History of The British Labour Party - Local Labour Reforms in The Inter-war Period

Local Labour Reforms in The Inter-war Period

Although Labour remained out of office for most of the inter-war period, it was able to control of many local authorities and put its socialist principles into practice on a small scale.

The Labour-controlled local authorities, and also those in which Labour was the strongest single party, had in practice to concentrate mainly on making the most of the opportunities offered to them by national legislation – especially in the fields of housing, education, public health services, and, after 1929, the services transferred to them from the Boards of Guardians. In all these fields, Labour had a notably good local government record. —G.D.H Cole, A History of the Labour Party from 1914

During the interwar period, Labour in local government sought to use the power of municipal authority to improve the working and living environments of its primarily working-class constituents. The functions of local government provided Labour Party members with experience in office, and provided them with the opportunity to improve the living standards of its constituents through measures such as improvements in housing and health care, the provision of maternity clinics, and free milk and meals for schoolchildren. Following the end of World War I, Labour councillors returned in 1919 adopted a policy of municipal socialism (particularly in boroughs of London to tackle social problems such as poor health, inadequate housing, and general insecurity. Labour in local government sought to establish a "proto-welfare state" through, for instance, the elected Boards of Guardians, paying more generous levels of poor relief to the jobless and encouraging the construction of clinics, houses, and municipal baths which, apart from providing necessary services, also provided employment opportunities. Also, although Labour groups often remained in the minority on their respective councils, they and their supporters mounted campaigns to safeguard and extend people’s standard of living. For example, minority Labour groups could block council initiatives that they saw as going against the interests of their constituents.

During the Twenties, Labour councillors forced the pace in local administration, whether in councils or (until their abolition in 1929) on boards of guardians. As noted by John Wheatley, “One of the brightest results of the growth of the Labour movement is that the control of the poor has been passed on into the hands of popular boards of guardians.” In general, Labour councillors showed more willingness than others in pressing their legal powers to the limit and less concerned about the cost to the rates, and before the end of the Thirties, 60 local authorities were under the control of the Labour Party.

During the Great Depression, Labour councils made great efforts to protect unemployed people from the worst effects of the slump, and sought to ensure that the public assistance system for the needy was made as generous as possible. In Durham and Glamorgan, the Labour administrations there paid more than the minimum, while operating the means test more humanely than they were supposed to. In Hackney, the London Labour Party secretary Herbert Morrison resorted to charitable methods to counteract the effects of unemployment. In Nelson, the Labour council of the Thirties invested in essential servicse like education and child welfare. In Glasgow, Patrick Dollan’s Glasgow corporation carried out a slum-clearance programme that resulted in the construction of some 200,000 homes between 1934 and 1939. In Barnsley, the school-leaving age was raised by six months in order to promote education and keep some 500 teenagers off the unemployment figure. In addition, priority was given to housing construction and slum clearances.

Labour authorities also sought to humanise the services provided by local authorities, together with enabling reducing the harshness of the way in which welfare services operated and enabling working-class people to enjoy the benefits of open space and culture. In Norwich, Labour ensured that school architecture was made bright and modern, while the Labour administration in Glasgow put an end to a controversial system in which elderly couples claiming poor relief could be split up into separate hostel units. In many Labour authorities such as Norwich and West Ham, assistance was given to poor mothers as well as the disabled.

Labour representatives on the Boards of Guardians in the Twenties and on the Public Assistance Committees of the early Thirties sought to offset the effects of unemployment and poverty as best as they could within existing structures. This often led to interventionist measures such as the provision of free school meals or ensuring that benefit claimants received the relief that was owed to them. Labour councils sought to administer the means test in the most favourable terms possible, which involved accepting a higher percentage of applications for transitional benefit than in non-Labour localities and providing the maximum rate of relief available. In Poplar, Bethnal Green, and Stepney, for instance, Labour took positive steps on behalf of its working-class supporters, providing protection, jobs, and relief at a time of economic uncertainty.

Female Labour members played an active role in the policy-making of local labour councils, and the extension of accepted (or expected) municipal responsibility brought politics into areas to which women were the acknowledged experts. As recalled by Hannah Mitchell, when she sat on relief committees she "knew just how much food could be bought out of the allowance, knew the cost of children’s clothes and footwear, could tell at a glance if an applicant was in ill health." Through first-hand knowledge of such issues, women contributed to the implementation of reforms which benefited their constituents, such as the building of wash houses, maternity centres, health clinics, playgrounds, and parks. These reforms not only extended Labour’s appeal, but also provided women with "a distinctive place within Labour and municipal politics."

The Labour Party also enjoyed a strong following in Wales, where in the 1935 general election it won 8 out of 35 seats. In regards to social legislation (including health, housing, and education), the Labour-controlled authorities were both progressive in outlook and generous in spending. This meant that, despite extreme poverty, South Wales (where Labour was strong), had better outcomes in health, housing, and education than other parts of Wales, and this despite the poverty of the councils themselves. For instance, Glamorgan, Carmarthenshire, parts of Monmouthshire and Wrexham provided free school meals, while provision of this kind was exceptional in most of North Wales. A move towards expanding secondary school places to be filled on merit was also far more evident in authorities controlled by the Labour Party. In the most industrialised parts of Wales, Labour-dominated councils successfully tried not only to increase the number of secondary-school places (even during the years of the Great depression), but also worked towards providing these places free, and therefore on merit, instead of on ability to pay. By 1932, over 60% of places were free, a far higher figure than in England. In Rhondda, the dominant Labour council introduced progressive measures such as free milk for children from poor households which helped to counteract some of the worst effects of the Great Depression, while in Swansea, a government grant was obtained to finance a number of civic building projects, the means test was exercised relatively humanely, and a nursery school was opened.

