The Wild Men: The Remarkable Story of Britain's First Labour Government

by David Torrance

The incredible story of the first Labour administration and the 'wild men' who shook up the British establishment.

In 1923, four short years since the end of the First World War, and after the passing of the Act which gave all men the vote, an inconclusive election result and the prospect of a constitutional crisis opened the door for a radically different sort of government: men from working-class backgrounds who had never before occupied the corridors of power at Westminster.

The Wild Men tells the story of that first Labour administration - its unexpected birth, fraught existence, and controversial downfall - through the eyes of those who found themselves in the House of Commons, running the country for the people. Blending biography and history into a compelling narrative, David Torrance reassesses the UK's first Labour government a century after it shook up a British establishment still reeling from the War - and how the establishment eventually fought back.

This is an extraordinary period in British political history which echoes down the years to our current politics and laid the foundations for the Britain of today.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction

336 pages, Hardcover

First published January 18, 2024

About the author

David Torrance is Devolution and Constitution Specialist at the House of Commons Library. He was formerly a freelance writer, broadcaster and journalist, reporting on the Scottish Parliament for STV, and contributing political commentary to a wide range of publications including The Scotsman, The Herald and The Times. He is the author of several books on Scottish politics, the best known being his unauthorised biographies of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond. He is the author of Standing up for Scotland: Nationalist Unionism and Scottish Party Politics, 1884–2014 (Edinburgh University Press, 2020) and the editor of Ruth Davidson's Conservatives: The Scottish Tory Party, 2011–19 (Edinburgh University Press, 2020) and Whatever Happened to Tory Scotland (Edinburgh University Press, 2012).

Reviews

[Geevee · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Torrance's book, timed for the centenary of the first UK Labour government, is a very welcome addition to inter-war political writing. These Labour men [they were all men in the Cabinet - although three women* were returned as MPs] came to lead the country just six years after the ending of World War One; something that would have seemed impossible before that great war.

The Wild Men came to government with no experience of such high office. These men were not the professional classes or landed gentry of Britain's traditional political classes. This is highlighted in discussions on how they should dress (very much a tradition of breeches and top coats dating back at least a couple of centuries), and who could afford or borrow the suitable clothes when they were received by His Majesty The King for the traditional Scrolls of Office. Interestingly, the rules were relaxed by His Majesty, and this helped to modernise some aspects of the traditions around taking office. Moreover, this first Labour administration also utilised Liberal and Conservatives in some positions owing to the absence of experience or relevant skills in what was a mainly manual group of Labour MPs.

Mr Torrance brings the period to life with insight into aspects such as those above, as well as focussing on the men and the positions they held in the Cabinet. This provides a useful background to each man and then gives detail on what they did and said whilst in office as well as how others in parliament, the Independent Labour Party, unions and the wider public reacted and responded.

The short-lived Labour government of 1924 was not as socialist or reactionary as many feared or perhaps hoped [depending on their political stance], and had little time to effect great change. It had many challenges to navigate too given the impact World War One still had on both home and abroad, including serious unemployment, high sovereign debt, difficulties on trade and stark economic forecasts; evolving and complex foreign relations, including Ireland as a free state, a revolutionary Russia and a broken Germany. Yet, although its short in time, it did play a significant part in the changes to the Versailles treaty negotiated with France, Japan and Germany, plus some social legislation at home, including raising salaries of agricultural workers, reducing national debt, and programmes to build roads and building good quality homes for working people and bringing many back to work in construction. Although, properly started under the next administration, the first Labour government also put in place the initiation and plans for the new National [Electricity] Grid.

It did however, suffer greatly with perception, trust and indeed publicity, in its dealings with Communist Russia, notably around proposed loans by the UK Labour government, and the infamous Zinoviev letter also created much heat, scandal and ultimately help contribute to the fall of Ramsay McDonald and his administration. The press, along with, naturally the Conservatives and the Liberals, especially Lloyd George, were also harsh with their comments and were always seeking at all times to create concerns, challenge the steps the government was taking and of course report the negative to their readers.

