The Conservative Party and the Trade Unions

Peter Dorey

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• Print ISBN: 9780415064873
• eBook ISBN: 9781134921584
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Peter Dorey examines the attitudes and policies of the Conservative Party towards the trade unions from the nineteenth century onwards. He links these to wider political and economic circumstances, and studies the key personalities involved. There has always been disagreement within the Conservative Party as to how it should deal with the trade unions. These disagreements have, in large part, reflected divisions within British Conservatism itself.

1
The Conservative Party and the trade unions

Some of the key events in British trade unionism and industrial relations have occurred during periods of Conservative—or prior to the 1830s, Tory—government: the 1799– 1800 Combination Acts, the 1926 General Strike and the subsequent 1927 Trade Disputes Act, the establishment of the neo-corporatist National Economic Development Council in the 1960s, the ill-fated 1971 Industrial Relations Act, the two momentous miners’ strikes of the 1970s, and the systematic curbing and marginalisation of the trade unions in the 1980s and 1990s, etc. Yet there remains a notable paucity of literature on the Conservative Party and the trade unions, particularly on any period prior to the Thatcher decade of the 1980s. Such material as exists is invariably either fragmentary (dealing with the Conservatives and the trade unions indirectly as part of a wider or different project) or highly partisan and polemical—the Left invariably seeing Conservative policies towards the trade unions as manifestations of ‘ruling class’ attempts at suppressing and exploiting the working class, the Right instinctively proclaiming that any measure invoked against trade unions by a Conservative government constitutes a valiant defence of freedom and liberty, and the maintenance of a civilised society. Needless to say, this latter perspective has been proclaimed particularly trenchantly and triumphantly since 1979.

It is the objective of this text to provide a more systematic and dispassionate analysis of the perspectives and policies adopted by the Conservative Party towards the trade unions in Britain, from 1799 to the present day, although the bulk of the study will focus on developments and debates since 1945. Certainly, it was from the latter half of the 1950s onwards that the trade unions became widely seen as a problem (and not just by Conservatives), and it is from this time onwards that Conservatives became increasingly preoccupied with ‘the trade union question’.

However, trade unions have always been viewed as problematic by the Conservative Party. At almost any juncture during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Conservative MPs could be found expressing concern, or expatiating condemnation, on various aspects of British trade unionism. During the early nineteenth century, there was deep concern that trade unionism undermined the operation of the (market) economy, whilst simultaneously constituting a threat to the political order. Such fears forcefully reemerged amongst many Conservatives from the latter half of the 1950s onwards, becoming particularly pronounced during the 1960s and 1970s, when the decline of the British economy fuelled Conservative concern about the stability of Britain’s economic and political system, and the threat allegedly posed to that system by the trade unions. Even during times of economic growth and prosperity, many Conservatives have continued to view the trade unions with distrust and disdain, precisely because they were deemed to constitute a threat to the continuation of economic success.

In addition to these general, perennial concerns about trade unionism traditionally harboured by the Conservative Party, the twentieth century has witnessed the emergence of more specific concerns and objections, pertaining to particular aspects or activities of Britain’s trade unions. The most notable of these have been the political levy, the closed shop, increased strike activity (especially unofficial strikes), picketing, and the enhanced role accorded to the trade unions in policy-making at national level during the 1960s and 1970s.

Yet, as already intimated, it was from the latter half of the 1950s in particular that ‘the trade union question’ assumed increasing urgency for the Conservative Party. From this time onwards, trade unions became particularly problematic for Conservatives at two discrete levels. First, the relative decline of British industry, and the increasingly crisis-ridden character of the economy, became more pronounced during the 1960s, thereby serving to place trade unions under the spotlight by those seeking an explanation or cause for the country’s growing industrial and economic problems. For a number of Conservatives, not only were trade unions largely to blame for these problems, but the emergence of these problems was deemed to vindicate the suspicion, and lack of regard, with which they had always viewed trade unionism.

The second reason why trade unions became particularly problematic for the Conservative Party during the 1960s and 1970s concerns the principles and precepts of Conservatism itself. Certainly, the fundamental faith in the virtues and efficacy of capitalism itself is of crucial importance. For Conservatives, the capitalist system is the means by which individual liberty, economic efficiency, and sociopolitical freedom are attained and secured. As Russel notes,

capitalism and Conservatism have always gone hand in hand; ever since it was formed, the Conservative Party has believed in, and supported the capitalist system because of its conviction that it offers something better…. The party has always been able to agree on that, and it is still the basic bond which holds it together today.

