Keir Hardie: Labour’s Greatest Hero?

Methodism, Marxism and miners forging a working-class party

by Glyn Ford
Monday, August 9th, 2010

James Keir Hardie was central to the founding of the Labour Party. Born in 1856, the illegitimate son of a miner and a farm servant, he was brought up an atheist by a kindly stepfather (save when he was with drink when the boy was called a “bastard”.) He started work at eight and, by ten, was the family breadwinner with his stepfather unable to work following an industrial accident. Sacked by the local baker for lateness, when his younger brother was ill and his mother in the late stages of pregnancy, he was forced down the mines where he stayed until, in 1878, he became secretary of the Hamilton District Branch of the Lanarkshire Miners Union.

Class war had been declared – by the employers – and almost immediately the family was collectively punished for his trade union activities, with he and his two younger brothers first dismissed and then blacklisted. It was then that Keir Hardie became a Christian and a journalist. As a Christian he was close to the Evangelical Union, a breakaway sect of the Congregational Church that believed God loved all men and hated the “demon drink”, while as a journalist his copy was radical Liberal, attacking the consequences of Lib-Lab MPs such as Thomas Burt and Alexander McDonald being elected under the sufferance of the Liberal Party and, therefore, forced to toe their line – where labour was subservient to capital and government left well alone.

It was the consequences of this and the hypocrisy of church-going charity-giving wealthy Christians devoted to the Lord’s Day Observance Society but making their own workers slave seven days a week for a pittance that meant he became, in 1887, a socialist. His brand, despite an early acquaintance with Frederick Engels and Eleanor Marx, was in the moral not physical force tradition; not that he was against some healthy disruption.

But for Hardie it was the long march of the parliamentary road to socialism – unencumbered by clinging Liberals. He started to proselytise his message around Britain to workers and trade unionists. As a result, he was elected MP for West Ham in 1892 and, in 1893, helped with the trade unions to formally establish the Independent Labour Party and then, in 1900, the Labour Representation Committee, allowing affiliation by socialist societies, trade unions and labour churches.

The next election saw Hardie lose his seat as the ILP fared badly, but the crowing obituaries of the enemies of both the man and the party he represented were premature. At the 1906 election Labour won 29 out of the 50 seats it contested and Hardie was back as the member for Merthyr. And within 40 years Labour would form a majority government. Hardie himself died in 1915, harried and hounded by press and public for his fierce opposition to Britain’s latest imperialist war.

His anti-war stance was a reflection of both his religion and his politics. He was in favour of the nationalisation of major industries, the regulation of smaller ones, provision of social security in the form of sickness and injury benefit and the payment of old age pensions. A supporter of women’s rights and the militant Women’s Political and Social Union – he was rumoured to have had an affair
with Sylvia Pankhurst – better and equal treatment in the colonies, and animal welfare, he opposed deployment of the army by government on the side of the employers in industrial disputes as class war and was also a staunch republican, as early as 1893 trying to move a motion deploring the House’s congratulations on the Duke of York’s marriage.

All of which would not make him such an obvious recruit to what the party he founded has become, although he might have lived with that. But I suspect what would shock him most is the class nature of the leadership. Because, for him, “at heart the Labour Party was to be a working-class party”. Our greatest hero? I would answer Bob Holman’s question in the affirmative.

Keir Hardie: Labour’s Greatest Hero?
by Bob Holman
Lion, £10.99

The only place you can read all of Tribune's articles as soon as they are published is in the magazine. To find out more about subscribing from as little as £19, click here.

About The Author

Glyn Ford is a former Labour MEP and author of North Korea on the Brink: Struggle for Survival
  • swatantra

    Would Hardie recognise the Party as it is at present?
    Should we confine ourselves just to the working class or should we not have an appeal to other sections of society, a Party for all the people.
    So was Blair right in saying ‘We are all middle class now?’

  • swatantra

    Would Hardie recognise the Party as it is at present?
    Should we confine ourselves just to the working class or should we not have an appeal to other sections of society, a Party for all the people.
    So was Blair right in saying ‘We are all middle class now?’

  • Robert

    Like everything else in this country along comes somebody and say OK we will take this party this way, Labour is now a party which is fighting the Tories for the Conservative title, I’m old enough to remember Nye Bevan, sadly he would be turning over in his grave now if he saw the future for Labour fighting the Tories for the Conservative title.