The collapse of the government is well described, as is the impact notably on MacDonald and his health. The handover of power late 1924 happens, as it always is done, with quiet relinquishment of power and the new administration accepted by the monarch. As the "Wild Men" left parliament they had shown that whilst not perfect, the voters and the country saw that Labour could run the country. For the Liberals they unwittingly watched on as the 1924 Labour party became and stayed the other big party along with the Conservatives. 100 years later that still remains the case.

* The Northampton MP, Margaret Bondfield, who was a shop-workers' union leader, became the first female cabinet member later in the decade , although she only a junior minister in this administration.

David Torrance writes clearly, with verve and holds the reader's attention, whilst also making sure the complexities of events a century ago fold easily into the narrative. One hopes he will direct his pen to other governments and events of this eventful inter-war period.

[CPE · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Torrance has written an excellent, excellent book: The Wild Men. The subtitle positions it perfectly; “The Remarkable Story of Britain’s First Labour Government.” I’ll be honest, I expected this to be fairly dry and I only read it because I have a general interest in the inter-war period. Because subsequent Labour politicians have vilified Ramsey Macdonald since the 1930s, I anticipated a trudge through inter-generational Labour bickering. I was so wrong! Torrance’s book is (and I don’t think I have ever described a political history book in these words) riveting. It is a joy to read; it is highly illuminating; it is – to me – a revelation.

The Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, called a general election for 6th December 1923 – primarily on the protectionist policy of Imperial Preference. He was far too complacent and the Conservatives lost their majority in the House of Commons. That is, although the Conservatives had more MPs than any other party, the combined non-Conservative MPs outnumbered the Conservatives. This unprecedented election result saw the Unionists (think Conservative – it’s a tad complicated!) with 258 MPs, Labour with 191 and the united Lloyd-George and Asquithian Liberals in third place with 158. Because Baldwin asked the country to support that specific issue by voting Unionist - and the country effectively turned him down, Baldwin resigned and advised the King to ask Labour to form a government. Torrance is very good at quoting contemporary diaries, correspondence and newspapers. At the time, Baldwin told the King’s Private Secretary, this “[…] has upset every calculation made by the experts on both the Conservative and Liberal sides.” One is tempted to reply, “No s**t, Sherlock!?”

It is really difficult for us, a century later, to imagine the reception that the mere possibility of a Labour government had upon British society. Even MacDonald himself was worried, anticipating that the new Labour MPs would “expect the Labour Government to do all sorts of impossible things.” Would these newly-elected “wild men” expect to remove the monarchy; destroy the Empire; nationalise all industries; and handover the county to the Russians? There was genuine concern that there would be virtually revolution. However, the UK’s first Labour Government was initially looked upon with forbearance by politicians from other parties. They expected Labour to totally muck up the opportunity and prove themselves unfit to govern, thus eliminating the Labour Party and returning Britain to the historic two-party system. How wrong they were!

Torrance gives several of the more colourful characters in that government a chapter each. Over and over again, we see how the new ministers were determined to master their brief and how they impressed civil servants by their dedication, unlike several of their Liberal and Conservative predecessors. Some of those civil servants had to adjust to new ways of working. When the previous Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Duke of Devonshire. wanted to see his private secretary, he rang a bell to summon him. His Labour successor, Jimmy Thomas, would put his head around the door and shout “Come ‘ere, you b****!!”

That first Labour government only lasted nine months and was terminated needlessly by Macdonald’s poor political judgement. However, the ‘wild men’ had shown that they were highly capable of governing and the see-saw of British politics saw Labour continue to rise as the Liberals continued their slide out of sight at a national level.

#TheWildMen #NetGalley

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

thanks to the publisher and netgalley for a free copy in return for an open and honest review.

interesting examination of the minority first ever Labour Government of Ramsay Mcdonald which was short lived january to november 1924 and looks at how radical it was for a general party after general suffrage in 1918 and how members of the parliamentary party were from the working classes. The author examines the backdrop and issues which plagued the Government and its downfall due to fake Russian leaflet and other issues.

[Annarella · Rating 5 out of 5]

This part of history was quite new to me and it was a fascinating read, well researched and informative.
It's not a dry political analysis but a book that looks at the human side and the people involved.
Well done, an intriguing read
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher for this ARC, all opinions are mine

[History Today]

NB: This was reviewed alongside The Men of 1924: Britain’s First Labour Government by Peter Clark and A Century of Labour by John Cruddas.

