are based on so-

cio-economic factors. To get jobs in international development, it’s important to have travelled quite widely to have an appreciation of the major issues in the developing world. Unpaid internships are a typical way to do this and increasingly post-graduate qualifications are important. These are all factors that make these careers inaccessible for working class people. Additionally, so many of the networks in this area are based in London and operate based on unpaid experience and connections. I don’t think any one person or organisation is to blame, often small charities and NGOs have a very small workforce and unpaid internships are the lifeblood of these organisations. Their view is that the funds that they have should be spent on causes in the developing world. So a balance needs to be found. I think it is a real problem.

An international outlook is actually becoming a very middle-class thing, in a way that I don’t think it was when I was younger. Interestingly, there seemed to be less resentment towards those who have been to university, studied internationally and had a more international outlook, because there were so few people who did. Whereas now, when it is almost an even split there seems to be more resentment to this and a tendency towards insularity. As a result, there is much less support and much more hostility towards the concept of international development in working class areas than middle class areas. But I do want to stress that I don’t actually think it’s the practice itself that people are against, there is just a high level of suspicion that this money isn’t being used properly, many people are too easily swayed by the Daily Mail. You know, with headlines that claim that the money goes into dictators’ pockets and never gets to the right people. I find this a huge shame and I think we saw this in the Brexit vote. Much of this wasn’t

a calculated view of the European Union, but a deep suspicion of issues overseas and a desire to focus on our own issues first, which I find very worrying.

So, back to the question. What I am trying to do in setting up a new charity called Diversity in Development is to provide more opportunities for people to go into these careers. We’re focusing primarily on the 16-18 category because we’ve got to get people interested in this area first. And particularly the people that don’t go to university. One of the problems with accessibility is that this is seen almost universally as a graduate profession. Of course, getting more graduates involved is great too: but it still excludes 50% of the population.

If there was a pot of money put aside for government bursaries in international development to support students who want to do unpaid internships, do you think that could help the situation?

I think it could. There are some schemes already such as Raleigh International and VSO, although VSO has been the victim of recent cuts. I think there are some opportunities there. But there is also an issue with takeup from working class areas. I think yes there does need to be more financial support but there is a deep underlying issue of getting more young people interested in international development. We need to get young people talking about these issues.

I’m very passionate about education and its role in addressing many of society’s problems. What do you think about incorporating some elements of international development into the curriculum and whether this would help to engage more young people with these issues?

I think I would be in favour of that, whether or not I believe this is the best way to get more young people from diverse backgrounds in-

terested is another matter but yes I would support this. I just think what people would learn by talking to someone of a similar age about their experiences would be more useful. Indeed I think we could utilise the experiences of international students studying in the UK, as these students have first hand experience of developing countries and of aid. We just need to open people’s eyes. And they won’t always like what they seeL there are problems with international aid, not enough to justify cutting it of course, but there are problems.

I’d say one of the central problems is that international development is seen as too detached from people’s everyday lives and this is such a shame because it’s actually something that links all of us together.

Given the current government’s seeming disdain for international development, how can we persuade voters of the importance and the benefits of international aid and development?

Looking at polls, I actually believe people are quite willing to see the benefits of development. People in working class areas give a higher proportion of their wages to charity than those on higher incomes, so it’s certainly not a lack of generosity. I think it’s an issue of feeling connected. If you haven’t left the UK then you don’t feel as though these issues are real. It’s all about bringing experiences of the developing world to people so they can really understand. This is one of the reasons why I feel we could be using the experiences of international students to help with this.

I agree. I think it’s about connecting people to the stories and experiences of people living in the developing world that would make a significant difference. Shifting now towards the Young Fabians, you were the Secretary in 1978 is that right? What was your involvement in the Young Fabians?

Yes, I was Secretary from 1979 to 1980.

The Secretary didn’t do very much at all, I was Secretary for the second year I was involved and their role was essentially just to call the meetings and take the minutes. I think the only time I was given the role was that I actually worked in the office in the summer of 1979 and so I could access the photocopier!

In those days, there were very few points of interactions for Young Fabians members, we were all based in London and committee membership was ⅔ former Oxbridge. There were some very old Young Fabians then, the age limit went up to 40.

So we mainly had events and we had meetings and they were the only points of interaction really. This meant that there wasn’t a huge chance to get to know each other if you didn’t already know each other. And I was a bit of an outsider, rightly or wrongly, because I decided to go to Brunel. It was the only university that did placements dur-

ing politics degrees in those days. Apart from being Secretary, I went to quite a few events and met up with a few Young Fabians at the pub when I was in London. Some of the events I went to were quite eye-opening for me. Before I came down to London to study, I’d only been involved in politics in Doncaster. A lot of Young Fabians had different reference points to me then. I was quite nervous to get involved. Of course, they were all very encouraging and welcoming to me. But I was one of the only members who didn’t live in London.

But it’s great to see the Young Fabians organising and coming together in a way that we just couldn’t. My only point of contact was meetings and face-to-face events but now there is so much potential. And what you’re doing is so important, you’re trying to encourage debate and discussion and I’ll certainly come to more Young Fabians events!

The Fabians was also the first opportunity I had to get on a plane,

when I was 19. They had a trip to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. It was life-changing for me, it had never occurred to me before that you could live in London and work in Strasbourg during the week. It was just before the 1979 elections and so it was quite a politically hot time. The Fabians and the Young Fabians did quite a lot of trips back then, they were the first young group to go to China in the late 1970s and they went to Gambia too! There were several weekend events that were very good and offered those opportunities to get to know each other.

I remember setting up a Brunel University Fabians Society. It only lasted for one or two years, probably because our meetings were the only real focus at that time. I think we also set up a Fabian Society at LSE while I was on the committee. Of course the way these groups work makes them more fragile, and relying on a small group of members that graduate or move on. But it’s great that more of these societies are being set up. 

Amy Dwyer is Chair of the Young Fabians Education Network, and founder of the University of Manchester Young Fabians. She works in transport policy, and is coordinating the upcoming Young Fabians pamphlet Towards a 21st Century Curriculum.

CIARA GARCHA

SOCIALIST IMPERIALISM AND THE FABIAN COLONIAL BUREAU

Atthe outbreak of the Second Boer War in South Africa in 1899, the ranks of the burgeoning Fabian Society became divided over the correct response to this colonial conflict.1 Having been founded less than two decades earlier in 18842, the Boer War forced the Fabian Society to confront the issue of imperialism and its policy towards it for the first time. The disputes over the line that the Society should take towards imperialism resulted in what may be termed socialist imperialism. Articulated best by George Bernard Shaw in the 1900 manifesto Fabianism and the Empire, this was the concept that

empire and a colonial framework could be used to further socialist ideology, at home and around the world.

Following on from this first generation of Fabianism and socialist imperialism, a second generation of thinkers and campaigners came to the fore within the organisation. Interestingly, this generation included many intellectuals who would champion anti-colonialism and would lead newly independent nations, remaking them in the mould of democratic socialism. This group of Fabians laid bare the contradictions inherent in socialist imperialism, exposing the juxtapo-

sition of ideas and values that early Fabians had committed to.

And yet, the shadow of George Bernard Shaw’s socialist imperialism continued to linger over the Fabian Society, and its attitude towards empire continued to be permissive or even positive. The Fabian Colonial Bureau’s founding in 1940 gave life to the socialist imperialism that emerged during the debate over the Boer War. Its work and commitment to this fused ideology represent an important chapter in the Fabian Society’s history: and one which must be reckoned with.

The Second Boer War: Fault Lines Emerge

Priorto the outbreak of the Second Boer War in 1899, international affairs and imperial policy had received little consideration from the fledgling Fabian Society.3 Its work, focused mainly on intellectual debate and research as opposed to action, consisted of interrogating almost exclusively domestic problems and issues. The War, however, meant that the Fabian Society could ignore the question of imperialism no longer: a coherent socialist policy towards the British Empire had to be devised, and the Society had to reckon with the question directly.

