A new Party of the left. The case of the Independent Labour Party in 1893. A new grassroots socialism could not emerge from ‘London Head Offices’
The first conference of Your Party takes place in Liverpool this weekend. As a long time socialist activist I obviously have my views but they are just one perspective in an organisation of many thousands even if I, as many others, would back certain proposals and not others.
An historical perspective is slightly different. While conclusions can be argued about there are established details and facts. They can inform current debates although decisions are for the present not the 1890s!
The ILP was formed in Bradford in January 1893 and many of the debates about the name of the party (should ‘socialist’ be included) and its organisation (a federal structure or not) are familiar in 2025. Another issue was the construction of a representative leadership.
The principle was that there must be leaders representing different areas of the country.
Cunningham Graham, Scottish Labour Party
HH Champion, Scottish United Trades Council
Tom Mann, London ILP
H Quelch London SDF
Ben Tillett, Yorkshire ILP
Stephen Fay, Manchester & Salford ILP
‘In addition the Midlands and the North of England could nominate some Midlander or Northerner provided they lived in London’. Indeed all of the leadership lived in London. When a provisional leadership did appear after the 1893 conference it met in Manchester
W H Drew President of the Bradford Labour Union noted of the London plan ‘what you should set your face to is a conference of provincial men and Londoners, and you cockneys ought to unbend and come say to Bradford. The idea that a representative leadership should all live in London didn’t work. As E P Thompson noted in Homage to Tom Maguire the new leadership of labour emerged not from ‘London Head Offices’ but from ‘those shadowy parts known as the Provinces’
Labour & Employment Rights 1997-2025. The same old song
Labour’s Employment Bill is back in the Lords. In some cases it won’t be until the autumn of 2026 before some measures become law. There are welcome changes, things the Tories would never do. At the same time it has been described as more full of holes tnan Swiss cheese on things like zero hours contracts and day one employment rights.
On Thursday 27th November after a period of saying that day one employment rights (currently two years thanks to the Tories) would be kept in the Bill it was suddenly announced that this would change to six months. Clearly there was a negotiation with the TUC involved (its unclear if this took place in 1997) and the scrapping of a probation period and the hope that the change would stop Tory and LibDem Peers from sabotaging the Bill and get key provisions on sick pay into law more quickly.
However the symbolism of the retreat cant be avoided. The Times has long been campaigning against the Bill and its front page headline on 28th November was ‘day one’ employment rights abandoned
We have been here before and some of the key players remain influential. The 1997 Labour Government headed by Blair promised to address the years of Tory anti-union laws by reinstating what it claimed would be a level playing field at work. The bigger issue was the introduction of a National Minimum Wage. This was opposed by many business interests on the basis that it could not be afforded, would not work and so on. However it was implemented and remains in force, albeit many would argue it should be higher even allowing for this week’s increase.
The second was a Parliamentary Act on Employment Relations. Its notable that this did not become law until July 1999. It was not seen as a priority and there was a fair bit of time spent listening to business about it. It did not repeal any Tory anti-union law(as the new Act will in part) but instead gave legal force to trade union recognition and representation. It was a step forward from the Thatcher years but a very modest one. Arguably the 2024/5 Bill goes somewhat further, again welcome while keeping in mind that the proof of the pudding is in the eating..
Cabinet Papers available at the National Archives give an indication to what went on in 1997.
In the autumn of 1997 there is a file note of what is described as a ‘long and fractious discussion’ between Tony Blair and John Prescott on Fairness at Work. Prescott said that changes had been bought as a package by the TUC and if changes were planned this would need to be agreed by the Cabinet. Blair responded that the changes were practical ones because of what he claimed were genuine problems in how they would work. Blair wanted to allow a right of appeal to the measure, eventually implemented, which would mean that if 50% of workers voted for union recognition it would be automatically given. Prescott again argued that he did not think what the TUC had put forward was up for negotiation.