Ahead of a possible Labour victory in Britain’s next general election, three new histories published on the centenary of the party’s first government provide a useful opportunity for reflection and perspective. Peter Clark’s brisk and personable The Men of 1924 devotes roughly half its length to Labour’s early years, as the party transformed itself ‘from pressure group to government in waiting’. Formed in 1900 from the trade union movement and a patchwork of small and frequently fractious socialist parties, societies and groups with origins in the late 19th century, the party’s initial electoral successes were limited to the local level but had wide-ranging reach. In its early strongholds in the Welsh valleys and poorer London boroughs such as Poplar, Labour councillors focused on improving working conditions and on health, housing and education, often building in microcosm the mechanisms of welfare that would be introduced nationally under Labour governments of greater success and stability than that of 1924.

The election of December 1923, in which a shock electoral advance by Labour led to an unprecedented three-way split in the Commons, saw the party enter government a month later for the first time. At a century’s distance, this nine-month-long minority administration – a venture cautioned against at the time by some of its own members – tends to be treated as an embarrassing failure or false start at best. Both Clark and David Torrance, in his more tightly focused The Wild Men, offer more even-handed assessments of the 1924 government. Both authors also paint largely forgiving portraits of its leader Ramsay MacDonald – although his political achievements and his personal snobbery, prickliness and social climbing have been judged so harshly by the majority of Labour’s historians that the bar for sympathy is somewhat low. Clark’s series of biographical sketches, and Torrance’s more smoothly integrated study, bring in the personalities beyond MacDonald that shaped Labour’s brief time in power: Lancashire autodidacts Thomas Shaw and J.R. Clynes; Fabian intellectuals such as Sidney Webb; the avuncular Arthur Henderson and the brash and bibulous Jimmy Thomas.

Other than Margaret Bondfield, the former shop assistant and trade union activist who would later became Britain’s first female cabinet minister in the second Labour government of 1929-31, this story reflects the domination of 1920s British politics by what Clark, pre-empting the obvious observation, acknowledges as ‘white men in dark suits’. Both books do, however, draw on some of the many female voices behind the scenes, including Beatrice Webb, Dolly Ponsonby and journalist Mary Agnes Hamilton. The 1924 Housing Act, enabling the subsidised building of public housing, was driven by health secretary John Wheatley’s experience of rent strikes in Glasgow – collective actions which were largely led by women. Labour’s electoral success reflected the rising influence of newly enfranchised demographics – both women and working-class men – and, in terms of class, was unarguably groundbreaking. MacDonald himself was the illegitimate son of a housemaid and a farmhand, and his cabinet replaced Old Etonians with former miners, railwaymen and millworkers.

Read the rest of the review at HistoryToday.com.

Rhian E. Jones writes on history and politics. Her latest book, with Matthew Brown, is Paint Your Town Red: How Preston Took Back Control and Your Town Can Too (Repeater, 2021).

[JamesBrek · Rating 3 out of 5]

I staggered through this one. Really interesting

[Kevin Crowe · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Torrance's "The Wild Men" is the story of the UK's first Labour government, which took office in January 1924 even though it wasn't the largest party (The Tories - or the Unionist Party as it was called back then - had the most seats, followed by Labour, followed by the Liberals). After Baldwin's Unionists were unable to form a government, Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald became Prime Minister and led a minority government for 9 months before it lost a vote of confidence.

Most commentators have criticised the 1924 Labour government, arguing it achieved little and was too ready to compromise with the forces of capital. David Torrance disagrees. He accepts there were many failures and that MacDonald made a number of mistakes. But he argues that, given it was a minority government that had to make deals with other parties, there was a limit to what it could have achieved. And MacDonald, as with every Labour leader since, had to unite a party whose members ranged from former Liberals to the revolutionary Clydesiders.

This first Labour government was too ready to compromise its policies, but in several areas it was successful, particularly in housing, education, agricultural wages and two aspects of foreign policy. It was MacDonald's government that began a programme of building social housing, thus helping to reduce homelessness. It also introduced the principle of education free at the point of delivery to all children up to the age of 14. It also ensured that agricultural workers received a higher wage, though it didn't introduce its manifesto promise of a minimum wage.