The War gave rise to a complex, and often contradictory, thinking about empire within the Fabian Society. For the faction that bluntly rejected empire who, in Patricia Pugh’s words, sought to ‘cleanse themselves abruptly of all taint of imperialism’4, socialism and empire were antithetical concepts. Figures like Ramsey MacDonald and Sydney Oliver5 argued that the Boer War, as a colonial conflict, was aimed at exploitation and oppression. As such, they struggled to reconcile the Fabian Society’s founding values with this global network of colonial rule and oppression. A related branch of thinking argued that war and empire were distracting the society from issues of domestic concern. S.G. Hobson and others thus instead urged a policy of ambivalence and an unwavering focus on the domestic. At a 8th December 1899 meeting, held to discuss the question and whether the Society should publish a statement condemning the War6, Hobson drafted a motion arguing that the war was distracting from progress at home and the political and economic forces levying the war in South Africa were antagonistic to the Fabian aims of democracy and socialism at home.7

An alternative rival faction expressed support for the British

colonial regime in the war. Fusing socialist ideas with the utilitarian thinking that had dominated left and liberal circles in the 19th century, “the Old Party”8 adhered to an interesting and multi-dimensional philosophy on empire. Their ideology may be termed a form of “socialist imperialism”: a blend of socialist philosophy, utilitarian ideas and general support for the empire. Utilitarianism, built around Jeremy Bentham’s moral calculus, that one should pursue “the greatest good for the greatest number”9 was mapped onto Britain’s sprawling empire. The Fabian Society had been founded in 1884, to promote reforms to British society that would ‘secure the general welfare and happiness’10, aligning it immediately with this Benthamite philosophy. The aim of colonial governments, more orthodox utilitarians argued, should be happiness11, and protection of property and the individual. Fred D. Schneider summarises this utilitarian approach to empire, arguing that ‘the primary concern of imperial policy…(should be) to ensure the business of government was well and cheaply performed’.12 Later waves of utilitarian thinking challenged the core ideas behind this philosophy; neo-utilitarians argued for personal liberty, and advocated such measures as representative government and self-government where applicable.13 Other more radical revisionist utilitarians held that government was, above all, to be based on consent; and that as such, empire should not be endorsed.14

Old Party Fabians, in crafting a utilitarian-inspired socialist imperialism, subscribed mainly to more orthodox utilitarian arguments about empire. Schneider writes that their attitude towards empire was focused on ‘making existing institutions work more effectively’15, rather than drastically remodeling the colonial world order. When Hob-

son moved his anti-imperialist resolution on 8th December, George Bernard Shaw added an amendment, effectively countering this philosophy. Shaw urged for Fabian members to support an imperialism that would benefit the people, not private interests16 and argued that British expenditure on empire, as well as the profits of empire, should be spent on creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number.17 Wedding the socialist concepts of empowering and advantaging the people, with the paternalistic utilitarian maxim of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number, Shaw’s amendment articulated a contradictory candidate for the Fabian response to empire. His resolution was rejected by 58 votes to 2718, but a vote on Hobson’s motion was forestalled.19 With the special 8th December meeting failing to reach a unified view, the executive decided to move to a postal referendum, asking members, ‘Are you in favour of an official pronouncement by the Fabian Society on imperialism in relation to war being made now?’20 The anti-war faction hoped that membership would endorse a statement in support of the Boers and ultimately against the conduct of the war. Brutalities committed during the course of the conflict included the development of concentration camps, where over 48,000 people died, many of whom were children.21

Rank and file membership voted 259 votes to 217 against publishing an official statement.22 In refusing to criticise the Boer War, the rupture within the Fabian ranks deepened. As Secretary of the Fabian Society, Edward R. Pearse writes, in his History of the Fabian Society, which is unsurprisingly sympathetic to the victorious Old Party and the Fabian establishment, ‘the pro-Boers were mobbed and howled down’23, and many could no longer see their

place and future within the organization. Patricia Pugh notes that only 18 members, or two percent of the whole organization, actually left the Society as a result of the postal referendum and both the active and tacit general approval of the War.24 Notable departures included Ramsay MacDonald25, and others who were dismayed at the Society’s refusal to pronounce against the conflict. In the next election to the Fabians Executive Committee, the Old Party socialist imperialist faction dominated, effectively approving the result of the earlier referendum.26

Following this endorsement, the Old Party, led by Shaw and Webb, sought to expound their view. Fabianism and the Empire, the manifesto edited (and likely mostly written) by George Bernard Shaw articulates this socialist imperialism in detail. In the introduction, Shaw

writes, ‘the problem before us is how the world can be ordered by Great Powers of practically international extent’27 and invites readers to consider ‘whether England is to be the centre and nucleus of one of those Great Powers of the future’.28 The picture he presents as the alternative is of England ‘cast off by its colonies, ousted from its provinces and reduced to its old island status’.29 Avoiding this fate, Shaw writes, depends on ‘the ability with which the Empire is governed as a whole and the freedom of its governments and its officials from… private financial interests’.30 Again, we see the fusion of traditional socialist ideas – dislike of private interests, public accountability and empowerment of people – with support for the empire. Shaw sums up the essence of socialist imperialism, asserting that the manifesto is concerned with ‘the effective social organization of the whole Em-

pire and its rescue from the strife of classes and private interests’.31 He states, ‘the British Empire wisely governed is invincible’.32

Shaw reminds his reader, ‘we are no longer a Commonwealth of white men and baptized Christians: the vast majority of our fellow subjects are black, brown or yellow’.33 However, in spite of this racial diversity, he argues that the idea of ‘parliamentary institutions for native races’ – note the dismissive, racist and lofty tone – has been ‘disposed of by’ unsuccessful experiments concerning Native Americans after the American Civil War.34 Further, Shaw argues that self-government cannot be evenly handed out to white elites in colonial governments, as occurred in majority-white settler colonies35 as this could result in ‘black slavery and in some places frank black extermination’.36 Thus, Shaw argues discourse over empire cannot be fought between the two extremes of complete self-government (or decolonization) and a more conservative ‘bureaucracy as undemocratic as that of Russia’37, as is in place in Crown Colonies like India. He tells his reader, ‘an Imperial issue between these parties….is necessarily a false issue’38, calling for a solution that combines and balances these two models. Fabianism and the Empire then proceeds to analyse the cases of India, South Africa and China, before turning to domestic questions.

Shaw’s language and opinions are unsurprisingly laden in a series of troubling racial and cultural assumptions. His discussion of Boer War, which he justifies ‘on the ground that they were guilty of lese democracy, nepotism and financial corruption’39 contains minimal mention of the Black South Africans oppressed by both the white Afrikaner (or Boer) regime and the British colonial state. Shaw does recommend ‘a measure for the protection of the natives to be administered by Imperial officials’40

and protections for the ‘wage earner, white or coloured’.41 Race is, however, at the periphery of his thoughts, scarcely warranting a mention. This is in spite of the fact that the population of the region in which the Boer War was fought was four fifths Black.42 Shaw has a removed and even ambivalent view towards the subjugation of the majority Black population and the oppression and suffering at the foundation of the British imperial project.

He goes on to urge for a proclamation for ‘a thoroughly democratic suffrage for the election of local legislatures’43 to prove ‘that our Imperialism is untainted with the lust of power over subject colonies’.44 In other words he argues against colonialism for colonialism's sake: against exerting ‘power’ through desire and lust, but for ruling an empire to achieve something. His support for imperialism thus has some interesting caveats. Of the gold fields at the centre of the war in South Africa, Shaw writes, ‘theoretically they should be internationalized not British-imperialised, but until the Federation of the World becomes an accomplished fact, we must accept the most responsible Imperial federations available as a substitute for it’.45 Hence, Shaw views empire not as the ideal world order, but as something already in existence not worth working against, but rather worth working within. In his history of the Fabian Society, Pearse underlines this point, writing, ‘we realized that the form of government is scarcely less important than its content: that the unit of administration, whether imperial, national or local, is germane to the question of the services to be administered’.46

From this point of view empire is not a preferable form of government and administration, but, to Shaw, Pears and the Old Party, it was inconsequential to the larger socialist aims to be pursued.

Shaw seems to argue that seeing as the empire already existed, there was no point in challenging it; rather working within it towards socialist ends was the most sensible course. This again underlines no desire to work towards the traditional socialist value of equality and justice through challenging the oppression and power dynamics at the heart of empire. Rather, Shaw underlines the philosophical dichotomy at the heart of socialist imperialism: that empire could actually be a vehicle for socialism.

In writing this manifesto, Shaw gave voice to and articulated the socialist imperialism that would characterise the Fabian Society in the early 20th century. This first generation of Fabianism and of socialist imperialist thinking would loom over the Society for the succeeding decades and shape its interactions with and its view towards colonised peoples, the British Empire, and the very question of imperialism.

Interwar Years: Fabianism, Imperialism and the Leaders of Tomorrow

TheFabian Society, as explored, was dominated by a form of socialist imperialism, which combined traditional socialist and utilitarian orthodoxies in the context of empire. However, interestingly, it was during the years between the end of World War One in 1918 and the start of World War Two in 1939, that the Fabian Society would have a profound impact on notable anti-colonial leaders, who would fight for independence and even lead their countries in the age of decolonisation after the end of World War Two in 1945.

