Liberals avoid third party status in the 1920s

[swanarcadian]

Was there any way the Liberal Party could have avoided their descent into third place in the early 20th century, or was it inevitable? How might things have been different had the Liberals remained the principal challengers to the Conservatives to this day?

[mboy]

Have you read "The strange death of Liberal England"?

[raedwald]

The Liberals' decline was certainly not inevitable and numerous opportunities to save themselves were presented to the party which were not taken, with the best opportunity probably being avoiding the Gladstone-MacDonald Pact, which should surely be recognised as the most foolish and short-term thinking decision taken in British politics. Had such a pact never emerged, then the Liberals would have had a slightly smaller landslide in 1906 (which might have allowed the Conservatives to become the largest party in January 1910?), but it would have also meant that Labour would never breakthrough into double digits and become a serious force in British politics. Consequently, we would have seen the Conservative-Liberal party system continue, while Labour would be seen as a more successful version of the Social Democratic Federation (although that isn't saying much), gaining a few seats before eventually fading away and unable to make a serious impact on the political scene.

[Sibboleth]

Jun 16, 2018 23:15:57 GMT swanarcadian said:

Was there any way the Liberal Party could have avoided their descent into third place in the early 20th century, or was it inevitable?

About the only way would have been to replace Edward Grey as Foreign Secretary with someone less disastrously incompetent.

[carlton43]

There were massive drivers of political change in the rise of organised unionised labour, the votes for women movement, independent radicalism through education and the non-conformist churches, factionalism in the Liberal party, the impact of WW1 and peace movements. I can't see how the Labour Representation Movement could have been stopped from making a significant beach-head in a lot of industrial and mining seats. Then the rise of WEC, The Co-op Movement and the Fabian societies, plus the influence of radical newspapers.

The Conservatives were to one side of all this and could mop up some elements from the right of the Liberals and then even from the more moderate centre as matters developed. The Liberals main errors were bitter factionalism, strident personality cults, policy division and ill-judged coalitions with both sides, leaving themselves very exposed whilst left appeared less tainted and the right avoided virtually any taint at all.

In essence Labour had the zeal of youth and spirit of the age internationalism, the Conservative a visceral wish to survive at any price, and the Liberals more concerned with personalities and policies than survival.

[timrollpickering]

The most obvious comparison is Canada, where "Conservative" and "Liberal" may not have quite meant the same thing but where the old two party system was not permanently displaced. Some of that may be down to the failure of the Progressives to consolidate their position but it also showed that a Liberal party could overcome wartime splits and adapt to the changing world in order to stay as a viable party of government.

[iain]

If Ireland had been given home rule in the 1870s (ish) might that have changed something? Could have given the Liberals a decent base of relatively safe seats, and made it very difficult for Labour to win any sort of majority. Might also have avoided a damaging split in the Liberals.

[beastofbedfordshire]

Jun 17, 2018 13:29:19 GMT carlton43 said:

The Liberals main errors were bitter factionalism, strident personality cults, policy division and ill-judged coalitions with both sides, leaving themselves very exposed

Replace one word and you realise that some things never change.

[catking]

It is possible that the Liberals could have survived as one of the two main parties but that would only have been achieved by moving significantly to the left and accepting much heavier trade union involvement in the party. Or at the very least, they could have survived longer as a main party if they weren't so riven with infighting and incompetence.

But realisitically hard to see such an aristocratic party survive as the main party of the left after the move to universal suffrage in the long run.

[Deleted]

For reasons mentioned above, there were many reasons for it and hence it was pretty much inevitable.

But I do wonder that if the Liberals had chosen a different direction at the turn of the 20th century, they could have taken the Conservatives' spot as the main party of the right, and the main opposition to the social democratic/socialist movements - it happened in Denmark, as one example (there's a good reason to suggest that it happened in the Netherlands as well, albeit much, much more recently). Not that I really think it would have been better that way, but an interesting thought nonetheless, I think.

Otherwise, the one single thing that could have happened to keep the Liberals as a 'main party' that was remotely feasible would have been a change in electoral system, which was floated about as a serious idea at the time of the Liberals' fall from grace. But in that situation, we wouldn't have such a rigid two party system.

[yellowperil]

Jun 18, 2018 11:12:28 GMT @nw12398 said:

For reasons mentioned above, there were many reasons for it and hence it was pretty much inevitable.

But I do wonder that if the Liberals had chosen a different direction at the turn of the 20th century, they could have taken the Conservatives' spot as the main party of the right, and the main opposition to the social democratic/socialist movements - it happened in Denmark, as one example (there's a good reason to suggest that it happened in the Netherlands as well, albeit much, much more recently). Not that I really think it would have been better that way, but an interesting thought nonetheless, I think.

Otherwise, the one single thing that could have happened to keep the Liberals as a 'main party' that was remotely feasible would have been a change in electoral system, which was floated about as a serious idea at the time of the Liberals' fall from grace. But in that situation, we wouldn't have such a rigid two party system.

What would that have meant in practice, though? Simply that the party which we call the Tories (same people , same ideas), would simply have been called the Liberals instead? Would there then have been a conservative party further to the right?

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2018 13:19:22 GMT yellowperil said:

Jun 18, 2018 11:12:28 GMT @nw12398 said:

For reasons mentioned above, there were many reasons for it and hence it was pretty much inevitable.

