# Bristol Bus Boycott



## bi0boy (Aug 27, 2013)

Good article here about the boycott, when unions colluded with management to keep the workforce white:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23795655


----------



## ddraig (Aug 27, 2013)

only 50 years ago


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2013)

...and with local govt. Bit more complicated than that, but for broad stroke history it will do.


----------



## wiskey (Aug 27, 2013)

I was just reading that, I'd never heard of it before. Interesting.


----------



## Manter (Aug 27, 2013)

wiskey said:


> I was just reading that, I'd never heard of it before. Interesting.


it was on that Paul O'Grady working class programme in the first week.  There is a thread on here and the consensus seems to be that the programme is a bit feeble, but I quite enjoyed it and learned about stuff like this I hadn't heard of


----------



## wiskey (Aug 27, 2013)

I faded out of the end of that telly show, it started off ok but got a bit dull. The second episode I found much more interesting.

I was thinking more about the fact that I've been to the revamped M Shed etc and don't remember it being mentioned there, but then perhaps when the child dictates the agenda I missed it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2013)

It is/was part of the bristol people thing if i remember right.


----------



## _pH_ (Aug 27, 2013)

wiskey said:


> I faded out of the end of that telly show, it started off ok but got a bit dull. The second episode I found much more interesting.
> 
> I was thinking more about the fact that I've been to the revamped M Shed etc and don't remember it being mentioned there, but then perhaps when the child dictates the agenda I missed it.


 
I'm sure I saw something on it there - but then the last time I went to M Shed I was ill and killing time before meeting my g/f for lunch so wasn't really concentrating on what I was looking at.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 27, 2013)

So (ignoring straight-forward racism) what was management's motivation ?
If the existing employees / union were worried about loss of overtime etc, surely management would have been all for it ?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 27, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> So (ignoring straight-forward racism) what was management's motivation ?
> If the existing employees / union were worried about loss of overtime etc, surely management would have been all for it ?


Combination of personal racism, racism projected on to their workforce, desire to keep labour they considered to be superior in a tight labour market.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> So (ignoring straight-forward racism) what was management's motivation ?
> If the existing employees / union were worried about loss of overtime etc, surely management would have been all for it ?


 
Why ignore racism?


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why ignore racism?


 
You know he meant "other than racism" don't you?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 27, 2013)

a more in-depth article, including some quotes from managers here



gentlegreen said:


> So (ignoring straight-forward racism) what was management's motivation ?


 
a) belief that passengers would be frightened away

b) belief that existing (white) workers would start to leave the job

are the principal two apart from the obvious...


----------



## spliff (Aug 27, 2013)

The TV news story about it is a segment of Newsnight tonight.
Just under an hours time.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 28, 2013)

That was very creepy watching that - having been a toddler at the time in a bus-using family.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 28, 2013)

Tory spin on it :-

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/l...m-the-unions-and-the-bristol-bus-boycott.html


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 28, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Tory spin on it :-
> 
> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/l...m-the-unions-and-the-bristol-bus-boycott.html


 
 (at them that is)

I can't find the answer, but I'm not entirely convinced that the conservative party of the day supported either the 1965 or 1968 race relations acts. Or the 1975 one.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 28, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> (at them that is)
> 
> I can't find the answer, but I'm not entirely convinced that the conservative party of the day supported either the 1965 or 1968 race relations acts. Or the 1975 one.


 
In terms of public institutions, I'd say unions were among the least racist in the 1960s... (and in this, and the 1955 West Brom strikes, union officials are important in gaining acceptance for ending the colour bar - not that they weren't shit in other ways and that union officials don't come with their own problems)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> (at them that is)
> 
> I can't find the answer, but I'm not entirely convinced that the conservative party of the day supported either the 1965 or 1968 race relations acts. Or the 1975 one.


 
Did they vote against them?


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 28, 2013)

I found another article where the writer points to really shit wages and drivers working 100 hour weeks.

http://tawcabout.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/bbc-news-what-was-behind-the-bristol-bus-boycott/


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> I found another article where the writer points to really shit wages and drivers working 100 hour weeks.
> 
> http://tawcabout.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/bbc-news-what-was-behind-the-bristol-bus-boycott/


 
That's not an article - it's a comment on an article. A particularly stupid comment at that.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 28, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> In terms of public institutions, I'd say unions were among the least racist in the 1960s... (and in this, and the 1955 West Brom strikes, union officials are important in gaining acceptance for ending the colour bar - not that they weren't shit in other ways and that union officials don't come with their own problems)


 
Dunno really.