There were two foreign affairs successes, both of which MacDonald himself can take much of the credit for. The first was to renegotiate German reparations imposed at the end of the First World War. Labour argued that the reparations were too severe and were damaging the Germany economy to such an extent that they could damage the economies of other countries. MacDonald was able to persuade the leaders of other countries to renegotiate and to include Germany in the negotiations.
The other major foreign affairs success was to recognise the Soviet Union, to introduce diplomatic relations and to begin to trade with Russia once more. MacDonald was as anti-Communist as anyone and, unlike some others in the party such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, he had never flirted with support for the Soviet Union. But he saw the importance of having diplomatic and trading relations with all countries.

Ultimately the lack of a majority, the vacillating of MacDonald himself and mistakes made by both him and other ministers presented the Tories with an opportunity to bring down his government, which they did with support from the Liberals (who were later to regret their actions when they lost most of their seats and never really recovered). The election itself was a disaster, particularly after the right wing media produced a letter apparently written by Zinoviev, the Soviet Foreign minister, supporting Labour because it would revolutionise the British working classes. The letter was a forgery, but it did its damage.

Torrance looks at the histories and roles of those who made up the Labour government's first Cabinet, including disagreements between individual ministers, looks at the legacy of the first Labour government and analyses where things went wrong. Most of the Cabinet came from working class families and communities, as did MacDonald himself.

MacDonald was to return as prime minister in 1929, again leading a minority government, but then in 1931 split the Labour party by agreeing to preside over a government of National Unity, one that included people from different parties. In that year's general election Labour was decimated, returning only 52 MPs and MacDonald's "National Labour" a mere 13. Like the vast majority of Socialists of all shades, I believe that by going into government with the Tories and splitting the Labour party, MacDonald betrayed those who wanted to see change. But none of this should blind us to what the first Labour government achieved.

[SRW03 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading The Wild Men by David Torrance, I was struck by how much it speaks to our own moment in 2024. The story of the 1924 Labour government is not just a tale from the past; it is a mirror held up to the present. In both cases, you see a Labour Party burdened by scrutiny, constantly having to prove its competence before it is allowed to define its vision. The sense of being on trial—of governing not with a blank cheque but with borrowed authority—runs through both eras.

McDonald, like Starmer a century later, was branded by some as a betrayer of socialist ideals (MacDonald more readily given the 1931 debacle). Yet both were also brought low by forces beyond their control: a hostile press, determined to see weakness, and a one-eyed narrative that never allowed balance or generosity. The parallels are uncomfortable, but they are real.

And yet within that climate, there were achievements that spoke of what Labour could be. Wheatley’s housing reforms, unapologetically socialist in spirit, remind us of the urgency with which crises must be met. His words carry echoes in Starmer’s attempts to ground his government in a vision of change. But here lies the great contrast: compared to Attlee’s sweeping post-war settlement, Wilson’s modernising dynamism, or Blair’s mandate for renewal, both 1924 and 2024 were and are moments of constraint. Attlee built the welfare state, Wilson reshaped Britain for a new technological age, New Labour rewrote the settlement for a globalised world. By contrast, the first budgets of Snowden and Reeves, modest and deliberately unambitious, tell us everything about the mantel they were handed. Safety first was not cowardice; it was necessity. It was about proving Labour could govern, about creating the conditions in which greater reform might follow.

What Torrance also makes clear—and what strikes me when comparing 1924 and 2024—is how both MacDonald and Starmer found their greatest impact on the foreign stage rather than the domestic. MacDonald’s role in the Dawes Plan negotiations, his efforts to ease post-war tensions in Europe, and his vision of Britain as a stabilising force gave Labour an international seriousness that exceeded its fragile parliamentary base. Similarly, Starmer has moved quickly to re-anchor Britain’s global standing—restoring relations with Europe, America, strengthening commitments to NATO, and projecting stability in a turbulent world. In both cases, foreign policy became the arena where Labour could act with authority, even when constrained at home. Their credibility abroad often contrasted with their frustrations at home, and it underlines how governing Labour leaders have sometimes had to seek legitimacy internationally while waiting for space to emerge domestically.