(Russel 1978:20)

This faith in capitalism, which is intrinsic and integral to Conservatism, clearly constitutes a major reason why trade unions have always been problematic for the Conservative Party, and became ever more so during the 1960s and 1970s as the socioeconomic system which Conservatives seek to uphold has repeatedly careered into crisis. For most Conservatives, the trade unions are responsible, directly or indirectly, for a whole host of problems which have afflicted the British economy since the latter half of the 1950s, particularly inflation (fuelled by ‘excessive’ wage demands), low productivity (by virtue of restrictive practices and overmanning), and lost trade and investment (due to strike activity and high labour costs). Consequently, the Shadow Industry Minister Sir Keith Joseph gave public utterance to the opinion of most, if not all, Conservatives, when he declared that ‘solving the union problem is the key to Britain’s recovery’ (Joseph 1979).

Yet widespread recognition of the ‘problems’ posed by the trade unions has not provided for widespread agreement in the Conservative Party as to how best to tackle these ‘problems’. This lack of unanimity is partly due to the fact that Conservatives either prioritise the individual tenets of Conservatism, placing more importance on one than another, or interpret the same tenet differently. Even the overriding commitment to capitalism does not preclude differences of perspective amongst Conservatives as to the precise form which the capitalist system ought to take. One Nation Conservatives have consistently claimed that a considerable degree of government intervention in the economy, and a significant role for the trade unions in economic discussions and decision-making at national level, provide for the most efficient and stable form of capitalism. By contrast, neo-liberals consider such a model to constitute a partial abandonment of capitalism, and a move towards socialism. The role which Conservatives thus ascribe to trade unions will, to a considerable extent, depend on their precise conception of what constitutes capitalism, and how its requirements are best served.

Although support for capitalism represents a fundamental tenet of Conservatism, other principles and characteristics are also crucial. Most Conservatives would doubtless concur that individualism, majoritarian democracy, liberty, order, the rule of law, national unity, denial of ‘class’ politics, authority, and social harmony are all defining features of Conservatism. Yet it can immediately be comprehended that there exists considerable scope for these principles to occasion tensions within the Conservative Party, for as Eccleshall has remarked, Conservatives have simultaneously or successively embraced a cluster of polarities—free trade vs. imperial protection, laissez-faire vs. state planning, traditionalism vs. modernity, individualism vs. collectivism, liberty vs. authority, aristocracy vs. Tory democracy—in a manner which lends credence to Lord Hailsham’s admission that the Conservative Party has not been averse to stealing the policies of its opponents when expedient (Eccleshall 1977).

Trade unions have been deemed to conflict with these Conservative principles in a number of ways. They have been portrayed or perceived as organisations pursuing sectional interests against the national interest, and at the expense of national unity; as embodying the principle of collectivism, frequently at the expense of individualism and liberty; of acting without regard for the rule of law; of instigating industrial anarchy, and thereby undermining order and managerial authority in the workplace; and of seeking to ‘run the country’, in place of the democratically elected government.

Furthermore, specific trade union practices have caused particular problems for the Conservative Party, not least of these being the ‘closed shop’. Virtually all Conservatives opposed the closed shop (it was finally outlawed in 1990), on the grounds that it constituted a denial of individual liberty. Whilst the Conservative Party has constantly expressed support for 100 per cent union membership obtained voluntarily, and through persuasion, it has been unequivocal in its condemnation of compulsory trade union membership schemes. Yet whilst repeatedly castigating the denial of individual liberty which the closed shop was deemed to constitute, the Conservative Party often felt obliged to acknowledge the impracticability of prohibiting it outright. To attempt to do so would be to introduce legislation which was unenforceable, and would thereby serve to undermine another key principle of Conservatism, namely the sanctity of the rule of law.

The problem which the closed shop posed for the Conservative Party was compounded by the fact that some Conservatives actually proffered qualified support for it on the grounds that it provides for order and stability (in industry)—two further tenets of Conservatism—and also makes the task of management easier, because employers only need to communicate with one set of union officials representing the whole workforce, rather than wasting valuable time in endless discussion with a number of unions and/or with non-union employees.

The example of the closed shop thus provides an indication of the way in which the eclecticism of Conservatism has often contributed to the manifestation of disagreement within the Conservative Party over issues pertaining to trade unionism and trade union reform. Policy preferences will invariably be informed by the particular precepts and principles of Conservatism which Conservatives attach the greatest importance to, or place the most emphasis on, and this will vary according to which ideas and individuals are dominant in the party at any particular juncture. The Conservative Party of the 1990s, and its attitude towards the trade unions, is vastly different to that of the 1950s.