India, long considered the British Empire’s Crowning Jewel, as one of its most prosperous and illustrious colonies, became independent in the most devastating circumstances with the deadly Partition of the subcontinent in August 1947. After over three centuries of British exploitation and interference, India’s first elected Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, ascended office on 15th August, heralding in a new era. Having been educated at Cambridge, Nehru had several links with the Fabian Society, and its philosophies would have a lasting impact on his politics and the political direction post-independence India would take.

Padma Desai and Jagdish Bhagwati identify ‘the Fabian Society’s deliberations on the nature of the socialist society’47 as one of the ‘dominant’ influences on economic thinking within the wider intellectual circles of the Indian anti-colonial movement. As they highlight, a large number of Indian intellectu-

als, beyond Nehru, who would lead and govern their countries post-independence, were influenced by ‘the English socialist tradition’ of Fabianism48 having been ‘processed through the English educational institutions’ before independence, in the 1920s and 1930s.49 The impact of Fabian ideas on the governing class of post-independence India can clearly be demonstrated. B.K. Nehru underlines the influence of Fabian socialist doctrines, through focus on state ownership and the rejection of the free market economy.50 Post-1947, large-scale nationalization of basic industries and significant sectors of the economy,51 was a feature of this Fabian-inspired government. Other post-independence leaders influenced by Fabianism included Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, who praised the Fabian-inspired Welfare State in Britain for attempting ‘to create a just society for British workers’52, and Obafemi Awolowo, Premier of Western Nigeria.53 This second generation of Fabians thus included many figures who would go on to rail against colonialism and endeavour to remodel and rebuild their countries after decolonisation.

What is interesting is that many of these post-colonial leaders also subscribed to Fabian thinking, partly because of their experiences of imperialism. B.K. Nehru writes that Fabian socialism appealed to Jawaharlal Nehru because it ‘stood for the poor, the depressed and the oppressed, as against…the rulers and the oppressors’.54 This is

of course the antithesis of imperialism; standing against subjugation, no doubt influenced by the centuries of oppression and rule India experienced at the hands of Britain. Similarly, Lee Kuan Yew’s admiration for the aim of creating a ‘just society’ similarly contradicts the core tenets of colonialism: foreign rule and subjugation, the very opposite of justice. Indeed, the lessons and experience of imperialism seem to have pushed these leaders towards socialism; the democratic socialist ideologies of Fabianism presenting a method by which to create a society, the inverse of the colonial state. Whilst Fabianism was wedded with imperialism to create a pro-empire stance, a number of Fabians in the interwar period used Fabian ideology to fuel anti-imperialism.

This second generation of Fabians included several who illustrated the contradictions inherent in the very concept of socialist imperialism. Endorsement for a global system of oppression, racism and subjugation sat side-by-side with the antithetical values of justice and fairness. The idea that a paternalistic empire could be a channel to achieve a socialist world was surely discredited by those who subscribed to Fabianism and yet agitated fiercely against an imperialist framework. The different strands of ideology interwoven in Shaw and the Old Party’s socialist imperialism evidently sat at odds with one another.

The Fabian Colonial Bureau: Researching and Advocating for Socialist Imperialism

TheFabian Colonial Bureau, founded in 1940, carried on in the same tradition of socialist imperialism formulated at the turn of the century during the ruptures created by the Boer War. Its original purpose was academic and research-oriented: ‘to act as a clearing house for information and to interest the Public, the Press and Parliament in colonial affairs’.55 Founded in the early stages of World War Two, the Bureau centred colonialism and the British Empire in much of the Fabians’ work, culminating in the link between Fabianism and imperialism that had been forged through the work of George Bernard Shaw and the Old Party during the Second Boer War.

A fascinating and detailed insight can be gained into the Colonial Bureau through the rich documentary evidence left behind. In a 1945 pamphlet Socialists and the Empire, Rita Hinden, one of the Bureau’s founding members, evaluates the work of the Bureau over the five years since its founding, offering a window into the early activities the Bureau engaged in. She notes its growth over the five years – to over 1,000 members56; 2,000 subscribers to its journal Empire57 and to a ‘recognized spearhead of agitation and constructive thought within the labour movement’.58

The function and work of the Bureau seems in line with the ideas and philosophy articulated by Shaw a generation earlier. Hinden explains that the Bureau ‘did not settle out to tackle ‘imperialism’ as a world force. Its work was, implicitly, to fight the abuses it knew of in the British Empire’.59 Alike Shaw’s argument that socialist principles should be applied to the Empire and its administration, the Bureau set out to work in a similar manner, addressing specific if not superfi-

cial grievances within the framework of the Empire. Hinden lists and explores multiple examples of the Bureau’s work, which seems to have mainly concerned labour regulations and unionism. When leading trade unionists were detained and unions banned in Jamaica, the Bureau mobilised, Hinden explains.60 It ‘immediately had the matter raised through friends in parliament’61, leading to five parliamentary questions and the eventual rescinding of the order banning unions a few weeks later.62 Similarly, when unionists in Nigeria organised their first mass-industrial action, ‘it again fell to the Bureau to plead for a generous settlement’63, and, Hinden claims, owing to the Bureau’s work, there was a fair resolution.64 Raising and mobilising on specific discreet issues seem to have occupied the large part of the Bureau’s work.

Hinden notes that though the Co lonial Bureau attempted to maintain a wide focus and work across the 50 plus colonies, it struggled to es tablish direct contacts with colonial peoples. ‘There is a long heritage of suspi cion’, she writes.65 Howev er, through its successes in raising issues pertinent to colonial subjects, grad ually ‘confidence grew and correspondence from all parts of the em pire began to trickle in’. At the same time, the Bu reau’s connections with the colonial establish ment developed and strengthened. Though initially enjoying little contact with the government, a ‘direct and friendly relationship’ was eventually created with the Coloni-

al Office.66 Its early work, Hinden writes, was focused on facilitating the growth of popular democratic organisations among the colonial peoples’67 and through related activities, the Bureau increasingly earned prestige and respect at home and abroad.

The growth of wage employment and the protection of labour were central and consistent aims, running through the Bureau’s work in diverse parts of the world. As Hinden writes, ‘British socialists had always proclaimed the right of colonial workers to organise’.68 The Bureau helped facilitate a Labour Committee to scrutinise trade union laws of each colony.69 This Committee involved a number of notable British trade unionists, highlighting the wide collusion in empire and adherence to socialist imperialism on the political left. The outcome of this project was the colonial office considering the issues

the Committee; Hinden notes ‘the greater part of the inadequacies were dealt with’ and there has been ‘an impressive growth of unionism in most colonies’.70 We also see the Bureau’s relationship with the colonial and governmental establishment strengthening during this period; in the 1943 White Paper, Labour Supervision in the Colonial Empire, the Colonial Office mentioned it had received support from the Bureau71 in this branch of work that was quickly becoming recognised as its specialism. Perhaps surprisingly given the decolonisation that followed 1945 and the fact that the Fabian Society itself nurtured several notable anti-colonial leaders, Hinden and the Bureau do not seem to advocate for the dismantling of empire. Indeed, as already quoted, she asserts that the Fabians did not seek to reckon with imperialism as a global ‘force’72, it did not seek to remake the international landscape. This was similar, Hinden argues, to the Fabian attitude towards domestic issues, ‘to study and tackle the abuses of capitalism in Britain’73 and not initiate a revolution and the wholescale upheaval associated with other more radical socialist and Marxist doctrines.

