Bevin defends his anti-labour laws¶
Core Argument¶
In this chapter, the author presents a fierce polemic against the new Defence Regulation 1AA, an anti-strike law introduced in Britain in 1944, and against the trade union bureaucracy that supports it. The core argument is that the regulation is not a genuine measure against “Trotskyist agitators,” as officially claimed, but a deliberate assault on the entire working class, designed to criminalise strike action and suppress rank-and-file dissent. The author draws a direct historical parallel with the 1924 Campbell Case, in which the Communist Party leadership was framed by the ruling class as a prelude to the General Strike of 1926. The new regulation is compared to the Combination Laws of the early nineteenth century, with the Trade Disputes Act dismissed as comparatively amateurish. The chapter quotes Labour MP Neil Maclean, who warns that the regulation brings back the spirit of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, and notes bitterly that the Minister of Labour, who once celebrated those martyrs, now helps to reverse trade union gains.
The chapter’s key claim is that the regulation exposes the open gulf between the trade union bureaucrats and the workers they claim to represent. The bureaucrats, it argues, have signed agreements full of anomalies without consulting their members, and now rely on police and prison sentences—up to five years and a £500 fine—to enforce those agreements. The regulation makes it an offence to “declare, instigate or incite” any strike in essential services, or to express sympathy for strikers, even in unofficial meetings. The author insists that recent strikes were caused not by agitators but by the arrogant policies of employers and the government, and by the undemocratic behaviour of union leaders.
A notable polemic is directed at Aneurin Bevan, who is described as close to the trade union bureaucrats. Bevan is quoted at length, delivering a devastating critique from within the labour movement: he accuses Conservative members of giving legal protection not to trade unions but to unpopular officials who can no longer command their members’ loyalty and must threaten them with gaol. Bevan’s speech is used to reinforce the chapter’s central thesis—that the further one moves from the rank and file to the “jaded, cynical, irresponsible trade union official,” the more support the regulation receives. The chapter concludes by warning that the union leaders are preparing for future industrial storms, not by fighting the bosses, but by siding with them and calling in the police.