Personally, as someone working in education, I was particularly drawn to Charles Trevelyan’s reforms. His focus on smaller class sizes, fairer pay for teachers, and providing meals for children was visionary, practical, and humane. It resonates with the present moment too. In Bridget Phillipson’s leadership and in the decision to remove VAT on private schools, you see something of that same spirit: pragmatic reform with fairness at its heart. I think Trevelyan would take pride in how far the system has come, but he would also be troubled by what we still get wrong and by what we seem too ready to discard.

And that, ultimately, is the lesson of The Wild Men. Labour’s history is not just about victory or betrayal, nor about radicalism or caution alone. It is about the delicate balance between competence and ambition. Radicalism without credibility fails; caution without purpose stalls. In 1924 and in 2024, Labour faced the same challenge: to show Britain that change could be made safe, and that safety could become the platform for change.

Torrance’s book is a reminder that even in difficult circumstances, Labour governments—however short-lived or modest—matter. They lay the foundations. They prove the point. They keep the flame alive. Attlee, Wilson, Blair all built on those foundations, turning competence into courage, caution into transformation. The challenge for 2024 is the same: to take the trust that has been so hard won and turn it into the progress the country still desperately needs.

[Jakub Dovcik · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book on an interesting subject - the first Labour government of 1924, which served for just nine months under the premiership of Ramsay MacDonald.

These ‘Wild Men’ were anything but - a collection of men from the working class, middle class (including a few ex-Liberals like Viscount Haldane) and some intellectuals, whose success in this brief period was more in making Labour the legitimate alternative party of government, than in the policy changes they managed to achieve (most notable being the housebuilding subsidy programme initiated by the John Wheatley, the Minister for Health and allowing the entry of taxis inside Hyde park).

It was this period in government that managed to legitimise Labour and effectively destroy the Liberals (who paradoxically provided parliamentary support for their minority existence). Much space in the book is spent on proper clothing and procedure, but that is secondary to the overall point of the story - that Labour managed to govern responsibly, with no major scandals (except the few directly related to MacDonald and his personal financial affairs).

Ramsay MacDonald is presented more favourably than is usual (including the stories of his scandals), but still not too well - by the end, he is overworked from his double brief as a Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, where especially the latter one putting a great strain on him. The final scandal, the Campbell Case of 1924, which led to the downfall of the government makes him look rather chaotic and his handling of the Zinoviev letter looks really amateurish. In the end, it was his inability to handle the complex foreign policy challenges of late 1924 (which were the result of Labour’s foreign policy commitments from the previous manifesto about the normalisation of Britain’s relations with the Societ Union) against the backdrop of parliamentary opposition, the Red Scare and his own tiredness that led to the final fall of the first Labour government.

The book looks at the individual ministers, assessing favourably most of them. Especially interesting were John Wheatley, the Minister of Health, Charles Philips Trevelyan, the minister of education and Viscount Haldane, who seemed to cover briefs of what are now about five posts (Justice, Lord Chancellor, Defence, Leader of the House of Lords and Speakership in the Lords). Overall, none is seen as a disaster, which might be a result of a favourable account or the strength of the permanent civil service (well, except the final handling of the Zinoviev letter, where Labour got played).

In the year when Labour is battling for its place in the sun after 14 years of Tory government, this is an interesting story of what the first Labour government had to overcome to bring itself into Britain’s imagination as the true alternative party of government. It is a useful reading for anyone considering what it takes to develop a party for government.

[Sarah AF · Rating 4 out of 5]

You know, taglines can often be verging on the hyperbolic, but the story of the first Labour government was actually pretty remarkable!

It's been an age since I delved into this period of history and so much was familiar and, yet, with Torrance's thorough trawling of the archives, so much was equally unfamiliar and eye-opening. The aspects that I found particularly fascinating were the relationship between the government and the monarchy. So accustomed I've been to the notion that the monarchy is apolitical, the circumstances and kid-gloves that saw the tentative steps towards the King entertaining a government of the working classes was absolutely fascinating, as were the interventions and forceful suggestions from the man himself. It was the wilderness for both the King and the Labour politicians suddenly tasked with being brought up to speed with the etiquette of court and "the institution".

