Many people have argued that it is important to acknowledge early influences in order to understand the birth of Labour’s rise to power. The rise of Labour stemmed, fundamentally, from the harsh working and living conditions of late nineteenth century Britain. For example in 1884 intellectuals formed the Social Democratic Federation, the Socialist League and the Fabian Society, which varied in character from the revolutionary to the reformist. Also, the workers formed trade unions, not only the old exclusive craft unions, but also the inclusive ‘new unions’ formed in the late-1880s and composed of unskilled workers. These early influences would grow and play a key role in the growth of Labour up until 1924.

For example Paul Johnson illustrates the growth of trade union membership from 1.5 million in 1893 to 4.1 million in 1914. After the war, membership increased by over 50%, so it can be argued that the early influences in setting up these types of groups were important in their later growth.

Before the outbreak of war in 1914, there were also a number of important acts and changes that were extremely important

A less debated topic is the impact the Great War had on the rise of the Labour Party. Wilson and Clarke believe Labour fortunes were at low ebb in 1914 when the war gave the lie to the socialist myth that European workers would not fight each other as nationalism overrode class allegiances. Yet paradoxically the war saw a real breakthrough for Labour. As mentioned before, trade union membership increased by over 50% and the need to maximise production led to important improvements in working conditions. Furthermore, ‘war socialism’ favoured Labour’s philosophy of managing the economy, as war was far too important to be left to the operation of free market forces. Labour even gained experience of government for the first time. The party entered the coalition that was formed in 1915 and Arthur Henderson became the first Labour member of a cabinet. Although many argue this was only done to present the impression of national unity for the war effort, nonetheless it proved important in Labour’s rise to power.

Despite all the detailed reasons above for Labour’s rise to power, the final and most significant reason why Labour was able to form a government in 1924, came about simply by chance. After winning the 1922 election by a clear majority, Stanley Baldwin succeeded Bonar Law as leader and immediately realised the Conservatives could not survive if they simply appeared to be defending entrenched interests. Therefore Baldwin called what many historians have called a needless general election over the issue of protection and despite remaining the largest party, the Conservatives failed to gain the overall majority. Therefore in January 1924, Baldwin was defeated in the Commons and the King took the course of calling upon Ramsay MacDonald, the leader of Labour, the next largest party, to form a government.

However there is a split among historians whether we can already before 1914 discern the beginnings of future Liberal decline and Labour expansion. Paul Thompson in his study of London politics between 1885 and 1914 has pointed to the financial and organisational weaknesses of the Liberal Party up to 1906; its failures in local elections; its continuing links with middle-class nonconformist ambitions; and its general inability to adapt itself to working-class needs and aspirations. Even the Liberal victory of 1906 was, he argues, not a genuine revival, but the result of a number of advantages gained by the Liberals as a result of unpopular Conservative policies. Bealey and Pellin

Some topics in this essay:
Wilson Clarke, Liberal Party, Labour Party, Henderson Labour, World War, , Bonar Law, Fabian Society, Bealey Pelling, Cowling Labour, labour party, labour’s rise, rise power, liberal party, labour’s rise power, trade unions, world war, trade union, government 1924, rise labour, form government, trade disputes act, membership increased 50%, wilson clarke believe, rise labour party,