Employment rights were not part of Prescott’s Ministerial brief and the matter does not appear again until we find a file note from Peter Mandelson on 9th March 1998. It says ‘Union Recognition. Moving in the direction of the CBI. Ideal response for the TUC to be grumpy but not refuse to co-operate’.
Both Blair and Mandelson are of course still around and still influential. They have form on union rights. The bigger picture after the abandonment of day one rights is that when Starmer says Labour is pro-business and pro-worker as after 1997 it’s the former who are really calling the shots here. Perhaps not just union HQs but union members facing a tough working environment will reflect on this…
The graphic is from the IIlustrated London News July 1868. Racing at Ally Pally (down the slope towards the Hornsey High St end) predated the actual Palace. The horse racing ended in 1970 although the nearby pub the Starting Gate is a reminder of times past.
During World War One the area was used as a ‘camp’ for captured German soldiers and other ‘unreliable types’, the 2025 equivalent being Nathan Gill and friends
The Times Obituary (otherwise paywalled) is above.
Jack Shepherd came up through a radical and left-wing theatre background at the Royal Court and then with the playwright Trevor Griffiths. He was the left wing Labour MP Bill Brand in the ITV series of the same name (1976) but had also played Gramsci in Griffiths Occupations about Italian factory occupations in 1920 which aired on the BBC in 1974.
Times changed and the opening for left and radical actors diminished, though Shepherd wrote several plays on subjects such as Tom Paine and the Chartists.
He became well known for playing a police inspector in the long running 1990s Wycliffe series
The Guardian obit provides a full account of his work while the Times says a bit more about him as a person (whether accurately as its a Murdoch paper is another matter). His politics are passed over or downplayed.
I have been looking at this and found some relevant material which I will post. I think a conclusion might be that Shepherd was well versed in left politics but did not want this to be part of his public persona…
Reform UK boss Nigel Farage has written a letter to a number of papers.
Of course as with everything Reform UK does qualification is required. Firstly its not written by Farage. Given the comment by the original founder of UKIP Alan Skeed that he spent a couple of hours trying to get Farage to grasp the difference between it’s and its and then gave up it can be taken that its either the work of a minion or as likely AI (Guardian 26th May 2014).
Secondly its not actually a letter but a two page paid advert. It appears in the Times, Sun, Metro, Mail, Express and Telegraph. According to LibDem leader Ed Davey the cost is likely to be around £1m
Given that Farage actually has pieces in the Telegraph and Express on 27th July it makes one wonder if the left and right hands of Reform are co-ordinated.
The advert does not mention Russian bribes or racist language but waffles on for a few paragraphs about Reform’s economic ‘policies’. It does not of course appear in the Guardian or the Mirror which are critical of Farage (and certainly not the Morning Star or Financial Times). Its difficult to understand, given how much coverage Farage & Co get anyway, as the advert as being anything more than a gratuity to the papers involved for not being critical.
Aside from the words the other half of the advert is a picture of Farage (minus cigarette or wine glass) which may be useful for darts players. The post on Twitter also has a picture of what might be Farage’s full English breakfast which unsurprisingly does not include black pudding.
In solidarity with victimised socialist historian Tom Alter
The London Socialist Historians Group which organises the socialist history seminar at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London, is dismayed and angered to read of the dismissal of Tom Alter a Professor at Texas State University.
The dismissal is entirely unrelated to Tom Alter work at the University but refers to remarks he made as an individual at a socialist conference. The dismissal violates the right of Alter and potentially others to speak out on key issues such as Palestine and Trans Rights.
The London Socialist Historians Group has over 30 years linked the pursuit of academically rigorous socialist historical research in the University with support for political activism outside of it.
We offer our support and solidarity to Tom Alter
Details
On September 10th, 2025, Dr. Tom Alter, a respected and tenured professor of history at Texas State University, was fired for remarks he made at a socialist conference in his capacity as a private citizen.
