Clause IV

For the group in Labour student politics, seeClause Four Group.

Clause IVis part of the Labor Party Rule Book which sets out the aims and values of the BritishLabour Party.The original clause, adopted in 1918, called forcommon ownershipof industry, and proved controversial in later years;Hugh Gaitskellattempted to remove the clause following Labour's loss in the1959 general election.

In 1995, under the leadership ofTony Blair,a new Clause IV was adopted. This was seen as a significant moment in Blair's redefinition of the party asNew Labour,but has in the years since survived beyond the New Labour branding.

Text

Sidney Webb,a socialist economist and early member of theFabian Societywho drafted the original Clause IV in 1917.

The original version of Clause IV was drafted bySidneyandBeatrice Webbin November 1917,and adopted by the party in 1918.It read, in part 4:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of thecommon ownershipof themeans of production,distributionandexchange,and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

This section was widely seen as the Labour Party's commitment tosocialism,even though the word "socialism" is not explicitly mentioned.The Manchester Guardianheralded it as showing "the Birth of a Socialist Party", stating that:

The changes of machinery are not revolutionary, but they are significant. There is now for the first time embodied in the constitution of the party a declaration of political principles, and these principles are definitely Socialistic.... In other words, the Labour party becomes a Socialist party (the decisive phrase is "the common ownership of the means of production" )... Platonic resolutions have been passed before now, both by the Labour party and by the Trade Unions Congress in favour of the Socialistic organisation of society, but they are now for the first time made an integral part of the party constitution.

In 1918,nationalisationwas seen by many voters as akin to modernisation – the nationalisation of the railways was a widely supported policy, for instance, as it would reduce the plethora of uncoordinated and competing companies. This text is usually assumed to involve nationalisation of the whole economy, but close reading of the text shows that there are many other possible interpretations.Common ownership,though later given a technical definition in the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976, could meanmunicipal ownership,worker cooperativesorconsumer cooperatives.

In December 1944, the Labour Party adopted a policy of "public ownership"and won a clear endorsement for its policies – the destruction of the "evil giants" of want, ignorance, squalour, disease and idleness (identified byWilliam Beveridgein theBeveridge Report)– in the post-war election victory of 1945 which broughtClement Attleeto power. However, the party had no clear plan as to how public ownership would shape their reforms, and much debate ensued.

The nationalization was led byHerbert Morrison,who had had the experience of uniting London's buses and underground train system into a centralized system in the 1930s. He started with theBank of Englandin April 1946, whereby stockholders received compensation and the governor and deputy governor were both re-appointed. Further industries swiftly followed: civil aviation in 1946, and railways and telecommunications in 1947, along with the creation of theNational Coal Board,which was responsible for supplying 90% of the UK's energy needs. 1946 also saw the establishment of theNational Health Service,which came into force in July 1948; railways, canals, road haulage and electricity were all also nationalised in 1948. By 1951, the iron, steel and gas industries had also been brought into public ownership.

Hugh Gaitskell's fight

After losing the1959 general election,Labour Party leaderHugh Gaitskellcame to believe that public opposition tonationalisationhad led to the party's poor performance and proposed to amend Clause IV.Theleft wingof the party fought back and managed to defeat any change: symbolically, it was then agreed to include Clause IV, part 4, on Labour Party membership cards.

The economic crisis of the 1970s, and the defeats suffered by thetrade unionmovement, as well as the decline in influence of theCommunist Party of Great Britain,led to a strengthening of the position of Labour Party members who were opposed toMarxism.

Tony Blair's alteration

Tony Blair,Labour leader 1994–2007 and Prime Minister 1997–2007

Tony Blairhad in 1993, before becoming Leader of the Labour Party, written a pamphlet for theFabian Societywhich criticised the wording of Clause IV for not clearly stating the means and ends of the party.Blair put forward a case for re-defining socialism in terms of a set of values which were constant, while the policies needed to achieve them would have to account for a changing society. At the conclusion of the 1994 conference, after becoming Leader, Blair proposed that the Labour Party needed a new statement of aims and values and stated that he would draw one up and present it to the party. This astonished many people, as the last time such a move had been taken in the late 1950s, it had been a failure.The new version was adopted at a Special Conference at Easter 1995 following a debate, and reads, in part:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

This version of Clause IV currently appearson the back of individual Labour Party membership cards today.

Presentationally, the abandonment of the socialist principles of the original Clause IV represented a break with Labour's past and, specifically, a break with its 1983 Manifesto (dubbed "the longest suicide note in history",byGerald Kaufman,one of the party's MPs),in which greater state ownership was proposed.

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership

The leader of the Labour Party from 2015 to 2020,Jeremy Corbyn,was a consistent supporter ofrenationalisingpublic utilities,such asBritish Railandenergy companies,to bring them back intopublic ownership.

Corbyn ignited controversy within his party in an interview withThe Independent on Sunday:

"I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that's restoring the Clause Four as it was originally written or it's a different one, but I think we shouldn't shy away from public participation, public investment in industry and public control of the railways. I'm interested in the idea that we have a more inclusive, clearer set of objectives. I would want us to have a set of objectives which does include public ownership of some necessary things such as rail."

Although this has been seen by some as an endorsement for the reinstatement of the original Clause IV, Corbyn denied this and said that more discussion within the party was needed.

Other uses

Main article:Clause Four Group

Clause Four was also the name of a campaigning group within the Labour Party's student wing (nowLabour Students), which succeeded in ending its control by theMilitantgroup in 1975. However, the attempt of the Clause Four group to oppose Militant in theLabour Party Young Socialists(LPYS) was a failure, and LPYS was eventually dissolved.

Clause Four moment

The changing of Clause IV was seen by political commentators as the defining moment at whichOld LabourbecameNew Labour.The phrase "Clause Four moment" has subsequently become a metaphor for any need or perceived need for a fundamental recasting of a political party's principles or attitudes.

See also

• Labour Party Constitution

Further reading

• Bale, Tim. "‘The death of the past’: Symbolic politics and the changing of clause IV."British Elections and Parties Yearbook6.1 (1996): 158-177.

• Coates, Ken.Common Ownership: Clause IV and the Labour Party(Spokesman Press, 1995)online
• Jobson, Richard. "‘Waving the Banners of a Bygone Age’, Nostalgia and Labour's Clause IV Controversy, 1959–60."Contemporary British History27.2 (2013): 123-144.https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2012.753179

• Jones, Tudor. "‘Taking genesis out of the Bible’: Hugh Gaitskell, clause IV and labour's socialist myth."Contemporary British History11.2 (1997): 1-23.online
• Jones, Tudor. "Labour’s Constitution and Public Ownership: From ‘Old’ Clause Four to 'New’ Clause Four." inThe Labour Party: A Centenary History(Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2000). 292-321.

• Kenny, Michael, and Martin J. Smith. "Discourses of modernization: Gaitskell, Blair and the reform of Clause IV."British Elections & Parties Review7.1 (1997): 110-126.https://doi.org/10.1080/13689889608412978

• Riddell, Peter. "The end of clause IV, 1994–95."Contemporary British History11.2 (1997): 24-49.https://doi.org/10.1080/13619469708581435
• Robinson, Emily. "Recapturing Labour’s Traditions? History, nostalgia and the re-writing of Clause IV."British Journal of Politics and International Relations9 (2007): 582-598online

External links

• Clause IV, current and original