Sir, – Fintan O'Toole's characterisation of the Labour Party's abstention from the 1918 general election as a tragic mistake and a missed opportunity represents an outdated view that has been disputed by more recent historical analysis ("Labour Party's long road from tragedy to farce", Opinion & Analysis, May 27th).
The principal reason for Labour’s decision to withdraw was that it had difficulty securing candidates to run in its interest. Many who were associated with the Labour Party or trade union movement were already committed to Sinn Féin, in particular Constance Markievicz and Joseph McGrath, later to serve as ministers for Labour in the first Dáil.
The decision also took into account Labour’s fear of alienating support in Ulster if it was seen to be too closely associated with Sinn Féin’s plans to abstain from Westminster and establish an alternative constituent assembly in Ireland. Labour was prepared to join Sinn Féin in the former plan but undecided about the latter. The consensus among historians and political scientists is that Labour took the only realistic option available to it in 1918.
The notion that Labour was irreparably damaged by its 1918 abstention does not stand up to a scrutiny of subsequent local and national election results. It won the second-highest number of seats (394) after Sinn Féin (550) in the January 1920 local elections for urban district councils.
Admittedly it did not perform as well in the following June’s elections for county and rural district councils, but this was not surprising as these areas were less likely to support Labour.
The circumstances of the War of Independence and the extent of intimidation of Labour voters and candidates by Sinn Féin were also significant factors.
However, the strongest evidence of the Labour Party’s resilience is to be found in the 1922 general election, in which 17 of its 18 candidates were elected. – Yours, etc,
Dr MARIE COLEMAN,
School of History
and Anthropology,
Queen’s University
Belfast.