Politics is cyclical and in the frayed balance that the minority Labour government sought to find, it was more apparent that ever. Accused of pandering to the Right by the Left, feared for being too red, too communist by the Right. It seems that it is destined to be the eternal plight of the Labour Party, so naturally conservative-leaning are the institutions of the country and the psyche of the country as a whole. It's almost impossible now to imagine the party with the most seats not forming a government on hanging on to power at all costs and it was a gamble on the parts of all of the major parties. For Labour, it was an opportunity to prove that they were worthy. For the Conservatives, it was a considered strategic move to re-align the country to a two-party system with Labour as their opponents and a chance for Labour to nudge themselves out of government and allow the Conservatives to sweep back in. For the Liberals? They never truly recovered.

In terms of the machinations of government, the structure of governance and the British constitution, this is a genuinely fascinating insight into one of the most significant periods in British political history and how the structures of power and party actually work.

[Mark Allinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Full of interest, and, it appeared to me, a balanced account of the successes, failures and surrounding difficulties of the MacDonald government of 1924. It is hard to imagine a second party with less than a third of the seats in parliament forming a government nowadays and amazing that such an administration achieved much of anything at all. MacDonald comes across as a driven man, though unable to delegate and increasingly worn down into serious errors by his overbearing workload. Even so, he steered a middle course in the face of much hostility from within his own party as much as from his political opponents. He reassured the king and the establishment that he and his ministers could work responsibly in the context of the times.

Much good scholarship has gone into this book which draws on a breadth of source material. The biographical approach, minister by minister, sustains much of the book well, sandwiched by good contextual chapters on the start and end of the government. Even so, at times the text needed a more compelling and overarching narrative and often tended to get bogged down in quite complex specifics. A difficult balancing act to pull off - for me it would have been useful to pull back the focus to the bigger picture at more points of this book. Even so: a very readable and illuminating account with a clear and compelling conclusion.

[Colin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good introduction to the story of the Labour Government of 1924. It is framed, for the most part, on mini biographies of some of the key players, led by Ramsay MacDonald, but including such important contributors such as Philip Snowden, John Wheatley and Charles Trevelyan. It is a good narrative of the achievements and problems that Labour Ministers faced, and how they laid the groundwork for Labour achievements later in the century, especially the Attlee Governments after the Second World War.

Although Labour did quite well during its few months in office - and MacDonald's achievements at the Foreign Office are rightly credited - the author brings out the point that many Ministers already had government experience, either in the wartime coalitions (Henderson) or in the Liberal governments (Haldane, Trevelyan). So there were not all novices. Even so, Labour's competence in running a government was impressive.

I would have liked a bit more about the Government's relations with the wider Labour Party and Labour movement, and how they coped with a hung parliament and an uneasy relationship with the Liberals. But this book gives the reader a good overview and for this it is recommended.

[George Watson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting story of the bizarre political tightrope that ensued when a minority government of trade unionists and socialist intellectuals were able to form a government. Torrance lays out clearly the structural disadvantages they had to face, like the PM having to placate and compromise with the king, the aristocracy, and 2 strong opposition parties.

The reverberations of the Russian Revolution were also fascinating, and Torrance described well the beginnings of the fear of communism and socialism that still weaken the left today.

I also enjoyed the holistic view of Ramsay's government, ranging from successes in housing under Wheatley and yet major failures to live up to the basic principles labour had previously supported like devolution and nationalisation. I will say the structure was a bit dull, with each chapter focusing on one minister which kind of killed off the momentum for me, but definitely readable and revealing, especially regarding British political scandal and, dare I say, betrayal!

[Pippa Catterall · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a meticulously researched and engaging read. The life of a government is not always the most promising of subjects, even one as groundbreaking as Britain’s first Labour administration. Yet telling the story of the aspirations and tribulations of the men (they were nearly all men who composed it gives a human angle. There are some aspects that would have been interesting to explore more. For instance, we are told about the toll the double burden of Foreign Office and Premiership took of Ramsay MacDonald. Given the minority status of the government and the challenges that involved, I would also have liked to know more about the strains suffered by Ben Spoor, the Labour Chief Whip. This is, however, a minor quibble about a book which provides an engrossing and largely sympathetic view of a government that proved, in the end, more naive at times than wild, but in the process lastingly shook up the British political system.