I think the picture was variable, and to be honest, I don't think the labour movement of the day was always entirely on the side of the angels when it comes to 'equalities' issues.  There are no doubt good examples as well as bad.

But since the labour movement consists of rank & file members, local shop stewards and national leadership, there's always going to be some variance, and times when local workers / activists support unofficial action against the wishes of the HQ

There were (for example) disputes among London bus workers in the late 40s about the continued employment / recruitment of women conductors (women conductors had been taken on as a temporary measure during both world wars, but broadly were allowed to stay on once forces demobilisation got going after 1945, and recruitment of new women conductors continued.)

And there are recorded cases of organised labour not being supportive of rights for ethnic minorities - some (not all) London dockers went on strike and demonstrated in support of Enoch Powell, for example.  The conservative party in the 50s / 60s was certainly not as antagonistic towards unions as the party of the Thatcher era was, and I believe there was a conservative trade unionist association at that time.

The reaction from within the labour movement / party to the "loony left" ideas that got floated in the early 80s (gay rights, anti racism, anti sexism and so on) was not universally positive.

Although in both cases it's probably the case that the labour movement of the day was more progressive than the conservative party of the day. 



butchersapron said:


> Did they vote against them?


 
I don't know if the tories did vote against the race relations act/s either via a party whip, or whether many / most did on a free vote.  I suspect they did, and note that all the race relations acts were passed by labour governments.  I'd tried to find evidence that tories did vote against the act/s but failed to do so (the full parliamentary archive needs a login)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

Need more than suspicion here. Many tories recorded in diaries that 68 was something they could and would never try.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 28, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I don't know if the tories did vote against the race relations act/s either via a party whip, or whether many / most did on a free vote. I suspect they did, and note that all the race relations acts were passed by labour governments. I'd tried to find evidence that tories did vote against the act/s but failed to do so (the full parliamentary archive needs a login)


 
Against the whip it seems:

"That is why the action of the so-called "rebel Conservatives" in opposing the Bill in another place has, in my view, done a great deal of damage to the cause of racial harmony. They have, as Mr Powell did in his speech, provided a rallying point for race prejudice and ignorance. They have afforded a veneer of semi-respectibility, however slight and however nauseating, to those who think and act in terms of racial discrimination. The fact that some of them did not intend this to happen is neither here nor there. This is a fact which will be with us for many months to come."

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1968/jul/15/race-relations-bill


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

That means tories whipped for the racist legislation.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That means tories whipped for the racist legislation.


 
that's not how I read it - if the "rebel conservatives" opposed the bill, that implies that the party line was to support it.

I have tried ploughing through chunks of Hansard and have given up.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

Seems they did have a line to vote against - on the grounds of:



> Mr Heath stated he had himself said that immigration must be strictly limited and that immigrants already here should be encouraged to go home.
> 
> Mr Heath insisted that it was the tone and timing of Mr Powell's speech that had caused offence.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> that's not how I read it - if the "rebel conservatives" opposed the bill, that implies that the party line was to support it.
> 
> I have tried ploughing through chunks of Hansard and have given up.


 
That's what i said.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 29, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Dunno really.
> 
> I think the picture was variable, and to be honest, I don't think the labour movement of the day was always entirely on the side of the angels when it comes to 'equalities' issues. There are no doubt good examples as well as bad.
> 
> ...


 
I certainly think the trade unions could've done a lot more to tackle racism in the workplace, and there are a handful of examples of disputes where racist groups of workers used trade unions to exclude people. But given the levels of racism in society at large (one poll estimated support for Powell's speech at 74%), it's actually remarkable how few incidents there were - especially when you consider that for most workers in that period the trade union was their main means of expressing grievances.

I don't think you can hold the unions as institutions responsible for the attitudes of some of their members in Bristol, Wolverhampton and West Bromwich, and the response to such attitudes was universally that they didn't support a colour bar, and the workers should get back to work and accept it. And when the West Bromwich bus drivers brought a resolution on the matter to TGWU conference in 1955 it was easily defeated. So overall, I think you could say that the union as an institution was a force against racism, if not a very active one.

Beyond that, there's the extent to which unions were an institution in which black and south asian workers could and did participate (probably second only to churches in this regard), and by the 1970s, minority ethnic workers were actually more likely to be union members than white british workers.