Conclusions

TheColonial Bureau embodied the socialist imperialism first articulated coherently by Shaw back in 1900. The link between Fabianism and the Empire and the work and aims of the Bureau is evident. Second generation Fabians, who went on to champion anti-imperialism and lead newly independent nations highlight how multi-layered and complicated the Society’s relationship to the British Empire was. Yet, the fact remains that for over half of the 20th century – into the post-World War Two era of decolonisation – the Fabian Society continued to endorse im-

This is interesting given that Hinden notes many of the grievances articulated by colonial peoples were ‘merely symptoms of deep-lying injustices and imperfections’74, suggesting even she recognises the need for more extensive and fundamental reforms to the structures and workings of empire. Yet, Hinden asserts that ‘the future of many individual territories was at stake’75 and rather than a uniform policy of decolonisation, for example, ‘the conditions of each of them had to be understood in fair judgment’.76 In 1945, the Fabian Colonial Bureau was thus by no means advocating for the end of empire, in spite of changing attitudes in the post-war period. Even as members of its second generation created new post-colonial socialist-inspired states, the Colonial Bureau did not subscribe to wholescale decolonisation. The belief that empire could be a socialist endeavour lingered on in the Fabian Society. The Fabian Colonial Bureau seems to expound many of the deeply problematic views on race and culture articulated by earlier generations of Fabians, notably George Bernard Shaw. In the 1949 pamphlet – written several years into a period of global decolonisation

- Common Sense and Colonial Development, Hinden describes the colonies as ‘stagnated, poor, backward, slum-ridden, their people weakened by disease and ignorance’.77 Hinden goes on to describe the continued importance of the colonies and of colonized peoples to Britain, ‘From poor appendages’, she writes, ‘whom it was a moral obligation to develop for the welfare of their own oppressed multitude’78, colonies have become a potential source of wealth and resources. Such statements seem loaded with the same benevolent paternal attitude of many ‘classic’ Victorian imperialists, who saw themselves as taking on the ‘White Man’s Burden’. Writing in the late 1940s, Hinden expounds an offensive attitude towards empire and colonised peoples, astonishing to find on the left so recently. Even after ‘the emancipation of so large a part of Asia’79, and the decades of changes since the days of the Old Party, the language used by the Fabian Society to discuss the challenge of imperialism continued to be steeped in racism, prejudice and ignorance.

perialism, albeit a specific type. Anti-imperialism was by clearly no means absent from the Fabian Society. The faction George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb’s Old Party came up against in 1899 articulated tenets of anti-colonialist thought, arguing, for one reason or another, that socialism and imperialism were opposites and could not be combined. During the interwar period prominent membership from across the Empire meant increasing diversity of experiences and thus opinions of imperialism. Fabian ideology was used by leaders from Jawaharlal Nehru to Lee Kuan

Yew to build a positive post-colonial future and a society that would be more equal and just, completely distinct from, and the inverse of, the imperial states that had stood for centuries. Fabian socialist ideology was used to fuel a more equitable and optimistic view of a post-colonial, anti-imperialist world.

The Fabian establishment, however, remained committed to the socialist imperialism articulated by George Bernard Shaw and others, generations before. The establishment of the Colonial Bureau marked the culmination of the journey set in progress by the debates

over the Boer War and the publication of Fabianism and the Empire. Its work continued in the same intellectual tradition, attempting to remedy the worst and most visible abuses of empire, without actually challenging it, and the exploitative and abusive power structures that propped it up. The Fabians were by no means the only group on the left to view Empire positively, as an instrument by which to achieve a socialist society and world. But, the work of the Colonial Bureau

Ciara Garcha is a History student at Oxford University from Manchester. Her historical interests include colonialism, race, gender and migration.

References

1. E.R. Pearse, The History of the Fabian Society, (New York: E.P. Dutton & Company, 1916), p.128.

2. Fabian Society, Our History https://fabians.org.uk/about-us/our-history/

3. E.R. Pearse, The History of the Fabian Society, p.128.

4. P. Pugh, Bernard Shaw, Imperialist, The Pennsylvania State University, No. 11, pp.97-118, (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991), p.98.

5. F.D. Schneider, ‘Fabians and the Utilitarian Idea of Empire’, in The Review of Politics, Vol. 35, No.4, pp.501-522, (October, 1973), p.505.

6. E.R. Pearse, The History of the Fabian Society, p.130.

7. F.D. Schneider, ‘Fabians and the Utilitarian Idea of Empire’, p.506.

8. Sometimes referred to as ‘The Old Gang’; E.R. Pearse, The History of the Fabian Society, p.133.

9. J. Wolff, An Introduction to Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), p.49.

10. F.D. Schneider, ‘Fabians and the Utilitarian Idea of Empire’, p.504.

11. Ibid, p.503.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid, p.502.

14. Ibid, p.504.

15. Ibid, p.501.

16. Ibid, p.507

17. Ibid.

18. E.R. Pearse, The History of the Fabian Society, p.130.

19. F.D. Schneider, ‘Fabians and the Utilitarian Idea of Empire’, p.508.

20. E.R. Pearse, The History of the Fabian Society, p.130.

21. F. Pretorius, ‘Concentration camps in the South African War? Here are the real facts’, The Conversation, (February 18 2019). https://theconversation.com/concentrationcamps-in-the-south-african-war-here-are-the-real-facts-112006

22. Ibid, p.131.

23. Ibid, p.132.

24. P. Pugh, Bernard Shaw, Imperialist, p.104.

serves to affirm the Fabian establishment’s ongoing commitment to, and support for, empire.

For the Fabian Society today to be truly and genuinely committed to the core principles of democratic socialism, this tradition of socialist imperialism cannot merely be written off or overlooked. It remains an important thread woven through the Society’s early history.

The Fabian Society’s endorsement of empire, was in different circum-

stances and a different era. But regardless, empire still stands as a clear contradiction of socialist values and as the epitome of human cruelty and brutality. The Fabian commitment to empire cannot be glossed over through ‘contextualisation’ or equivalent excuses. Coming face to face with this shameful episode is necessary to build a more positive anti-racist and just Fabian movement in the future.

25. Ibid.

26. E.R. Pearse, The History of the Fabian Society, p.133.

27. G.B. Shaw, et al., Fabianism and the Empire: A Manifesto, (London: Grant Richards, 1900), p.3.

28. Ibid, pp.3-4.

29. Ibid, p.4.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid, p.6.

32. Ibid, p.15.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid, p.16.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid, p.15.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid, p.16.

39. Ibid, p.26.

40. Ibid, p.37.

41. Ibid.

42. South African History Online, Role of Black People in the South African War, (27 August, 2019) https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/role-blackpeople-south-african-war

43. G.B. Shaw, et al., Fabianism and the Empire p.37.

44. Ibid, p.38.

45. Ibid, p.24.

46. E.R. Pearse, The History of the Fabian Society, p.132.

47. P. Desai, J. Bhagwati, ‘Socialism and Indian Economic Policy’, in World Development, Vol.3, No.4, pp.213-221, (April, 1975), p.213.

48. Ibid, p.218.

49. Ibid, p.213

50. B.K. Nehru, ‘Socialism at Crossroads’, in India International Centre Quarterly, Vol.38, No.3/4, pp.92-105, (Winter 2011 - Spring 2012), p.94.

51. Ibid, p.97.

52. M.D. Barr, ‘Lee Kuan Yew’s Fabian Phase’, in Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol.46, No.1, pp.110-125, (2000), p.112.

53. National Portrait Gallery, Fabian Society

https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person-list.php?grp=1315&displayNo=40

54. B.K. Nehru, ‘Socialism at Crossroads’, p.96.

55. R. Hinden and Fabian Colonial Bureau, Socialists and the Empire: Five Years Work of the Fabian Colonial Bureau, (London: Fabian Publications Ltd., 1946), p.10.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid, p.8.

59. Ibid,, p.11.

60. Ibid, p.10.

61. Ibid, p.13.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid, p.9.

66. Ibid, p.11.

67. Ibid.

68. Ibid, p. 12.

69. Ibid, p.13.

70. Ibid.

71. Ibid.

72. Ibid, p.11.

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid, p.9.

75. Ibid, p.12.

76. Ibid.

77. R. Hinden and the Fabian Colonial Bureau, Common Sense and Colonial Development, p.3.

78. Ibid, p.9.

79. Ibid, p.3.

YOUNG FABIANS AND EUROSCEPTICISM

As a longstanding pillar of political discourse on the left, the Young Fabian platform has been the worthy host of rigorous debate on ‘The Question of Europe’, and its archives tell perhaps the most lucid story of the British Left’s peculiar answers to The Question.

Sincethe UK’s admittance to the European Union (or, the European Communities, as it was then known), the loyalties of the left have been periodically tossed between the camp of the Eurosceptic and the Europhile. If there

was a trend to be discerned from the left’s position on the EU debate – it is that our seemingly partisan ties with the EU are truly a 21st Century phenomenon. With the Young Fabians’ genesis preceding the most noteworthy period of

Young Fabians and 20th Century Euroscepticism

In1972, the political establishment of the United Kingdom was tasked with confronting the conundrum that it had been avoiding since the end of the Second World War, thirty years previous. That was, to continue with the trend of British exceptionalism to the acceleration of European Integration by abstaining from entry to the newly convened European Communities, or, to capitalize on the recent death of Charles de Gaulle (a noted opponent of British entry), and to head into the Europe-

an Communities.1 The conundrum was approached with an answer by almost all the commentators, societies, parties, and opinion makers of the day – and the Young Fabians were no exception.