[Philip Glanville · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read it over far too long passage of time, but it's a page turner once you properly dedicate the time. Each of the Wild Men are beautifully profiled, while the narrative of the first Labour Government develops in the background of each vignette. A fascinating collection of men and women, that invidually and collectively leave behind an important legacy. MacDonald remains a contested figure, but you leave the book more sympathetic than not, though perhaps more than a little frustrated that he simply wasn't just a bit better. The McVitie scandal has remarkable parallels, but lots more shapes and challenges the Government as they try and do deliver. Overall, Torrance does an amazing job of balancing history with biography, creating a fantastic story, and anchored in some 'remarkable' truths.

[David Cutler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting enough though necessarily constrained by the brevity of the Government. A lot of flapping at the beginning about getting the right court clothes and in what became a hall mark of Labour greater loyalty and reverence to the monarchy than the Tories. A Government ill prepared and fatally over reliant on MacDonald and his estimation of his own indispensable qualities which meant he was also Foreign Secretary as well as PM against the advice of the king. Scandals came quickly about accepting money for a peerage, so much so that they would prorbaly have lost even without the famous and forged Zinoviev letter.

[George Fairhurst · Rating 5 out of 5]

A period i don't know enough about, so very glad to have read/listened! Did have the issue of the first Ramsay MacDonald chapter going on just *slightly* too long to the detriment of the narrative flow, but overcame after pausing to progress other reads. Overall: well researched, well constructed (especially with the grouping around individuals rather than policy areas) and lively book which goes very far to illuminate this shadowy period of British history (which is often ignored or pushed past to get to the drama of the 1929 Labour Government)

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

100 years after Ramsay MacDonald's short-lived first Labour government David Torrance looks back to describe what happened, and reflects upon the personalities involved in some detail. Unavoidable lessons for contemporary politicians are jumping out from the page, and the same topics seem to be on the news a century later. It is clear that a great deal of research has gone in to writing this book. Fascinating stuff, and eminently readable.

[John Hobson · Rating 4 out of 5]

100 years on and the Labour party drew a veil over the first Labour government which didn't have a majority and both the Tories and Liberals set up to fail. The irony was that it was Liberals who lost out and were gone within a decade. David has meticulously researched the period and the characters and the cards played to McDonald in hindsight couldn't have been worse. However, it would be fitting 100 years on that the heir's to this party again win a landslide.

[Simon Chipps · Rating 4 out of 5]

52 Book Club: Related to the word "Wild"
4.5 stars
I really enjoyed this book. A brief history, at 250 odd pages, of Ramsay MacDonald's first Labour Government. The style is biographical, with the members of the cabinet getting a chapter each. I found this a fresh and engaging way to tell the story. Indeed, for such a short book to come away with such a full picture of the time, the events and a rounded portrait of all the major players is a real achievement. A strong recommend.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting and fair minded appraisal of the first Labour government, with historical echoes that seem resonant today (not only for the Labour movement but also with polling indicating a potential three way split at the next election). Some of the chapters are rather slight and it does feel like the book would not have been overstuffed at twice the size.

[Simon J Alvey · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book about the short and dramatic life of the first Labour government, told through a series of mini- biographies of the key players it really highlights how modest these men's backgrounds were. However this biography model does mean something is lost in the telling of the account of the government as a whole.

[Arran Douglas · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting and well written study into the first labour government. I think the approach - biographical studies of cabinet members - was a particularly interesting way to tackle this little known revolutionary moment in British history.

[James Marques · Rating 4 out of 5]

not rly a page turner but makes you appreciate how much can happen in british politics in under a year, and there are eerily similar parallels in internal labour factionalism and the handling of labour by the British press, between what's now over a century ago and tdoay

[Rhys McKendry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Feels rather lacking in political and economic context, which contributes to the shortness of the text. The biographical approach impedes the formation of a natural narrative.

[Eamon Walsh · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting read.

[Robert's reads · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.0

[Marshall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good overview of Labour’s first government.

[T · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed audiobook version as "book at bedtime" over past few nights.

[Samuel (Still Reading Sam) M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Normally a 4 means it's a good book
But I'm annoyed. It could have been so much more I feel.