The biggest breakthrough for Labour in local government came in 1934, with the capture of the most powerful local authority in Britain, the LCC. Under the leadership of Herbert Morrison, the Labour-run LCC implemented a wide range of progressive social democratic reforms which transformed London into a model of responsible and progressive local Labour government. A year after taking office, Morrison took steps to raised the rates of London householders to 31% (seven shillings in the pound), and had run through what was termed a "nest egg" of £2,000,000 he had found upon taking office, salted away in London County Council’s treasury by Conservatives. This money was used in treating London’s poor more humanely, providing more homes for the aged poor, more free education, and modernising hospitals, improving their dietary and increasing their numbers of staff.

As leader of the LCC, Morrison presided over the development of London's housing, health, education and transport services, together with the unification of the transport system and creating a 'green belt' around London's suburbs. In addition, new schools were constructed, measures to combat corruption and inefficiency were carried out, a major programme of slum clearance and council house construction was carried out, and a municipal health service was set up, which became a model for the NHS. Led by Morrison and his presidium of Charles Latham, Isaac Hayward, and Lewis Silkin, the LCC provided to be a successful local Labour administration. An offensive was carried out against London’s slums, with new homes built, repairs carried out, and rents reduced for those moving to new municipal accommodation from slum areas. Spending on welfare services, education, and health care was increased from 1934 onwards, with more staff employed in hospitals and enjoying better pay and conditions. More free places in secondary education were offered, improvements were made in patient care, new schools were constructed, and more amenities were provided, with the initiation of more milk, playing fields, and health visits. The LCC also made efforts to ensure that reforms were carried out to reduce the harshness of public assistance. Morrison’s plans for a "green belt" surrounding London also came to fruition, which provided the relevant local authorities with funds to purchase and maintain land.

One Labour council that acquired great notoriety during the inter-war period was that of Poplar, where the Labour councillors introduced a wide range of reforms including equal pay for women, the introduction of a minimum wage for municipal workers, and improved municipal services and welfare programmes. Dedicated to improving the lives of poor working-class people, the Labour Poor Law Guardians paid generous scales of relief to the poor that led them to fall into debt. The Labour Guardians refused to hand over payments to London County Council that they were supposed to make, and were imprisoned in 1921.

The Poplar Guardians justified the generous scales of relief they paid out, together with their abandonment of principles of less eligibility in terms of a politics of redistribution of the financial burden of unemployment, stating that

If society cannot organize its economic affairs so as to provide work for all its able-bodied members, then society as a whole should provide them with adequate maintenance from national funds, obtained under existing conditions by increased taxation upon the large and superfluous incomes of those whose social position is maintained only as a result of ‘preying on the poor —Metropolis, London: histories and representations since 1800 by David Feldman

The actions of the Labour Guardians were arguably justified on the grounds that Poplar carried a heavier burden than many other boroughs in carrying the costs of poor relief. In 1921, for instance, Poplar had a rateable value of £4m and 86,500 unemployed persons to support, while other, richer councils could call on a rateable value of £15 to support only 4,800 unemployed. George Lansbury, the new mayor of Poplar, proposed that the Council stop collecting the rates for outside, cross-London bodies. This was agreed and on 31 March 1921, Poplar Council set a rate of 4s 4d instead of 6s 10d.

Despite their imprisonment, the Labour Guardians refused to give way, and were released six weeks after their imprisoned. In addition,the actions of the Poplar councillors in demanding that the burden of the rates be shared more equitably between poorer and richer boroughs led to the passage of legislation which provided for the greater equality between boroughs that they had demanded. Poplar no longer had to carry an unduly heavy burden as all London areas now shared the costs of poor relief in the future. Poplar continued to provide relatively generous scales of relief, paying £2 19s 6d to a family of seven instead of the agreed London rate of London rate of £2 14s.

Labour councils not only brought relief to the poorest sections of the community, they provided opportunities for employment and, through the funding of education and library facilities, self-improvement.

– Labour Inside the Gate: A History of the British Labour Party between the Wars by Matthew Worsley

Labour councils also endeavoured to present themselves as model employers. By the Thirties, for instance, most Labour councils had set up municipal works departments, carrying out repair work and construction without having to use a private contractor. Labour council employees also tended to be paid at (or above) trade union wage rates and were subject to union-recognised conditions. In Poplar, the Labour council that was elected in 1919 immediately agreed to, and increased, a minimum wage for all employees. Labour councils sought to employ direct labour to embark on their municipal building schemes, such as in Wigan, where people who were employed to build the town’s municipal houses were subject to trade union pay, conditions, and holidays.