working class, and had enjoyed a political relationship with the Report unions. Mill had established the Labour Representation League in 1869 to secure the election of working men to parliament, and Ownership for All: The Liberal Party, co- by 1885 eleven working men, ownership and industrial relations mostly miners, had been elected. Even the Labour Representation Evening meeting, 9 July 2012, with Tudor Jones and Committee had worked with the Liberals through electoral pacts, Andrew Gamble; chair: Chris Nicholson such as the one that had helped Report by David Cloke secure the election of Churchill in Dundee in 1908. The unions themselves displayed s I prepared this report and had always had a pioneering some ambivalence about whether Nick Clegg announced role in British politics, for exam- to seek representation through Athat he was intent on pro- ple over the minimum wage, tax the Liberal Party or aim for sepa- viding a distinctively Liberal Dem- credits or stakeholding. The most rate direct representation. The ocrat view on the economy. He notable ideas included the Man- Nicholson key issue, Gamble argued, was the could a lot worse than return to chester School’s concept of free political levy, as highlighted in the and revive the party’s policies on trade and the social liberalism of welcomed Taff Vale and Osborne judgements. co-ownership. Thankfully, if the Hobhouse, leading to the welfare Osborne, a Liberal trades union- opening remarks of the meeting’s state of Keynes and Beveridge. To the decision ist, objected to the political levy chair, Chris Nicholson, were any- have two such vibrant traditions in being paid to the Labour Party. thing to go by, then this is likely one party was remarkable. In more to hold a The Liberal Party in Parliament to be the case, given that the paper modern times these two traditions took a different view; the strategy produced by the Liberal Democrat had been characterised as indicative meeting on of the leadership was to accom- policy working group on this issue, of a split in the party, but the real- modate the new force, not to fight chaired by Nicholson, is about to be ity was more nuanced and complex. the subject, it, by extending legal immuni- debated at federal conference. Gamble highlighted the key role ties to trades unions, though it did Nicholson welcomed the deci- of Grimond in developing the new arguing that not seek to extend the legal rights sion to hold a meeting on the sub- liberalism of the 1950s and 1960s, of trades unions. Thus Church- ject, arguing that it was worth and noted the market liberalism of it was worth ill as Home Secretary reversed the reminding people how much the The Orange Book. remind- Osborne judgement through the concept of co-ownership was in the Within this broad picture the Trades Union Act 1912. DNA of Liberals, from John Stuart Liberals have had a rather ambiva- ing people Gamble argued that the period Mill to the ‘Yellow Book’ of 1928 lent relationship with the trades had held out tantalising possibili- and the Liberal thinkers behind the unions. For 100 years from the how much ties: was the rise of Labour inevita- welfare state. The policy had been 1880s, however, trades unions had ble and could it have simply become revived and renewed under Jo Gri- been a central feature of the politi- the concept an arm of the Liberal Party? He mond, but the party lost focus on cal economy and political parties noted that in the years up to 1914 it in later years. Nonetheless, there had had to come to terms with of co-own- there much fighting talk from had been some renewed focus on them. The rise of the trades union Liberals about absorbing Labour the concept in government, most movement had caused contrasting ership was and not surrendering to it. Lloyd notably in Nick Clegg’s ‘John feelings amongst Liberals. On the George had declared that: ‘if a Lib- Lewis’ speech at the beginning of negative side were concerns about in the DNA eral Government tackles the land- 2012, followed by the employee class-based politics and the political lord, the brewer and the peers as ownership summit convened by division between property-owners of Liberals, they have faced the parson and tried BIS minister Norman Lamb which and the property-less, and of trades to deliver the nation from the per- had in turn launched the review unions as a form of monopoly with from John nicious control of monopolies then by Graham Nuttall. This renewal the power of industrial blackmail. the independent Labour Party will of interest in co-ownership was More positively, recognising their Stuart Mill call in vain upon the working men picked up later in the meeting. local roots and identities, many of Britain to desert Liberalism that Andrew Gamble, Professor and Liberals welcomed the unions as to the ‘Yel- is gallantly fighting to rid the land Head of Politics and International a form of civil association and as low Book’ of of the wrongs that oppress those Studies at Cambridge University, a countervailing power to estab- that labour in it’. and author of the chapter on ‘Lib- lished interested and the organisa- 1928 and the Another aspect of the period up erals and the Economy’ in Vernon tion of capital. John Stuart Mill to 1914 was rising industrial unrest. Bogdanor’s book Liberal Party Poli- himself had talked about the need Liberal think- The Triple Alliance of miners, tics (1983), stated that his aim was for strong trades unions as a means railwaymen and transport work- to set the scene and provide the of achieving a more equal distribu- ers behind ers launched a series of syndicalist economic and political context to tion of wealth and power. strikes beyond the control of the the party’s adherence to co-own- Gamble noted that in the late the welfare Labour Party, thereby creating a ership. He noted that the Liberals nineteenth century, the Liber- quite different backdrop to politics were very good at generating ideas als were seen as the party of the state. at this time. Huge numbers were