Flexing the political muscles of its intelligentsia, the Young Fabians acceded to their promise of leftist intellectual discussion in the 1972 pamphlet ‘British entry: Labour’s nemesis’.2 James Bellini, the pamphlet’s author, voiced his Euroscepticism with unapologetic, impassioned prose substantiat-

European Integration by over ten years, the words of the Fabians of history shed light on the left’s (often rather frosty) relationship with the European federation.

ed with concrete evidence, contending that Labour parliamentarians’ failure to “think in terms of a socialist Europe” has spared the EC a barrage of leftist indignation that should’ve come upon it – reserving meaningful opposition for those outside of the political spotlight, thus allowing the bill to pass with ease. He dubbed Labour’s approach “torturous, erratic, and totally incoherent”, having “no policy on western Europe at all”.

Though the Labour Party had committed to negotiating the terms

of Britain’s entry to the European Economic Community ahead of the 1970 General Election, its Europhilia was short-lived. Having been involuntarily pushed into a tenuous opposition by the Conservatives’ warm embrace of integration, Labour’s hesitant challenge to the UK’s accession to the EC lost them the support of several key pro-integration figures within the party, most notably that of Deputy Leader (and previous Fabian society Chair) Roy Jenkins, who sub-

Referendum

sequently left his post in the shadow cabinet. Colin Crouch (also an ex-Fabian society Chair) wrote in Young Fabian pamphlet no. 23 that Labour’s response to ‘bureaucratic administration’ was ‘ambiguous’, seconded by Bellini who declared that Labour’s ‘ambiguity’ had “left deep divisions and internal contradictions within the party”.3

In this respect, the Young Fabians were one of few left-wing institutions to communicate a cohesive Eurosceptic argument in the run-up

to Britain’s entry to the community, despite it supposedly being the Labour Party line. Stood in the shadow of their previous support of the EEC and being unable to detract attention from the obvious factional divides that the debate was reaping within the party, Labour’s irresolution failed its Eurosceptic Young Fabian members – and the Treaty of Accession 1972 came to fruition for the Conservatives.

“The Labour Party opposes British membership of the European Communities on the terms negotiated by the Conservative Government”.

Written just two years after Britain’s entry to the European Communities, Labour’s 1974 election promise was to host the country’s first nationwide referendum on the question of remaining in the EC. While Wilson’s 3-seat majority was small, his new Labour government had enough support to ratify the promise of the referendum, and European Community membership was on trial before the demos.

Though our most recent EU referendum was figure-headed by opposing forces on either side of the main party line, the sparring protagonists of the 1975 referendum were both Labour ministers, and both Fabians at that. Roy Jenkins, the aforementioned Europhile, locked horns with notorious Eurosceptic Tony Benn in a televised war of words, after Labour leader Harold Wilson allowed party members to vote by conscience. The

Expansion

Over the next 15 years, the union added another six nations to its portfolio. The first tiptoeing its way into Brussels was Greece, in 1981. The Young Fabians were outspoken in their concern of not just Greece’s admission, but the whole notion of EC expansion itself. In A Wider Europe (Young

Fabians’ Chair, Frank Judd MP, was perhaps the closest Eurosceptic to Wilson at the time, serving as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. He said of Wilson that he “understood and respected [the anti-European Integration] point of view”, explaining his decision to facilitate discordance within the party. This reduced the need for ministers to express personal political judgement solely in ideological and intellectual circles, hence the lack of Young Fabian opinion materials coming out of this period.4

The Young Fabians of 1975 instead spoke through the ballot box –with, according to LSE, those in the youngest age bracket (18-29) being the most likely to vote for leaving the EC, the converse of the trend discerned from the recent EU referendum. Just 58% of Labour voters supported remaining in the EC, compared to 88% of Conservative voters, again, quite the opposite

Fabian pamphlet 45), writer Geoff Harris voiced his specific trepidations about enlargement, particularly regarding the international balance of power.5

Pre-empting further admissions in forthcoming decades, Harris outlined “questions which we must bear in mind as we look at Greece,

of 2016. Of those who considered the policy of nationalisation to be very important, support for European Integration was the lowest - the same can be said for redistribution and welfare.5 Though a Young Fabian hard line may not have been evident in 1975, it's indubitable that individuals within the institution played a significant role in shaping the referendum results. Jenkins, by promises of internal reform and by inspiring collectivism, made Europhilia palatable for some socialists in the electorate, and Benn’s indurate Euroscepticism struck a chord amongst the progressive youth of the left – of whom the Young Fabians were certainly a part. Nonetheless, Jenkins’ forces of EC advocacy prevailed, with the ‘Yes’-vote winning 67% of public support. Britain would remain in the European Community, and the Young Fabians would yet have much more to say.

Spain, Portugal and Turkey, the current possible future members”. Amongst his stated difficulties were a ‘’long period of negotiation” which would “sap the vitality” of the EC. Harris hoped to “strengthen parliamentary democracy” in new nations, though resignedly discussed the possibility of a “fas-

cist coup in a member state”, questioning how the EC ought to interact. Perhaps fearful of the failure of democracy in Greece, Harris confidently stated that the EC offers the “ideal framework” in which Greece can operate.

Harris goes on to discuss the eventuality of the admission of both Spain and Portugal, with a similar long-term optimism as seen in his discussion of the introduction of Greece. We observe across the examples Harris gives of Greece, Spain, and Portugal, a specific focus on the matter of upholding and strengthening democracy in the states, should admission to the EC be granted. Harris’ democratic focus presumably stems from an underlying fact across the three stated examples – Greece’s, Spain’s, and Portugal’s arrival at democracy was a recent occurrence, with each having excised the chains of

fascistic totalitarianism within only the previous decade.

Under the Junta, Greece was subject to seven years of oppression; under Franco, Spanish democracy was crippled; and under Estado Novo, the rights of common Portuguese men and women were eroded by the suppression of civil liberties and political dissent. Harris, and the wider community of leftist thinkers, were investing hope in the EC to fend off the forces of fascism and totalitarianism, by embedding democracy into the political fabric of EC member states.

Though the EC was clearly at odds with the rise of totalitarianism, for many Fabians, the EC was also at odds with the cause of socialism.

In Fabian tract 336, William Pickles states that the EC was the “fruit of an alliance between federalists and exponents of laissez-faire”,

and that “the Common Market will help to consolidate the rule of big business”.6

To Young Fabians, the growth of European federalism was bittersweet. While the continental checks and balances certainly functioned to fend off extremism and instigated the long trend of European peace, (see, Pax Europaea), most on the left agreed that meaningful socialism would be politically untenable under their iteration of European integration.7 In the wake of a referendum where public support in European Integration was unequivocally affirmed – the Young Fabian Eurosceptics of the 1960s and 1970s resigned to the inevitability of EC membership in the critical literature of the subsequent years of expansion throughout the late 1970s to early 1990s.

The decline of Euroscepticism

As we have observed, a rich history of Euroscepticism emerged from the left during the mid-20th Century – one that, by any account, has much stronger foundations than the Conservative Euroscepticism established in the 2010s. When the ‘Maastricht Rebels’ rallied against the government’s adoption of the newly constituted Maastricht Treaty, legislation that would ultimately lead to the introduction of the Eurozone, a new era of Euroscepticism was birthed in the UK. Over the next 20 years, there would be a marked shift of Euroscepticism towards the right, culminating in a significant increase in support for UKIP populism and an overwhelm-

Conclusion

It would be fair to suggest that open debate and non-partisan discourses were in short supply in 2016. Hostility and division are now synonymous with the Brexit debate in a way that was simply not seen in 1975. 2016 was fuelled by misinformation and division, draining dignity from the means of political

Ethan is a Young Fabian member and Young Labour Officer involved in membership, campaigns and youth engagement. He studies English and history, and writes with a focus on politics and economics.

References

1. “A Wider Europe | LSE Digital Library.” 2021. Lse. ac.uk <https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/ lse:zaw924rub>

2. “BBC on THIS DAY | 27 | 1967: De Gaulle Says ‘Non’ to Britain - Again.” 2021. Bbc.co.uk <http:// news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/27/newsid_4187000/4187714.stm>

3. “British Entry : Labour’s Nemesis | LSE Digital Library.” 2021. Lse.ac.uk <https://digital.library. lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:tup907dem>

ingly anti-EU Conservative administration. Almost simultaneously, the UK’s left-wing voices have slipped into a casual Europhilia, making a pro-Brexit stance antonymous with socialism and the left.

So, why did the tables turn? Why wasn’t the anti-EU voice during the 2016 Brexit campaign that of the Labour Party, in a fight against the EU's limitation on socialist policy?