In fact, I'd say the main criticism I'd make of trade unions at this point was not racist exclusivity, but actually their excess of ideological "colour blindness". One of the reasons why trade unions recruited among black and south asian workers was because their official ideology was that a worker was a worker was a worker. In the later period that manifested itself as a tendency to ignore problems that were specific to black and south asian workers or to treat them the same way they would any other dispute.

So you get something like the Imperial Typewriters dispute (1974), where the TGWU regional organiser responded to a wildcat strike by ignoring their grievances, and telling the strikers to go back to work. Now, that's what a local union official would have done with any wildcat strike (although from his public statements, the guy clearly was also a racist) - but he was clearly ignoring a load of factors which made his stance untenable: that the union organisation in the plant was the exclusive property of the white workers, that the shops where most of the workers were South Asian weren't being allowed to elect a steward, and were being discriminated against over pay and working conditions - things the union and the shop floor organisation would've usually responded to if they'd been white. By just saying "a worker is a worker", a lot of unions were blind to a lot of discrimination - and there's not that many cases where unions take action against discrimination until the 1980s (although there are a few, the stewards at Cowley forced management to end the practice of only employing white workers on assembly).


----------



## BlackArab (Oct 9, 2013)

I only found out recently that bus company backed down on the same day as MLK's 'Dream' speech,a fact made better considering the organisers of the boycott were inspired by Rosa Parks and the American civil rights movement. Considering Britain's sensitivity at the time about its relationship with its former empire, the MLK story would have been a godsend as it totally overshadowed this event.


----------



## _pH_ (Oct 17, 2013)

_pH_ said:


> I'm sure I saw something on it there - but then the last time I went to M Shed I was ill and killing time before meeting my g/f for lunch so wasn't really concentrating on what I was looking at.


Was in M Shed again at the weekend (for the Taylor Wessing thing - that's worth a look) and there IS a bit on the boycott - on the 1st floor.


----------



## GarveyLives (Oct 30, 2019)

It is good to see that this historical event is still remembered by some people 56 years after it occurred:

How the Bristol bus boycott changed UK civil rights

How the Bristol Bus Boycott is being turned into a musical for the very first time







*Lest We Forget*​


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 18, 2020)

I was only very young when this happened, and I never got to ask my father about it. He was about as un-racist as you can get, as well as a strong trade unionist.


----------



## GarveyLives (May 25, 2020)

GarveyLives said:


> It is good to see that this historical event is still remembered by some people 56 years after it occurred:
> 
> How the Bristol bus boycott changed UK civil rights
> 
> ...


How the _forgotten_ organisers of the Bristol Bus Boycott changed the course of workers rights


----------



## GarveyLives (Aug 6, 2020)

GarveyLives said:


> It is good to see that this historical event is still remembered by some people 56 years after it occurred:
> 
> How the Bristol bus boycott changed UK civil rights
> 
> ...


​It is good to see this Bristol hero remembered by the professor of black studies at Birmingham City University:

*Roy Hackett*: the _civil rights hero_ who stood in front of a bus – and changed Britain for ever


----------



## CNT36 (Feb 15, 2021)

Some of you may be interested in this talk on Thursday night at 5pm.



Spoiler: Zoom gubbins



Thursday 18 February 2021 @ 5 pm

Exeter Branch of the Historical Association

Topic: The Bristol Bus Boycott 1963

Time: Feb 18, 2021 05:00 PM London

Speaker: Dr Robert Guyver, Branch Secretary and Honorary Research Fellow, University of Exeter



Robert Guyver is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Join Zoom Meeting





__





						Join our Cloud HD Video Meeting
					

Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board...




					us02web.zoom.us
				






Meeting ID: 829 6348 6666

Passcode: 666248


----------



## GarveyLives (Sep 15, 2022)

I do hope that this has gone well:


----------



## kalidarkone (Sep 15, 2022)

GarveyLives said:


> I do hope that this has gone well:


It's tomorrow.


----------



## GarveyLives (Sep 16, 2022)

kalidarkone said:


> It's tomorrow.



Sincerest apologies for this mistake.

I hope it has enabled more locals to come out and give this civil rights hero the send-off he deserves as he crosses to join the ancestors.





​


----------



## kalidarkone (Sep 16, 2022)

GarveyLives said:


> Sincerest apologies for this mistake.
> 
> I hope it has enabled more locals to come out and give this civil rights hero the send-off he deserves as he crosses to join the ancestors.
> 
> ...



I have no doubt the Bristol community will be out in force, especially the Jamaican community. It will stop traffic for sure.


----------