He was fired without due process, a clear violation of both Texas State University policy and Texas state law. Alter is a published labor historian, a popular teacher and adviser, a proud union member, a father of two, and a socialist activist.
Texas State University’s actions represent a blatant attack on Dr. Alter’s First Amendment right to free speech. It is a political move to suppress progressive and leftist thought on campuses. His firing and the stripping away of his and his family’s livelihood is a chilling reminder of the attacks waged on campuses around the country. Alter’s firing constitutes an attack on his fundamental civil liberties, and represents a threat to the democratic rights of all working people.
The Committee to Defend Tom Alter demands his immediate reinstatement to his tenured teaching position at Texas State University. We fight for the right of Alter and people everywhere to speak out in support of socialism, the defense of Palestine, LGBTQIA and trans advocacy, anti-racism, and social justice. We are prepared to resist
Finally, we are ramping up sanctions on Russia and freezing known Russian assets. Let me be clear, I do not mean the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Under the Conservatives —[Interruption.]
Hansard 26th November
tbh for the Commons that is a good one liner, whether the work of Rachel Reeves herself or a speech writer. Its not just the words but the way they are delivered…
Reform at Prime Minister’s Questions 26th November 2025. Russian bribes & racist language
Prime Minister’s Questions is invariably about politics as theatre. Of course there is an element of theatre to politics and some are better actors than others. When it comes to PMQs the theatrical element rises to the level of a Christmas Pantomime.
Unusually on 26th November there was a slightly more serious edge with a number of points about Reform in relation to the recent jail sentence for its former Welsh leader Nathan Gill and about the language Farage is alleged to have used when at Dulwich College in the 1970s.
Its not clear whether Farage was in the Chamber or off at one of his PFLs (Proper F*cking Lunches)
Theatre this remains but it provides a context for the media to investigate further and extract actual answers from Farage. How many will be bothered to do it?
Q10. Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the decision by Reform’s Durham county council to scrap support introduced by Labour in 2013, a typical working family in Stanley will be £170 worse off? How would the Prime Minister contrast the values of this Labour Government with a Reform party dividing our country and hitting working people in their pockets? (906581)
The more we see of Reform, the more we see their true colours—in this case, making people £170 worse off. We see their true colours also in relation to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). His explanation in recent days, in relation to the stories about what he may have said in the past, is unconvincing to say the least. He says he never engaged with racism “with intent”. What does that mean? I have no doubt that, if a young Jewish student was hissed at to mimic the sound of a gas chamber, they would find it upsetting. He may want to forget that; they will not. He clearly remembers some of what happened. He should seek those people out, and go and apologise to them.
Let me take the Prime Minister on to another issue. I hope everyone in the House shares my alarm that a former leader of a political party in Wales has been found guilty of betraying our country, and has now been sentenced to over 10 years in prison for his treachery. The Prime Minister said that Reform should hold an independent investigation and he is right, but we both know that that is not going to happen. Given that Reform will not do so, he must. Will he now launch a national investigation into Russian infiltration into our politics?
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this very serious case: a long sentence for pro-Russian bribery in the Reform party—at the highest level. You would think a leader of a political party would want to get to the bottom of that and ask the question, “How on earth did that happen in the Reform party, and what other links are there between Reform and Russia?” But no, the leader of Reform does not want to do it. We know he does not want to know the answer to the question, because Reform is riddled with pro-Putin propaganda.
Q15. From a previous answer the Prime Minister gave, we can conclude only that he has faith in the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to police his own party on Russian interference, but the leader of Reform has already said that that is beyond his capabilities. Why, then, is the Prime Minister so unwilling to take responsibility and launch a full investigation into foreign interference in our democracies? (906586)
We do need to bear down on foreign interference in our democracy, but the responsibility for investigating what happened within Reform lies with the leader of the Reform party. The hon. Member for Clacton usually has plenty to say, but now he is totally silent on one of the most important issues. He needs to speak up and answer those questions.