The Eurosceptic arguments posited by our Young Fabians in the periods examined each possessed an intrinsic and specific concern for the implementation of leftist, progressivist policies. For Tony Benn, the lack of elections in the European Parliament presented a specific

debate. By understanding the left’s relationship with Europe through the lens of Young Fabians, we begin to understand the importance of the delivery of truthful, analytical arguments from all the sides of opinion – a process which the Young Fabians delivered very well. The success of the Left relies on its

enemy to democracy, Geoff Harris feared the expansion of the community would erect huge bureaucratic barriers to progress, and James Bellini outlined the close link between conglomerates and the union as a breeding ground for nepotism. The rise of UKIP and the 2016 Leave campaign inextricably tied populism and isolationism to the cause of Euroscepticism, to which the British left could not adhere. Right-wing Eurosceptics ideologically 'boxed in' the Left to the cause of Remain - firmly against the grain which we have observed from Young Fabian history and the history of the wider left.

4. “Judd, Frank (1 of 4). The History of Parliament Oral History Project - Politics - Oral History | British Library - Sounds.” 2012. Sounds.bl.uk <https://sounds.bl.uk/Oral-history/The-History-of-Parliament-Oral-History-Project/021MC1503X0004XX-0001V0>

5. “Not with Europe | LSE Digital Library.” 2021. Lse. ac.uk <https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/ lse:hit568sib>

6. “The Nobel Peace Prize 2012.” 2012. Nobel-

ability to facilitate open, non-discriminatory debate for all. Going forward, the Young Fabians ought to maintain its trend of truthfulness, openness, and reason, which enabled the debates over the European Communities from a left-wing perspective in the 20th Century.

Prize.org <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/ peace/2012/summary/>

7. “The Referendums of 1975 and 2016 Illustrate the Continuity and Change in British Euroscepticism.” 2017. LSE BREXIT <https:// blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/07/31/the-referendums-of-1975-and-2016-illustrate-the-continuity-and-change-in-british-euroscepticism/>

FABIAN SOCIETY AND THE WIDER WORLD

Mostof the Fabian Society’s activities are entrenched in regional areas, with members committed to ameliorating the conditions of local communities. At the same time, we are all striving towards toppling the Tories and reinstating a fair and effective Labour government at a national level. It may seem unproductive, therefore, to consider the Fabian Society’s influence on the wider world. But when we assess the work of several major figures of the 20th century with Fabian connections at an early age, we learn that our ideals and objectives have resonated with citizens across the world. The influence of the Society has led to Fabian principles being implemented in a multitude of international political systems such as India, Pakistan and Nigeria. In the modern age, the group can still inspire aspiring pol-

iticians of different cultural backgrounds in new ways thanks to the internet. In addition, we can understand why so many young people are attracted to the Fabian movement.

Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are some of the Prime Ministers who have been affiliated with the Society. However, it’s not only British leaders who have been associated with the group’s work; Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, stated in his memoirs that Fabianism had a profound effect on his early political philosophy. Despite this, he would condemn the group in 1993 for “contributing to the inevitable decline of the British economy”.1 Elsewhere, the Premier of Western Nigeria between 1954 and 1960, Obafemi Awolowo, was a member of the society: and

many of his Fabian principles manifested themselves in his five-year plan which contained provisions to expand social services and develop industrial infrastructure in the region. Like current members of the Young Fabians, these leaders were attracted to the group at an early age due to its promises of a more fairly distributed society with equality of opportunity for all citizens.

There are two countries in particular who have had leaders that were strongly influenced by the work of the Society in the early part of the 20th century: India and Pakistan. Their respective historical leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had periods of involvement in Fabian activities and would use these experiences later on in their political careers to establish the nations we know today.

As a longstanding pillar of political discourse on the left, the Young Fabian platform has been the worthy host of rigorous debate on ‘The Question of Europe’, and its archives tell perhaps the most lucid story of the British Left’s peculiar answers to The Question.

Jawaharlal Nehru was India’s inaugural Prime Minister and held this position for over sixteen-years between 1947 and 1964. Four decades before he became leader of the nation, Nehru was a student in England and quickly found himself in socialist circles at a young age. The future leader acquired an interest in the work of a prominent early member of the society, George Bernard Shaw, and attended his 1907 lecture, ‘Socialism and the University Man’. Such was his enthusiasm for Shaw’s work that he later wrote to him in 1948 claiming that a lot of his philosophy and character had been “moulded by that reading” of the author’s work.2 In addition, Nehru briefly studied at London School of Economics, which had been established by Fabian Society members including Shaw and Beatrice and Sidney Webb in 1895, whilst being a Fabians member.

Nehru, convinced that British subjugation of India was no longer viable, joined movements that sought to establish Indian autonomy. He became secretary of a group which campaigned for Indian self-governance and used his platform to argue that his nation should be granted Dominion status under the British Empire like Australia and Canada. In 1929 he went a step further by drafting the Indian Declaration of Independence. During the 1930’s, Nehru found himself in prison due to his involvement in these dissident groups and studied Marxism while in confinement. He was influenced by Marx’s work, but considered some of the methods espoused by the political philosopher to be impractical.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the first Governor-General of Pakistan, but only served for shortly over a year, succumbing to tuberculosis while in office. Nevertheless, Pakistan may not be the nation it is today if it wasn’t for his contributions. Jinnah’s links to the Fabian Society are more tenuous than Nehru’s but

the eventual leader who had been a Fabian member was also firmly involved in social movements as a young man. This is significant because although Fabian teachings would impact him in later life, Jinnah felt compelled to act against social injustice in his formative years. The modern Young Fabian movement also encourages members to get involved in current social issues affecting communities, rather than simply discussing them. Jinnah had studied in England during the 1890’s, before moving to Bombay to practice as a barrister. By 1925, he had become the president of the Postal Staff Union which had a membership of around 70,000.3 Jinnah advocated legislation that would recognise trade unions in the eyes of the law and protect them from maltreatment by employers. In part thanks to his contributions as leader of the Union, the Trade Union Act of 1926 passed, ensuring that trade union members across India received a degree of protection from the government in addition to job stability. Like Nehru, Jinnah fundamentally believed that Britain’s relationship with India had to be reconsidered and that greater liberty was required for the Indian Congress, of which he was a member. Unlike many other religiously partisan members, Jinnah held the belief that independence could come with Hindu and Muslim unity at the centre of the relationship. He was also in favour of a gradual process towards autonomy rather than an imminent break-up (channelling the spirit of Fabius the Delayer, whom the Fabian Society founders sought to emulate). Jinnah rejected many of the reforms proposed by the British government, however. The Simon Report had been commissioned by the British Government to reevaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, but was immediately condemned by Jinnah as the commission featured no Indian delegates. He felt that the

findings of the report were unhelpful to not only Muslims like himself, but Hindus and Indian nationalists too.

When Jawaharlal Nehru entered office as Prime Minister of India, his economic and social agenda resembled core Fabian principles. In Jonathan Reynolds’ recent essay for the Fabian Society, The Right Numbers, he emphasised a simple but important point – Labour must attempt to “stimulate growth rather than reducing everything down” to tax rises and spending cuts. The Indian leader understood that this approach was essential for India’s development in the post-war world, and implemented a mixed economic model to accomplish this. Key utilities and industries were nationalised by the government, bringing the Indian economy into the modern era rather than languishing in an agriculturally dependant state. What followed was tremendous growth, with the economy expanding by 7% between 1950 and 1965 and GDP rising 3.9% annually in the same period.4 The attempt to marry economic growth with modernisation resembles Labour’s platform in 1997 that resonated with voters across the political spectrum. By outlining a plan for economic growth, Labour can assuage some of the criticisms from the public that the party is fiscally irresponsible.

Many of the social reforms introduced by Nehru can also be thought of as progressive. Education was something that the Prime Minister placed particular emphasis on, and introduced policies that would provide a basic educational platform to many Indians. This wasn’t just for children: adult education centres were established under his premiership to provide appropriate learning courses to those who had never had access to schools as children. In these institutions, initiatives such as free milk and meals were introduced to support all young children. Nehru

also attempted to reduce castebased discrimination by criminalising situations where employers treated those of lower social classes with contempt, and introduced the Special Marriage Act in 1954 which facilitated the legal partnership of citizens who came from different religions. All of these initiatives sought to address the issue of social class division and discrimination; removing barriers for those less privileged and enabling greater equality in the eyes of the law. A lot of these principles are widely held by younger adults in society today who espouse ethnic and gender equality with legislation as the tool that can support this. Many who hold this belief see the Fabian Society as a network of like-minded individuals concerned with providing true equality of opportunity to citizens regardless of identity. There has been debate over the true intentions of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s political philosophy, which were never realised due to his premature death a year into office. However, those who have written about the Pakistani Governor-General, such as Professor Sharif al Mujahid, indicate that his ideas were those of a moderate socialist. The Professor claims that Jinnah neither favoured western economic models or communist systems. Jinnah argued that “essential key industries ought to be controlled and managed by the state” whilst private enterprise should continue in order to support growth. Even before Pakistan had gained independence from Britain, the Planning Committee Report was produced in 1945 which envisaged a comprehensive plan for the economy that would expand governmental investment in industry via incremental tax rises. The report not only looked at the short-term potential of the nation, but planned for 20 years in the future. This is something perhaps that the Labour party has to develop - a clear plan of where the country is heading

not only in the next several years but in the following decades. One of the incessant criticisms Labour receives is that they are devoid of a coherent vision for the people of the United Kingdom. Cultivating a thorough plan for the future, through national consultation of all communities, is essential for future success.

