Barbara Castle And The Birth And Failure Of In Place Of Strife

The British Labour government published the white paper In Place of Strife in January 1969, which aimed to strengthen union rights and at the same time to take more control of union behaviour relating to strikes so as to prevent unions from breaching the interests of the whole country. Most Labour MPs and unionists regarded the white paper as an infringement of union’s inherent right, that is, free collective bargaining. They opposed it strongly. As a result, the white paper did not become the law. The battle between the Labour government and the TUC caused by the white paper led to the division of the Labour Party, which was one of the reasons for Labour’s failure in the general election in 1970. In Place of Strife originated from the specific historical situations of 1960s, and was also imprinted with the characteristics of its creator, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, Barbara Castle.Barbara Castle was born in a British middle class left-wing family in 1910. Influenced by her father, Castle took great interests in politics and had the ambition to become a politician since an early age. Castle’s parents were both dedicated socialists who thought socialism and acted socialism as well. They helped lower class people such as miners a lot. Under such influence, Castle developed her own idea of socialism and was active in all kinds of activities. For example, she joined the ILP Guild of Youth, went canvassing for Labour candidates, and participated in the school’s mock election. Castle went to the St. Hugh College, Oxford University to study politics, philosophy and economics in 1929, during which time she joined the Labour Club where she took part in debates and delivered speeches. Labour Party won the 1945 election and Castle became the youngest female Labour MP (Member of Parliament) at that time. She was appointed the Minister of Overseas Development in 1964. In 1967, Castle, the Minister of Transport, turned into the most popular minster in Britain because of her huge success in her road safety policies. When she was able to realize her political dreams on this broad stage, Castle acted socialism just as her parents had done. She proposed to offer interest-free loans to underdeveloped countries and made policies to make it easier for low-paid people to travel. She also believed that state intervention was an effective way to achieve equality. Castle demonstrated her passion for confrontation which developed in her early years when being the minister. She always believed that holding on to the principle was so much more important than winning the votes. She believed that if one can only keep one’s nerve and plug away at a reasoned argument, the natural fairness and common sense of the British people rally to one’s side.In April 1968, Castle took the position of Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and took the responsibility of defending the government’s price and income policy. This was not an easy job and she had to face the complicated political and economic circumstances.The British economy suffered a lot in the 1960s. The Labour government tried to promote economy by price and income policy but it didn’t work in the long run. Strikes, especially unofficial strikes happened a lot, which disturbed the political and economic order and resulted in discontent of the public. Under such circumstance, the Conservative Party published Fair Deal at Work in April 1968 and proposed that legal sanctions should be placed upon irresponsible strikes. In June, the Donovan Report reflecting the British trade union situations was published after 3 years of research. The report opposed to the reform by law and favoured the voluntarily self-reform by trade unions.The Donovan Report didn’t appeal to the increasing call for more control over unions’ behaviour among the people. Castle learned from her early experiences negotiating with trade unions that the reform of unions could not be achieved unless it was led by the government. Therefore, Castle drafted the white paper named In Place of Strife after the Sunningdale conference held in 15 November 1968. The white paper’s proposition was that union rights needed to be strengthened and unions should take more responsibility as well.3 panel clauses were included in the white paper, pointing to right of "free collective bargaining" of trade unions.Labour MPs and trade unionists expressed their strong opposition towards In Place of Strife. Jim Callaghan, Home Secretary, Vic Feather, the Secretary of the TUC and many others argued fiercely with Castle and Harold Wilson. At the beginning, Castle refused the suggestion that there should be an interim bill in order not to destroy the whole philosophy of the white paper. Unfortunately, as the situation became more severe, she had to compromise. On 5 June, Trade Union Congress passed Programme for Action. While making some concessions, they still expressed their strong opposition to the penal clauses. On 18 June, this Battle of Downing Street ended with the government’s failure.There are subjective and objective reasons why In Place of Strife failed. For Castle, the white paper was a product originated from her own perspective. As a left-wing politician, she wanted to raise the status of trade unions; as a government official, she needed trade unions to take the interests of the whole community into consideration. However, most Labour MPs and trade unionists didn’t share her grounds, which made it almost impossible for the white paper to be approved. Besides, Castle was too optimistic to evaluate the situation correctly to some extent. On the other hand, the conflict between the Labour government and the TUC had already existed prior to In Place of Strife. So it was so much more difficult to impose a policy aiming to limit the inherent right of trade unions in this case. In principle, In Place of Strife was an attempt of the Labour Party to manage the country by controlling the TUC, an interest group during its transition from a working class party to a party of the entire people. And its failure indicated that there would still be so much to be done for the Labour Party to become a catch-all party.