44 Journal of Liberal History 76 Autumn 2012 report: ownership for all involved – there were a million Amongst small owning class and the large risk-taking which is the essence of miners and 600,000 railwaymen in industrial working class. It declared a healthy economy’. Politically, the fifty different railway companies. the themes that the Liberal Party: ‘stands wider dispersal of power, and hence The First World War and the not for public ownership but for of responsibility, was a necessary split in the Liberal Party meant of the ‘Yel- popular ownership. Its goal is not condition of liberal democracy. that the division between capital to destroy the owner class but to Thus, Jones argued, the operation and labour emerged as the main low Book’ enlarge it’. of the principle of diffusion was basis for political parties in the By the early 1930s Elliott Dodds interlocked, noting that Dodds twentieth century. As a delegate of 1928 was had become the champion of the himself had said that ‘political to the remarked issue; it was he who coined the term democracy will not work satisfac- in the 1970s, the Liberal Party the diffusion ‘ownership for all’. In the tribute torily without economic democ- was stuck between – and Britain of owner- written to him in 1977 by Des- racy, and vice versa’. had a choice between – the party mond Banks and Donald Wade, In broader ideological terms of the managers and the party of ship aimed they observed that Dodds’ ‘aim Dodds had promoted the idea as an the trades unions. Since failing to was not to abolish private owner- essential aspect of a distinctive Lib- prevent the emergence of Labour at reducing ship nor to acquiesce in ownership eral conception of both economic as the second party, the Liberals for the few but to seek to spread organisation and of the wider had found it difficult to deal with the tensions property throughout the commu- industrial society. Co-ownership this new political divide and the nity so that everybody would have was an idea ‘as hostile to monop- extended state. between the the chance of owning something’. oly capitalism as it is to socialism Nonetheless, Gamble argued In 1938 Dodds chaired the party’s since it aims to distribute instead that social-liberal ideas had shaped small owning ‘Ownership for All’ committee. Its of concentrating political as well as much of the post-war settlement report, drafted by the economist economic power’. Workers would and had been at the forefront of class and the , later co-director of become citizens of industry, not those arguing for growth and mod- the Institute of Economic Affairs, merely hirelings of private employ- ernisation in the 1960s and for large indus- advocated the restoration of free ers or of the state. incomes policies in the 1970s. The trade, co-ownership and profit- Jones argued that co-ownership 1980s, however, had seen a further trial work- sharing schemes throughout British helped to underline the party’s ide- shift with a revival in economic lib- industry. ology and purpose when Liberal- eralism: Jo Grimond himself came ing class. Dodds went on to be the most ism was a declining force. It was a to argue that the size of the pub- articulate and prominent advo- distinctive and unifying policy and lic sector was itself a problem, and It declared cate of co-ownership in the 1940s cause when other issues, such as free that the monopoly power of trades that the Lib- and 1950s. In 1948 he chaired a trade, were becoming less relevant unions had to be dealt with. Such committee that proposed that co- and more divisive. Co-ownership thinking was also reflected in the eral Party: ownership be applied to all firms offered a third way between state call by some Liberal Democrats for with more than fifty employees socialism and monopoly capital- a reduction in the size of the state – ‘stands not or more that £50,000 capital. This ism. Indeed, in an article in 1951 balanced by the views of Cable and would involve sharing the residual in which Dodds had far-sightedly others on the role of trades unions for public profits between the shareholders coined the phrase ‘third way’, he as a countervailing force. and employees and encouraging had specified some of the wider In summing up, Gamble argued ownership employee shareholding and elected measures of which co-ownership that the Liberal tradition with representatives for employees on was a part: devolution of gov- regard to economic and industrial but for pop- the boards of directors. The report ernment to Scotland and Wales, relations was one that was aware also went further than previous greater power for local govern- of the enormous power of mar- ular own- statements in accepting the prin- ment, extensions of home owner- kets for good as well as for ill, and ciple that the proposals should be ship and the decentralisation of the as a force in decentralising power ership. Its induced by legislation rather than administration of the nationalised – but one that carried the risk of rely on tax incentives. industries. creating monopolies. The role of goal is not Dodds had elaborated a justifica- Jones noted that in the Grimond the state was, therefore, stressed tion for the policy in his book The era, from November 1956 onwards, as being like a public household, to destroy Defence of Man, published in 1947. co-ownership continued to be a ensuring rights, justice and fair- He had stated that the ultimate aim central feature. The concept was ness in the way the market econ- the owner of Liberal industrial policy was given further elaboration in The omy worked. Co-ownership was class but to ‘to make the workers co-owners Unservile State, published in 1957, an important expansion of these with a stake in the enterprises in the first full-scale book on Liberal Liberal values. enlarge it’. which they are engaged as well as thought since the ‘Yellow Book’ Dr Tudor Jones, author of The an effective voice in determining nearly thirty years earlier. In her Revival of British Liberalism (Palgrave the conditions under which they essay in the book, Nancy Seear Macmillan, 2012), argued that co- work … the principle of diffusion outlined the four main features of ownership (or co-partnership, as which Liberals sought to apply with co-ownership: it had been known up until about regard to property ownership per- 1) share by employees in the 1948) had a long history in the Lib- meated liberal philosophy in gen- residual profits; eral Party. Amongst the themes of eral economically and politically’. 2) share in ownership through the ‘Yellow Book’ of 1928 was the He also argued that widespread employee shareholding; diffusion of ownership aimed at ownership made possible ‘the 3) share in management through reducing the tensions between the decentralisation of initiative and works councils; and