Trade unionism has also proved problematic for the Conservative Party with regard to the notions of national unity and national interest. Whilst we noted earlier that Conservatives have ritually condemned the ‘selfish’ sectional interests and ‘class’ politics pursued by trade unions, different responses have emanated from within the party, partly because of the different conceptions which exist among Conservatives over the most appropriate means of defending the national interest and maintaining national unity. Conservative neo-liberals have constantly placed great emphasis on the polarity of ‘the individual’ and ‘the nation’, thereby denying the legitimacy of ‘sectional’ or ‘class’ interests. The nation is deemed to be composed of sovereign individuals interacting as producers and consumers, engaged in voluntary exchanges and transactions. Whilst individuals might combine to form groups of one kind or another, they must accept that the interests of other individuals, and of the nation as a whole, are supreme, and must not be subordinated to, or jeopardised by, the interests of the group itself. Conservative neo-liberalism thus favours a policy of ‘legal restraint’, whereby the activities and powers of trade unions are strictly limited by law, and the institutions of organised labour are deemed to be but one of the innumerable pressure groups in society. Such a policy, its advocates believe, would ensure that the trade unions had neither the ability to place their own interests above those of the nation, nor the power to coerce other individuals, be they trade union members themselves or managers and employers.

By contrast, the One Nation element in the Conservative Party has long been prepared to acknowledge the importance and legitimacy of organised labour as a major sectional interest, as well as partially recognising the historical—if only symbolic—role of trade unions as ‘class’ institutions. Such Conservatives have long been of the opinion that the most fruitful means of ensuring the supremacy of the national interest, and of securing national unity, is by incorporating the union leadership into the decision-making processes and institutions of the state. By inviting the trade union leadership to form a partnership with leaders of the business community, and the government itself, One Nation Conservatives hoped that organised labour would become more appreciative of the economic ‘facts of life’, and thus behave more responsibly; i.e. moderate wage demands, co-operate in schemes to increase efficiency and productivity, etc. It was assumed that if trade unions, or more specifically trade union leaders, were acquainted with information about what the country could and could not afford, then they would voluntarily subordinate their sectional interests to those of the nation. As Harris interprets, if labour, capital, and management were functionally, rather than competitively, related, they would share a common allegiance to ‘the nation’, and its supreme expression, the neutral state (Harris 1972:111).

Following on from this, One Nation Conservatives have traditionally harboured a sense of unease about the efficacy of a legislative programme for dealing with the activities and powers of the trade unions. Quite apart from the belief that changes ought to be secured through discussion and persuasion, rather than be imposed from above by statute, the One Nation element in the Conservative Party has been concerned that the kind of legislative onslaught against the unions traditionally yearned for by their neo-liberal colleagues would provoke precisely the class politics and class conflict which neo-liberals purport to eschew. The pursuit of vigorous legislation vis-à-vis the trade unions, some Conservatives feared, would force trade unionists to close ranks, and resort to more ‘militant’ or ‘extreme’ action in order to defend themselves. This might well serve to weaken social stability, bring the law into disrepute, jeopardise national unity, and, ultimately, grievously affect the authority of the state itself. Such fears were held by some elements of the Conservative Party when it was drafting its Industrial Relations Bill, introduced in 1971, and were felt to be vindicated by the response which the Bill elicited from the trade union movement.

It can thus be seen that whilst Conservatism, and hence the Conservative Party, have historically emphasised the paramount importance of tenets such as national interest/national unity, order, stability, the rule of law, the denial or rejection of class politics, strong and effective government, etc., there have always existed differences of opinion and approach amongst Conservatives as to how best to secure the realisation of such tenets.

In seeking to illustrate these issues, and thereby highlight both the discussions and policies which have emanated from within the Conservative Party vis-à-vis the trade unions, this text will adopt an approach which is simultaneously chronological and analytical.