Similar to Nehru, Jinnah was quick to point out the significance of education in a developing society. In an address to the Punjab Muslim Students Federation in 1941, Jinnah claimed that focussing development on education was essential whilst historian Dr Pervez Tahir stated that the leaders’ priorities were “education, industry and defence (and in that order)”.6 Placing education as the number one priority for the government is something we are all familiar with thanks to the well-known phrase “education, education, education”. The 2019 Manifesto was a step in the right direction with the proposal of a ‘National Education Service’, but this was scarcely mentioned during the campaign as the issue of Brexit and governing usurped its coverage. But Labour must control this narrative. According to YouGov as of July 2021, a fifth of the UK consider education to be the most important issue facing the country.7 If Labour can produce a comprehensive plan and vision for education, the electoral dividends could be momentous as they were in Labour’s last landslide victory. Furthermore, people who are currently in the education system experience first-hand the lack of funding, poor infrastructure and deficiency of opportunities across schools in the country. The Fabian Society can provide a voice to those who wish to stress the need for educational reform on a national scale.

Although it is interesting to understand the global connections the Fabian Society has always held, we won't realise the value of this

unless we are willing to utilise its lessons effectively. These figures have a lot in common despite their various national backgrounds, for one, they were all associated with the group at a young age. To this day, the Fabian movement supports the involvement of younger voices in politics and members are empowered to address the major social problems of the country. One thing that connects the likes of Nehru, Jinnah, Awolowo and Yew aside from their interest in Fabianism is that they were associated with the group in the early half of the 20th century, during the age of empire. Many of the aforementioned individuals originated from wealthy middle-class backgrounds and came to England for educational purposes. In the era of instantaneous global communication, the principles of Fabianism have the ability to connect with people across the world, quicker than ever before, to individuals of all social categories. Ultimately, this means that if the Fabian Society can produce a coherent blueprint for socio-economic development and local communitarianism through a network of invigorated citizens, then this can be exported outside of the UK. In order to achieve this, a vision for the nation is required, like Jinnah outlined in the Planning Committee Report of 1945, as well as a system for expanding the economy and reducing social inequality, as Nehru accomplished during his premiership. Understanding what attracted young individuals to Fabianism in the early twentieth-century and how international figures were able to implement the group’s principles in practice can help us effectively respond to the issues affecting us today. 

Nathan Farrington is a first year undergraduate at University of Birmingham studying History and Politics. He has been a Fabian member since April 2021.

References

1. Michael Barr (March 2000). "Lee Kuan Yew's Fabian Phase". Australian Journal of Politics & History.

2. Gopal, S. “Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru” V. 1.

3. Sarah Eleazar, "Pakistan's founder worked as a trade union leader'". Dawn, 11/4/2017

4. Anil Khumar Thakur; Debes Mukhopadhayay (2010), “Economic Philosophy of Jawaharlal

Nehru” & Judith E. Walsh (2006), “A Brief History of India”

5. “Economic ideas of the Quaid-i-Azam” by Sharif Al Mujahid (2001)

6. “Development Priorities of the Founding Father of Pakistan” by Pervez Tahir (2002)

7. 21% gave education as the most important issue on 28/6/2021: ‘The most important issues facing the country’, yougov.co.uk

TOM ROBERTS SHAPING A MORE EQUAL COUNTRY

THE IDEAS AND IMPACT OF THE YOUNG FABIANS REGARDING DEVOLUTION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Devolution has brought more powers to the people of Britain, as well as creating a more successful means of governing, being rightfully seen as one of New Labour’s greatest successes. It is important that we review the ideas surrounding this area as a means of celebrating the achievements of the Young Fabians and allowing us to learn lessons from our past and use them as we move forward. The history of devolution is made more integral by both showing how we can repel the forces of nationalism within British politics and reform our political system so that it is more representative and therefore more able to succeed in enriching our nation for all.

Devolution as a policy area has been promoted by the Young Fabians in pamphlets as early as 1964, with David Steele’s More power

to the regions. In this, Steele proposed regional authorities to be established to address the economic needs of deprived areas, in addition to the expansion of the New Towns scheme.1 Acting as a means to inspire policy for the first Wilson government, Steele points towards the successes of Atlee’s government and the ways in which inequalities were addressed outside of the city regions, and builds upon it for policy fit for the 1960s. Intelligently providing a complex blueprint by which to devolve political power to the regions of the United Kingdom, this pamphlet retains relevance today, as the problems discussed such as the structural inequalities specific regions face still exist.

The purpose of Making devolution work, written in 1976 by David Heald, was to provide constructive

input to the debate surrounding of that year’s Scotland and Wales Bill 2 Heald discusses whether the disintegration of the United Kingdom is an inevitability, given the pressures to create Welsh and Scottish Assemblies and moderate levels of electoral support for the SNP and Plaid Cymru.3 He also emphasised the importance of Labour needing to take devolution seriously, as a half-hearted approach would see the Government cede ground to the nationalists at a time when its stability was rather frail. Summarising by stating that ‘The Government’s major objective should be to establish Assemblies which will both stand the test of time and the attempts to wreck them which will be made by the Nationalists’, Heald in this pamphlet provides an effective roadmap for Labour to steer through the Nationalist issue.4 This

serves as evidence of the Young Fabians at its best, aiding the Labour Party by supporting its policy agenda and building upon it constructively. Heald would go on to have a significant impact upon the financial debate regarding Scottish devolution, contributing to the creation of the Barnett Formula and serving as an advisor on public expenditure to the Treasury Committee from 1989 to 2010.5

Much can be learnt from the Nationalist revival in the 1970s: namely, that these forces would have grown without creating a fairer political system that was more representative. This would have been able dispel much of their arguments regarding it being an unfair and unequal style of governing. When the Conservatives came to power mere months after the Scottish Assembly referendum, they repealed the Scotland Act and eliminated the prospects of a Scottish Assembly for a generation. One could argue that the effects of 18 years of Tory rule made implementing devolution more important to the Labour Party, as it would address the damage caused by them more effectively and allow the more “progressive” Wales and Scotland to avoid some of the impositions placed upon them by the UK government were the Conservatives to come to power again in the future.

When Labour returned to power in 1997 and held a successful Scottish devolution referendum that year, the party’s long fight for devolved power had seemingly been brought to an end. With the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Labour was the largest party, holding 56 out of 129 seats, 21 more than the Nationalists.6 The decision to adopt the Additional Member System (AMS) to elect the members of Parliament has resulted in a more representative form of governance, offering a more representative and fairer outcome in elections with a more satisfied

The Scottish Parliament provided an effective platform upon which the SNP were able to make electoral gains to the position they are in today, aided by dissatisfaction amongst Scots with Labour regarding the Iraq War and the party’s reluctance to provide much more support to devolution than it already had. It is important to note though that declaring independence from the United Kingdom is not the natural end product of devolution, as the SNP may portray it as. The notion that the re-emergence of the Scottish Parliament has led to a rise in nationalism is flawed, as there are far more complex powers at play than the granting of further democratisation. Deindustrialisation, stagnating wages, insecure employment, and a feeling that globalisation has left people behind are instead the forces that have brought nationalism in all regions to the forefront of our political sphere. Where Scottish Labour has struggled to create its own image, as illustrated by their joint-best result in the 2021 Senedd election, Welsh Labour has built a strong, distinctly Welsh identity that even voters who vote for other parties in national elections can support.