Journal of Liberal History 76 Autumn 2012 45 report: ownership for all

4) share in policy-making In sum- Jo Grimond himself contrib- Michael Young had done in the through representation at uted to the development of the 1950s to develop the stance of the board level. mary, Jones policy in The Liberal Future (1959), Liberal Party on behalf of the con- These proved to be constant views in which he endorsed the views sumer rather than the producer. during the Grimond era. Jones argued that expressed on popular ownership Nonetheless, he felt that the con- added that the underlying aims of because of the link between prop- temporary concerns about corpo- the policy were to distribute own- in the years erty ownership and liberty – the rate governance could offer a way ership widely, to contribute to a badge of a citizen and a shield forward for aspects of the concept. blurring of the status distinction 1945–55, co- against petty tyranny. His view, Tudor Jones agreed and also noted between the two sides of industry, Jones argued, was an empirical that the SDP had developed quite and to ensure that the fortunes of ownership rather than an ideological one; a few ideas on widening employee the company were of direct con- was crucially co-ownership simply seemed to be share-ownership, including the cern to everyone in it. Nathaniel the best instrument to hand. Gri- concept of a ‘Citizen’s Trust’ Micklem, Party President 1957–58, important to mond also highlighted the divorce developed by James Meade. This expressed the policy in more ideo- between ownership and manage- had, in turn, been revived by Ash- logical terms, declaring that: ‘Lib- the distinc- ment, which weakened the respon- down in his book Citizens’ Britain. erals aim at the abolition of the sibility of managers for improving Jones also argued that the Blair/ proletariat and the emancipation of tively Liberal efficiency and lessened the effect Schroeder concept of the third workers by making property own- of decisions on owners. Grimond way was a vulgarisation of Dodds’ ers of them all’. position on restated the case in The Liberal thinking. In another essay in The Unser- Challenge (1963), outlining the There followed a discussion of vile State, Peter Wiles drew atten- policy and importance of schemes for profit- the co-operative movement and tion to the changing patterns of sharing. He also argued that the why the John Lewis model had not private ownership, with a growing ideology, Labour Party’s Clause 4 debates been followed elsewhere. Nichol- divorce between legal ownership represented a grossly simplified son reported that Michael Mead- and actual management, largely one that was analysis of the ills of industrial owcroft had sent him an article by as a result of the wider diffusion society. For Grimond there was Arthur Seldon from the 1940s in of institutional shareholders. The rooted in the no one simple formula. Later, the which he had argued that the affili- revisionist Labour thinker Antony former Liberal MP Donald Wade, ation of the Co-operative Party Crosland had examined this feature Liberal tra- in Our Aim and Purpose (1967) con- to the Labour Party was a mis- in The Future of Socialism (1956), and ceded that modern industry was take. Gamble argued that histori- had welcomed it, believing that it dition and too complex to have common cally the co-operative movement rendered obsolete the emphasis on closely con- means of ownership. had identified itself as part of the state ownership. Wiles, however, In summary, Jones argued that wider Labour movement, even if was more sceptical, arguing that nected to its in the years 1945–55, co-owner- it did not like the statism of Fabian the increase in absentee ownership ship was crucially important to socialism. John Lewis, meanwhile, meant that shareholders became views on con- the distinctively Liberal position had never been part of that wider unconnected with the company on policy and ideology, one that movement. Jones added that, given itself and that few exercised effec- stitutional was rooted in the Liberal tradi- the success of John Lewis, it was tive power or control, for example tion and closely connected to its surprising that Liberal Democrats through the transfer of directorial reform and views on constitutional reform and had not tried to associate them- control. The corporate body was, internationalism. selves more closely with the model, therefore, increasingly separate internation- In discussion, Michael Steed, though he noted that it was harder from its owners. perhaps following on from the to reproduce in a globalised econ- In 1959 the Liberal ‘Owner- alism. views expressed by Wade, noted omy. It was noted that at the height ship for All’ committee, chaired that the Liberal Democrats had of its initial success, the SDP had by Nancy Seear, updated and failed to make anything of their expressed some hope of detach- extended the earlier report. Jones long tradition of support for co- ing the Co-operative Party from felt that this report was of ideo- ownership, and wondered if this Labour. logical significance, as it declared was as a result of the influx of It was put to the meeting by that: ‘in the battle for the rights of social democrats, or the Thatcher- another questioner that the Liberal ownership, the essential political ite model of consumer ownership Party had adopted quite statist poli- struggle of the twentieth century, or, more broadly, the ‘end of ideol- cies in the 1970s, for example sup- the Liberal Party stood foursquare ogy’, with the ending the struggle port for a statutory incomes policy, in favour of private ownership between capitalism and socialism and he suggested that this had led the of ownership by persons’. Liber- undermining the need for a dis- party to lose sight of the theme of als recognised the close relation- tinctively ‘third way’, or simply the co-ownership. It was also suggested ship between property and power, practical problem of implement- that adherence to community poli- arguing that this was the major ing it in a fast-changing modern tics had had an effect – though the reason for retaining the system of economy. chair noted that the issue was clearly private property and not abolish- Andrew Gamble felt that each incorporated in the Theory and Prac- ing it; handing over property to of the possible answers Steed had tice of Community Politics. the state concentrated power and given had elements of truth in Gamble argued that all parties threatened the foundations of a them, but the last could be the wrestled with balancing the drive liberal society. key. He also noted the work that for economic efficiency, which

