The Great Man theory of history is one that, throughout time, many people have embraced. It is a theory that many modern historians tend to reject because it can often be seen as a simplification of how events occurred and the actual influence any one individual can have on those events. However, this doesn’t stop historians from using biography as a means of telling a particular story. This is Peter Clark’s approach in his excellent book, The Men of 1924: Britain’s First Labour Government, which focuses on the first Labour government, formed 100 years ago this year.
Clark’s work focuses primarily on putting the government of 1924 in context by focusing on the lives of the individuals who comprised it prior to the government’s formation. The actual government itself is only covered in the book’s last chapter. Given that government’s short time in office, and lack of a parliamentary majority it is understandable that Clark should focus on the personalities of the main players in that government rather than the government itself. As Clark intones at the beginning of the book “Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour government of 1924 was the most diverse there had been in British history…There were no old Etonians in the cabinet – was this for the first time ever?”
The groundbreaking elements of the MacDonald government can therefore be said to not lie in its legislative achievements but in the sheer fact that the illegitimate son of a Scottish farmer, who had never attended either Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Oxford or Cambridge became Prime Minister. MacDonald’s cabinet, consisting of men who often hadn’t finished their primary education let alone attended university, reflected the sea change that the 1924 government represented. For the first time in the history of Britain, a significant proportion of representatives had directly experienced the extremes of poverty and had managed to climb to the top. Indeed, as an illustration of how unusual it was, on the day that he was to meet with Ramsay MacDonald to ask him to form a new government, George V recorded in his diary “I wonder what she [Queen Victoria] would have thought of a Labour government!”
For Clark, 1924 itself represents an opportunity to explore the Labour Party’s origins and showcase how by a relatively early point in its history Labour had found itself in a position in which it could govern. The profile of Ramsay MacDonald is especially important as Clark provides a balanced and expansive look at MacDonald’s abilities, his mastery of the House of Commons and its procedures, whilst not shying away from how MacDonald ensured it would be he that became Labour’s first Prime Minister. MacDonald’s understanding of both the system and of Labour’s new mass of MPs allowed him to strip from J.R. Clynes the possibility of being Labour’s first Prime Minister.
MacDonald has often become frozen in a time as the greatest traitor Labour has produced, but this often undermines the significance of his role in ensuring that Labour was able to become an electoral force. MacDonald’s multifaceted personality is key to understanding the Labour Party during this period and as such Clark’s excellent profile of him serves as the justifiable centrepiece of the book. It is this area that Clark’s book succeeds most – focusing on the individual, the “Great Men”, who made up that government and explaining how pivotal their personalities were to the success of the Labour Party both from its inception and from its entry into government.
For Clark, 1924 serves as much as an example of the importance of representation as it does in showing how Britain was changing in the 1920s – his profiles concentrate on that distinction between MacDonald and his predecessors to show how he as an individual was able to overcome the challenges of his background and why he alone, unlike his contemporaries, was able to succeed in climbing to the top.Clark doesn’t just do this through analysis of individuals like MacDonald and his new Chancellor Philip Snowden, but through the evolution of different strands of Labour thought which include the group Clark classes as representing “Old Labour” – the likes of Sidney Webb, one of the founders of the Fabians and Fred Jowett, a trade unionist who had by 1924 represented parts of Bradford since the turn of the century. Versus the likes of “New Labour” in the former Liberal Viscount Haldane and former Conservative Viscount Chelmsford.
Clark’s broad grouping showcases the difference in the approach of the more traditionalist elements of Labour, often somewhat wary of MacDonald, and those who were more willing to embrace MacDonald’s leadership. This broad grouping does, however, have its limits. Chelmsford’s inclusion, for example, is more for completion’s sake rather than him being a true representative in any meaningful sense of “New Labour”; Chelmsford served in MacDonald’s cabinet less out of agreement with the Labour Party and more a sense of duty to ensure that the government could function, particularly in the Lords.
As such these divisions are ultimately somewhat arbitrarily used; it is a means of creating a distinction within the book between those who had recently decided to switch to Labour and those who had been involved in the party for a longer period. Therefore it is important to stress that these distinctions aren’t as apparent as those between “Old” and “New” Labour later on in the century and as such should be viewed simply as a means of neatly separating parts of the book rather than providing an insight into any real break between different groups within the party. There certainly were differences, but they were not as broad as Clark’s classification seems to imply.
It is important to consider that Clark’s profiles, whilst well written, are only relatively short. Meaning that for readers who wish for a more in-depth look at each individual leader, more fulsome autobiographies or biographies should be sought, such as the recently republished edition of Philip Snowden’s autobiography edited by Alex Clifford. Yet it is clear Clark’s aim is not to provide an in-depth biography of each member of the MacDonald cabinet, rather his aim is to create a collective depiction of the type of men that first brought Labour to power. In this he succeeds by providing enough detail that each profile is worth reading but that it is short enough that someone unfamiliar with the history of Labour or the politics of the era doesn’t become too bogged down in detail.
Whilst some may wish for a more in-depth look at the actual policies of the 1924 government, Clark’s profiles of its major figures and the early Labour Party provide the perfect overview for those who know little about that era of Labour history. Clark’s refreshingly frank focus on the individuals who helped to build Labour make this book especially appealing to those who haven’t read much on the period. If you are looking to understand how that government rose and fell then this isn’t the book for you – The Wild Men might be a better choice. However, if you are interested in finding out more about the lives and careers of the men who formed that government then The Men of 1924 is the perfect entry point.