But I do wonder that if the Liberals had chosen a different direction at the turn of the 20th century, they could have taken the Conservatives' spot as the main party of the right, and the main opposition to the social democratic/socialist movements - it happened in Denmark, as one example (there's a good reason to suggest that it happened in the Netherlands as well, albeit much, much more recently). Not that I really think it would have been better that way, but an interesting thought nonetheless, I think.

Otherwise, the one single thing that could have happened to keep the Liberals as a 'main party' that was remotely feasible would have been a change in electoral system, which was floated about as a serious idea at the time of the Liberals' fall from grace. But in that situation, we wouldn't have such a rigid two party system.

What would that have meant in practice, though? Simply that the party which we call the Tories (same people , same ideas), would simply have been called the Liberals instead? Would there then have been a conservative party further to the right?

One of those, I'd imagine. Like I said, I don't think would have been a good thing, just an interesting thought.

[polupolu]

As timrollpickering has pointed out, Canada is an example of a Liberal party that did survive as a major non-socialist party to the left of a Conservative party.

Fundamentally the British Liberal party (which I joined in 1979 and to which I would still belong ideologically) mishandled the first world war, mishandled the politics of the post-first-world-war period and the rise of Labourism (that very British amalgam of socialism and trade-unionism) and didn't have the leadership or political nous to make an overwhelming case for it's Keynesian economics (Keynes was a Liberal) in the Great Depression (compare and contrast to Roosevelt); or to claim the legacy of Beveridge (who was a Liberal).

There are forces in society, as it changes over time, that push the world in some general direction, but how parties respond to the challenges that these changes bring about seems to be an important factor in the long-term survival of a party.

To look at it from a different perspective, the ideological flexibility of the Conservatives can be argued to be the main reason for their astonishing long-term success. Initially a party of the landed interest *against* the newly-important industrialists, they eventually became the industrialist's party. As the party of protectionism (over which they split badly) they became the party of free trade. And look at what seems to be happening today: as the party of last-ditch support for the power of the House of Lords at the start of the 20th Century, some Tories now want to neuter the upper house. It is an astonishing history and quite unlike that of right wing parties in Europe. I strongly suspect that it is much more difficult for an ideologically based party to fundamentally change its spots at the drop of a hat in this way (though "nationalists" do seem better at this than other sorts of parties).

[tiberius]

Jun 18, 2018 19:04:10 GMT polupolu said:

As timrollpickering has pointed out, Canada is an example of a Liberal party that did survive as a major non-socialist party to the left of a Conservative party.

Fundamentally the British Liberal party (which I joined in 1979 and to which I would still belong ideologically) mishandled the first world war, mishandled the politics of the post-first-world-war period and the rise of Labourism (that very British amalgam of socialism and trade-unionism) and didn't have the leadership or political nous to make an overwhelming case for it's Keynesian economics (Keynes was a Liberal) in the Great Depression (compare and contrast to Roosevelt); or to claim the legacy of Beveridge (who was a Liberal).

There are forces in society, as it changes over time, that push the world in some general direction, but how parties respond to the challenges that these changes bring about seems to be an important factor in the long-term survival of a party.

To look at it from a different perspective, the ideological flexibility of the Conservatives can be argued to be the main reason for their astonishing long-term success. Initially a party of the landed interest *against* the newly-important industrialists, they eventually became the industrialist's party. As the party of protectionism (over which they split badly) they became the party of free trade. And look at what seems to be happening today: as the party of last-ditch support for the power of the House of Lords at the start of the 20th Century, some Tories now want to neuter the upper house. It is an astonishing history and quite unlike that of right wing parties in Europe. I strongly suspect that it is much more difficult for an ideologically based party to fundamentally change its spots at the drop of a hat in this way (though "nationalists" do seem better at this than other sorts of parties).

I suspect that one reason why Canada's Liberals have survived is that class divisions in Canada are less rigid than in the UK. More people see themselves as "average" and "middle class" by-and-large.
Which fits in with Canada being a rough cross between US and UK culturally.

[greenchristian]

There are three distinct scenarios here.

Scenario 1) The Liberals strangle the Labour Party at birth. In this scenario, the Liberals absorb the Labour movement into their electoral coalition to the extent that there is simply no space for the Labour Party to exist. This probably requires changes in the late 19th Century, but the key event is probably the Taff Vale Strike, and subsequent court case - which was probably the most important impetus for the Labour Representation Committee to become the Labour Party.

Scenario 2) The Labour Party comes into being, but remains marginalised. This scenario becomes more likely if the Representation of the People Act 1918 doesn't happen, or is significantly delayed or watered down (if, for example, World War 1 had happened differently). If the franchise is extended in this scenario, then the Liberals have to be much more in line with Trade Union demands or have to get a lot more of the newly emancipated womens' vote (if Asquith had championed, rather than obstructed womens' suffrage and brought it in much earlier, this might have been possible). Also, it would have helped if they hadn't split between Asquith's and Lloyd-George's factions during WW1, and if the Coalition Coupons had been handed out to almost all the Liberal candidates in 1918.

Scenario 3) The Liberal Party becomes the main right-wing party. The Liberals' response to the Labour challenge is to park their tanks on the Conservatives' lawn - they radically change tack, and significantly eat into Conservative votes in the rich areas of cities, the small towns, and the shires.


All three scenarios require quite significant changes from what happened in real life. And it seems likely that all three would require things outside of the Liberals' control to have played out differently.