46 Journal of Liberal History 76 Autumn 2012 report: ownership for all meant large and larger scale, On a question regarding the previous week. The pol- proved to be very much a uni- with local control. He felt that whether the party was taking icy working group that he fying cause, with significant the co-ownership tradition the opportunity of being in had chaired was also seeking areas of agreement. could best be reflected in the government to do more than to refresh Liberal Democrat constitutionalisation of the talk to itself about the subject, ideas on the subject. He noted company, an issue he suggested the chair drew attention to the that the working group had had been relatively neglected Nuttall Review on employee members from all wings of the in British politics. share ownership, published party and, as previously, it had

The Liberal Party, Unionism and political culture in late 19th and early 20th century Britain

A one-day seminar organised by Newman University College and the Journal of Liberal History Saturday 10th November 2012, Newman University College, Birmingham

The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw major changes in British political culture. The gradual emergence of a mass electorate informed by a popular press, debates about the role of the state in social policy, Imperial upheavals and wars all had their impact on political culture. Political parties became more professional, labour more organised, regional identities sharpened.

To accompany this turmoil, a new political party, the Liberal Unionists, was formed to oppose Gladstone’s policy of Irish Home Rule, splitting the Liberal family and causing a reappraisal of what it meant to be a Unionist.

The seminar will examine some of these key changes in political culture, against the background of the formation of the Liberal Unionists and the new political alignments this brought about.

Speakers: • Professor Robert Colls, University of Leicester Political culture in Britain 1884–1914 (Guest Chair: Vernon Bogdanor, Research Professor, Institute of Contemporary British History, King’s College, London) • Dr Ian Cawood, Newman UC, Birmingham The impact of the Liberal Unionists, 1886–1912 • Dr Matthew Roberts, Sheffield Hallam University A terrific outburst of political meteorology: by-elections and the Unionist ascendancy in late Victorian England • Dr James Thompson, Bristol University The Liberal Party, Liberalism and the visual culture of ­British politics c.1880–1914 • Dr Kathryn Rix, History of Parliament Trust Professionalisation and political culture: the party agents, 1880–1914 • Dr James Owen, History of Parliament Trust Labour and the caucus: working-class radicalism and organised Liberalism in England

The cost of the seminar will be £20 (students and unwaged £10), including morning refreshments and buffet lunch.

To register please contact: Tracey Priest, History Department, Newman University College, Genners Lane, Birmingham B32 3NT. Telephone 0121 476 1181, x2395 or email: [email protected].

Journal of Liberal History 76 Autumn 2012 47