No confidence in own programme¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter dissects the profound contradiction at the heart of the Labour Party’s 1945 election conference: a leadership that has no confidence in its own programme. The author seizes on Herbert Morrison’s warning to candidates to make only “authorised” promises, lest a future socialist Chancellor be unable to honour “unauthorised cheques” from mass bribery of voters. The jeering laughter from the floor that Morrison’s remark provoked is presented as damning evidence that the leadership views its own platform as fiscally unserious, a mere electoral tactic rather than a blueprint for social transformation. The chapter contrasts this cynicism with the intervention of a young soldier delegate, who criticised the programme for lacking “bigness and urgency”, suggesting its title ‘Let us Face the Future’ should instead be ‘On the Threshold of a New World or of Disaster’. This encapsulates the chapter’s core argument: there is no middle road between working-class control and a new society, or a return to unemployment and war.
The text provides crucial historical context by invoking the disastrous precedents of 1924 and 1929-31, when Labour formed minority governments and ultimately capitulated to capitalist pressures. The rank-and-file fear of repeating these debacles, or of another coalition with the Tories, forced the National Executive to issue a formal declamation against any future coalition with the Conservatives. Yet the leadership, through Harold Laski, simultaneously refused to tie the party’s hands regarding electoral pacts with “other people”—a formulation that the chapter exposes as a backdoor to Popular Frontism, including Liberals and even “progressive” Tories like Churchill. The narrow defeat (1,314,000 to 1,219,000) of a motion to refer back a Stalinist-inspired resolution on electoral unity with “progressives” reveals deep unease, but the leadership stifled debate by transforming the conference into an election demonstration, preventing the rank and file from voicing their criticisms.
The chapter’s polemic is directed squarely against the Labour leadership’s timidity and duplicity, but it is not a call for abstention. In a striking tactical turn, the author insists that the overthrow of the Tory government remains the most urgent task, and that criticism of the programme is insufficient—programmes must be “tested in action”. Drawing on Lenin, the argument holds that only the experience of millions, combined with revolutionary propaganda, can convince loyal Labour workers of the inadequacy of reformism. The chapter therefore calls for fighting alongside Labour workers to return a majority Labour government, while simultaneously pressuring the leadership to take real measures against the capitalists. The final warning is blunt: rely only on organised working-class strength, not on leaders who hobnob with the boss class. Vote Labour, but watch them.