  • Robert

    Like everything else in this country along comes somebody and say OK we will take this party this way, Labour is now a party which is fighting the Tories for the Conservative title, I’m old enough to remember Nye Bevan, sadly he would be turning over in his grave now if he saw the future for Labour fighting the Tories for the Conservative title.

  • terence patrick hewett

    The Labour Party needs to confront the internal stresses set up by its history: the party was based on a combination of middle-class radicalism and working-class social conservatism. The middle class radicals regarded working class morality with unconcealed contempt; so amply illustrated in George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion. The first half of the 20th century was a very dangerous place for the lower middle and working classes; it was a society in which the word “ruination” meant exactly that; a destruction complete and total. The much sneered at working class morality, strong family and individual self control was a defence mechanism for survival in a dangerous world. That sneering of course always emanated from a position of middle class financial security; as indeed it does today.

    Middle class radicalism has more than a tendency to regard the electorate as merely a de-humanised abstraction to be used up and disposed of at will; or as the Spanish liberal philosopher Ortega y Gasset put it; “the inert matter of the historical process.” After 1945 this radicalism triumphed within the party and they embarked upon a programme of social engineering which many in the old working classes regard as a cruel betrayal of their sacrifice in two world wars; and believe me they have long memories.

    And there lies the rub; the Labour Party clearly cannot continue to square the circle. It must either become truly representative of working people, “communal and civic, relational and intermediate” or the failed top down prescriptive scenario which has alienated so many people will predominate, with predictable consequences.

    It seems to me for what it’s worth, that the party is having great difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that the electorate is not what it was: they are more sophisticated, better educated and much less tribal than they were in the past. And with good reason, trust thee not.

  • terence patrick hewett

    The Labour Party needs to confront the internal stresses set up by its history: the party was based on a combination of middle-class radicalism and working-class social conservatism. The middle class radicals regarded working class morality with unconcealed contempt; so amply illustrated in George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion. The first half of the 20th century was a very dangerous place for the lower middle and working classes; it was a society in which the word “ruination” meant exactly that; a destruction complete and total. The much sneered at working class morality, strong family and individual self control was a defence mechanism for survival in a dangerous world. That sneering of course always emanated from a position of middle class financial security; as indeed it does today.

    Middle class radicalism has more than a tendency to regard the electorate as merely a de-humanised abstraction to be used up and disposed of at will; or as the Spanish liberal philosopher Ortega y Gasset put it; “the inert matter of the historical process.” After 1945 this radicalism triumphed within the party and they embarked upon a programme of social engineering which many in the old working classes regard as a cruel betrayal of their sacrifice in two world wars; and believe me they have long memories.

    And there lies the rub; the Labour Party clearly cannot continue to square the circle. It must either become truly representative of working people, “communal and civic, relational and intermediate” or the failed top down prescriptive scenario which has alienated so many people will predominate, with predictable consequences.

    It seems to me for what it’s worth, that the party is having great difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that the electorate is not what it was: they are more sophisticated, better educated and much less tribal than they were in the past. And with good reason, trust thee not.

  • swatantra

    … and the working class is ever diminishing, and the middle classes ever growing.
    So where are yougoing to invest your scarce resources? The Labour Party is a Peoples Party and represents all classes. In fact it is classless.

  • swatantra

    … and the working class is ever diminishing, and the middle classes ever growing.
    So where are yougoing to invest your scarce resources? The Labour Party is a Peoples Party and represents all classes. In fact it is classless.

  • Clem the Gem

    Sorry but neither of these views really add up. Yes class has changed, but if your definition of class rests on power and control, then this fabled “growing middle class” is in many cases no more than white collar workers. Just look at the position of pub landlords for example – In Hardies time, they would have been rightly seen as middle class, with a certain level of standing and independence within their communities. this is certainly not the case now.
    As to the working classes “social conservatism”, well that is only partly true at best.

    Would the early pioneers still recognise Labour now? A moot point in some cases, but reports of our death have been greatly talked up by those with axes to grind on both right and left. Plus ca change.

  • Clem the Gem

    Sorry but neither of these views really add up. Yes class has changed, but if your definition of class rests on power and control, then this fabled “growing middle class” is in many cases no more than white collar workers. Just look at the position of pub landlords for example – In Hardies time, they would have been rightly seen as middle class, with a certain level of standing and independence within their communities. this is certainly not the case now.
    As to the working classes “social conservatism”, well that is only partly true at best.

    Would the early pioneers still recognise Labour now? A moot point in some cases, but reports of our death have been greatly talked up by those with axes to grind on both right and left. Plus ca change.

blog comments powered by Disqus