Having been defeated by a large margin in the 1979 referendum, Welsh devolution seemed highly improbable, and it was only by 6,271 votes that a Welsh Assembly was approved in 1997. It is important to note that Welsh devolution was seen largely as an afterthought, acting as an accompaniment to the more important devolution in Scotland. As a result of this, the offering of weaker powers and an Assembly, not Parliament, helps to explain why the margin of victory in the 1997 Welsh devolution referendum was so small.8 Additionally, Wales is more dependent upon England for economic activity than Scotland, creating much less public appetite for nationalism and therefore less

pressure upon Labour to offer the same powers as it did to the Scottish people. Despite this, the Welsh Government has achieved much since its creation. The abolishment of prescription charges, the continuation of Educational Maintenance Allowance as well as pioneering environmental policy with measures such as the creation of low carbon housing show that despite having lesser powers, it has still been able to provide positive changes.

Providing devolved powers to the regions of England is a more recent proposition by the Young Fabians, coming to prominence this century. Matt Cooke’s Democracy and Communities Policy entry in 2009’s pamphlet, Fast forward: the next generation of progressive politics outlined a need for Labour to talk of the successes of devolution and localism to fight the rise in nationalism. Believing constitutional reform to be Labour’s ‘natural territory’, Cooke pushes for more commitment to political education as well as a ‘genuine conversation’ with citizens regarding how they wish to be represented, which should be still welcomed today as a means of solving the problem of the dissatisfaction many have with the political system.9

The establishment of the London Assembly and the London Mayoralty in 2000 marked a significant shift from the Thatcherite strategy of restricting and abolishing the powers of local government.10 Whilst the Cameron Government attempted to build upon this with ‘Northern powerhouse’ policies, little has come to fruition from this endeavour, and even this does not go far enough to provide substantive opportunities to those in the North of England, coming across as rather tokenistic and half-hearted. Further support given to Metro Mayors, as well as further devolutionary powers would help to answer the specific problems the diverse regions of England face and

provide the radical solution that is required.

Given the effects of deindustrialisation and the ‘north south divide’, the concept of devolution within England has seen support within the Young Fabians as a means of rectifying these structural, longterm issues. The 2018 pamphlet A Nation Divided: Building a United Kingdom discusses the increasing divisions within Britain that came to the forefront in the wake of the Brexit referendum. Identifying socio-economic, regional, cultural, and intergenerational issues undermining cohesion and working together to create the divisions we face, A Nation Divided offered policy proposals to alleviate these issues.11 These divisions are perhaps one of the most important issues for Labour to address, as electorally the Tories have very much exacerbated these issues and reaped the benefits with their large victo-

University of Birmingham.

References

1. Steele, David, More power to the regions (Fabian Society, 1964) p.24

2. Heald, David Making devolution work (Fabian Society, 1976) p.45

3. Heald, David, Making devolution work p.9

4. Ibid. p.47

5. Heald, David, Impact of research, June 2020 <http://www.davidheald.com/impact.htm> [Last accessed 12/1/21]

ry in 2019. Again, this is where the Young Fabians can play an important role, as pamphlets such as this identify and provide solutions to social and political problems that Labour must navigate and address correctly to succeed. Such an extensive pamphlet that does well to offer focused, achievable solutions makes this in my opinion one of the best Young Fabians pamphlets to date and proves as good evidence of what we can achieve as a group.

The work of the Young Fabian’s regarding devolution is an important part of its history and is something to be celebrated. From the 1960s to today, the use of devolution as a means of addressing many of society’s underlying issues has been successfully outlined through pamphlets and addressed in the periods where Labour have been in government, providing the opportunity for legitimate change outside of the borders of England. The

creation of such high-quality policy proposals makes it even more important that we work together to ensure that the next government formed is a Labour one, allowing our ideas to be implemented after these problems have worsened under a decade of Conservative governance. Whilst nationalism may succeed in exploiting people’s dissatisfaction and societies’ injustices, it has failed time and again to solve these issues. Instead of the four nations going alone, we must work together to create reform for the whole of the United Kingdom. What is needed is a push for further devolution as the Young Fabians have consistently endorsed throughout its history, so that communities across the country, not just largely the south-east, have the opportunity to prosper with the correct level of economic support.

6. Rawnsley, Andrew, Servants of the people: the inside story of New Labour (Penguin, 2001) p.254

7. O’Neill, Michael, Devolution and British Politics (Taylor & Francis Group, 2004) p.180-1

8. Duclos, Nathalie, The 1997 devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales in French Journal of British Studies Vol.14 (CRECIB, 2006) p.163

9. Cooke, Matt, Democracy and Communities Policy in Fast forward: the next generation of progressive politics (Fabian Society, 2009) p.19

10. Smith, Otto, Action for cities: the Thatcher government and inner-city policy in Urban History, Vol.47 (Cambridge University Press, 2020) p.291

11. Bernard, Ria, A Nation Divided: Building a United Kingdom (Fabian Society, 2018) p.198

Tom Roberts is the Community Officer for the North West Young Fabians. He is currently studying for an MA in Politics at the

MARK WHITTAKER THE YOUNG FABIANS IN THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

“Dear Friends: As you will have seen in the news, the situation regarding Covid-19 has developed in the UK and around the world over the past two months. We should aim to carry on our work but will take precautionary measures to protect ourselves and those around us as much as possible. With this in mind, we have decided to move our events online.”

Sobegan a Blog article for Young Fabians members from our Vice Chair, Carolina Saludes, on 15 March 2020. This came a day before Boris Johnson recommended that “now is the time for everyone to stop non-essential contact and travel”, and one week before he announced England’s first lockdown.

The Prime Minister said he expected the ‘tide to turn’ on the outbreak “in twelve weeks”. Obviously, it didn’t. In the end, the Young Fabians didn’t meet in person until late spring 2021, when outdoor gatherings became legal. We couldn’t meet indoors until the autumn.

I’ll never forget the weeks when Covid-19 first turned our world up-

side-down. Many impacts were deeply tragic, others mundane. Everyone’s plans were derailed indefinitely. We had to get used to a strange new vocabulary: of ‘frontline workers’, ‘mutual aid groups’, ‘self-isolation’, and ‘support bubbles’. And of course, we had to get used to socialising only via video calls.

The earliest days of the Young Fabians’ pandemic years were chaotic! For me and the Young Fabians’ Chair Adam Allnutt, they involved helping our Exec members, BAME Advocacy Group and 11 policy networks organise online speaker events, workshops, film screenings, podcast recordings, book clubs and socials.

We had to learn by doing. We moved quickly from holding somewhat chaotic events that were regularly invaded by alt-right Zoom trolls, to a much slicker and more secure operation that was well promoted through social media: and was even more impressive for being completely volunteer-run. Despite everything, the Young Fabians flourished, with at least one event happening almost every weeknight for most of Spring 2020 until Summer 2021.

There were some benefits to taking the Young Fabians into the virtual world. With diary clashes and venue constraints largely removed, we were able to meet with a huge range of speakers: from prominent

Labour politicians across Britain, to young Democratic activists who helped unseat Donald Trump, to activists and investigative journalists resisting repressive regimes the world over. As well as meeting with external speakers, we platformed Young Fabians running in the huge set of devolved elections in May 2021, and phone-banked for members running for office in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament and English local councils.

The abolition of geography also meant that the Young Fabians were finally able to properly decentralise our society away from London. Enthusiastic young people on the left got involved all over Britain, attracted by our work to create friendly spaces for policy discussion and debate in the Labour movement. We worked hard to empower these new or newly active members by

helping them set up national and regional groups as platforms to run their own events and projects. The new Young Scottish Fabians group thrived, having released its first publication ahead of the Scottish Parliament elections: and Young Fabians regional groups had started up for every English region. The national and regional groups were soon accompanied by new groups for our LGBTQIA+ members and Disabled members.

I was so glad to be part of the Young Fabians during lockdown. In a lonely and isolated time, it was amazing to be part of a community where you could broadcast, publish, be part of great conversations, and make new friends in a way that wasn’t possible offline. I was also proud to phone bank for Young Fabians running for office. Happily, several Young Fabians were elect-

ed, including Brad Baines, James Joseph Hansen, and Tina Bhartwas (who unseated a Tory to become Hertfordshire’s youngest-ever county councillor at 19).

There are clearly downsides to only being able to meet online. By July 2021 we were all tired of Zoom and Twitter, and just wanted to meet the people we’ve only known through screens and phone calls.

However, I’m hopeful that we can keep the best parts of what we achieved in the pandemic, including a more decentralised society which better represents our country. And I’m glad to have made friendships which will remain strong for years to come: long after the ‘elbow bump’ is replaced by a simple handshake once again.

Mark Whittaker served as Networks Coordinator on the Young Fabians Executive Committee from November 2019 to November 2020, and as Chair of the Young Fabians from November 2020 to November 2021.

NOTES

NOTES

THE YOUNG FABIANS: 60TH ANNIVERSARY HISTORY PROJECT

YOUNG FABIANS