Chapter 2 provides an outline of Conservative Party attitudes and approaches towards the trade unions from 1799 to 1945, illustrating the extent to which the outright hostility towards, and fear of, trade unions harboured by Tories at the very end of the eighteenth century were tempered and tamed during the next century and a half, so that by the end of the Second World War, most Conservatives accepted trade unions as a permanent and vital institution in the world of both industry and politics. Even the relapse into hostility evinced by the General Strike and the consequent 1927 Trade Disputes Act is shown to have been tempered by the widespread advocacy amongst Conservatives of greater industrial partnership, and also by the belief that the defeat suffered by the trade unions during the General Strike would engender a more responsible form of trade unionism in future. We illustrate how the period from 1799 to 1945 was one in which the Conservative Party (in Parliament) came to accept the trade unions, and sought to adopt, for much of the time, a more positive, constructive stance towards them, a stance at least partly necessitated by the extension of the franchise to the working class during the second half of the nineteenth century. At the same time, we note that throughout this period a number of Conservatives remained openly hostile towards trade unionism, and thus critical of the increasingly acquiescent approach adopted by the party’s parliamentary leadership; for such critics, acquiescence is really nothing more than appeasement.

Chapter 3 illustrates how, from 1945 to 1964, the Conservative Party strenuously and assiduously sought to cultivate a good relationship with the trade unions, both through the avoidance of legislative reform (as routinely demanded by some backbenchers and constituency activists) and the advocacy of greater co-operation and partnership both between management and trade unions in the workplace, and between trade unions and the Conservative governments of the 1950s and early 1960s. The ultimate institutional manifestation of such partnership was represented by the creation, in 1961, of the National Economic Development Council (NEDC). Yet this itself was partly born of the recognition that Britain was experiencing relative economic decline, for which the trade unions were apportioned much of the blame. Whilst incorporation of the trade unions into the machinery of government and economic policy-making undoubtedly gave institutional expression to the One Nation philosophy of Conservatives such as Harold Macmillan (who was party leader and Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963), the real motive for establishing the NEDC was to encourage greater responsibility on the part of the trade unions, by involving them in discussions and decisions concerning industrial and economic policy, and thereby ‘educating’ them in the ‘facts of life’ concerning the increasingly serious problems besetting the British economy. Responsibility was thus to be secured through representation.

Yet this approach failed to achieve its objectives, so that by 1964 Conservative critics of the trade unions and their alleged role in Britain’s economic decline were becoming both more numerous and more vocal. Even the paternalists who had hitherto insisted on the need to pursue a constructive, conciliatory approach towards the trade unions were, by this time, becoming somewhat exasperated by the apparent inability or unwillingness of the trade unions to behave as expected or exhorted.

As Chapter 4 details, the period from 1964 to 1970, when the Conservative Party was in opposition, witnessed a fundamental reappraisal of its whole approach to contemporary politics. New—more radical—policies were adopted on a wide range of issues, not least with regard to trade unionism. It was during this period that the Conservative Party adopted a legalistic policy (one which sought to solve the problems posed by trade unions by invoking legislation and statutory stipulation, rather than relying on encouragement or incorporation; if the trade unions would not voluntarily behave in the manner desired by government, then they had to be compelled by law to do so instead). It was this policy which culminated in the ill-fated 1971 Industrial Relations Act, a measure which several Conservative MPs had repeatedly warned was misconceived and liable to compound, rather than conquer, industrial relations problems.

Chapter 5 deals with the period of the Heath government, 1970–4, during which the aforementioned Industrial Relations Act was introduced. It prompted a number of conflicts with the trade unions (as its Conservative critics had prophesied) and was then effectively—and humiliatingly—abandoned. In the wake of the debacle of the Industrial Relations Act, the Heath government performed a major U-turn, discarding the free market policies and legalistic approach towards the trade unions with which it had entered office, and resorting instead to the tried and tested policy of seeking a partnership with the unions in the realms of economic policy and wage determination. However, Heath found himself compelled, in the wake of trade union refusal to accept his proposals for a voluntary pay policy, to impose a temporary statutory prices and incomes freeze, which he intended to be the prelude to a more permanent voluntary incomes policy agreed between government and the trade unions. This outraged his neo-liberal colleagues on the Right of the party, who believed that he was betraying the principles which the Conservative Party had traditionally stood for, and the policies upon which it had fought the 1970 general election. What proved particularly damaging, however, was the miners’ strike during the winter of ...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• 1: THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AND THE TRADE UNIONS
• 2: THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AND TRADE UNIONISM, 1799–1945
• 3: THE SEARCH FOR CONCILIATION, 1945–1964
• 4: FORMULATING A LEGALIST POLICY, 1964–1970
• 5: THE EXPERIMENT WITH LEGALISM, 1970–1974
• 6: BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, 1974–1979
• 7: THE ‘STEP-BY-STEP’ APPROACH TO TRADE UNION REFORM, 1979–1994
• 8: CONSERVATISM AND TRADE UNIONISM IN BRITAIN
• BIBLIOGRAPHY