LETTER : Identifying the original authors of Clause IV
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Derek Stapley
Sir: Gareth Stedman Jones has repeated the myth of Sidney Webb composing Clause IV ("Labour can learn from Victorian values", 24 April). This political philosophy of the party was, however, defined long before 1919, at the famous TUC meeting in 1900, that was held to set up parliamentary "labour representation". Under the heading "A Labour Party", in the report of that meeting, is the proposal from a delegate of the Socialist Democratic Federation:
That the representatives of the working class movement in the House of Commons shall form there a distinct party ... based upon recognition of the class war, and having for its ultimate object the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
This was rejected as crying for the moon and "nothing could be more unfortunate for the Conference than to label across its front the words `class war' " - though five out of seven speakers supported the purpose of the resolution. Keir Hardie's more politically acceptable wording was adopted: "legislation in the interests of labour".
In the very different conditions of 1919, the party could state the policy openly. Sidney Webb simply adopted the 1900 statement, replacing "socialisation" with "common ownership". In 1919, "socialisation" would have been more frightening for the bulk of voters, new and old, than Webb's "common ownership". This fits in well with the contention that an appeal to the middle classes was clearly intended in the new constitution. Plus ca change?
Yours faithfully,
DEREK STAPLEY
Sheffield
24 April
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments