.
| Collapse of
the Liberal Party |
| [Reprinted from Land
& Liberty, November-December, 1971] |
THE DECLINE of the Liberal Party was not due to the inescapable logic
of history, or the inapplicability of Liberal remedies to the issues of
the day, but to avoidable mistakes made by Liberals themselves. What
failed was not Liberalism but Liberals."
So writes Dr. Douglas of the major theme of his book*, the astounding
story of the twenty-five years from the General Election of 1906 to that
of 1931. The secondary theme, the persistence of the Party since then in
defiance of "the usual rule that an institution must either advance
or retrogress" brings the story up to the present day.
In fact the Liberal collapse occurred over the ten years between the
outbreak of World War I, when a Liberal Government was in office, and
the General Election of 1924, which returned a mere forty Liberal M.P.s
of whom only seven had won their seats against both Conservative and
Labour opposition. 1929 was better, but at the time of the Slump the
last of a series of disastrous splits sundered the Liberal Party, and
its representation in the House of Commons has never been numerically
significant since.
The book is what it says it is, the history of the Liberal Party.
Because "we are here concerned primarily with the effect of events
upon Liberals rather than with the effect of Liberals upon events"
it is of great advantage for the reader to have some acquaintance with
the general history of the present century. Nevertheless, sufficient
information on the principal developments and major issues is supplied,
through at least until 1933, for the main flow of events to be
appreciated too. In fact, the book is most lucidly and tightly written,
and the material admirably arranged and presented. Thus, the reader is
surely and knowledgeably guided through the divisions and alliances,
groupings and counter-groupings, splits and reunifications, which are
the story of the Liberal Party from 1916 to 1926. This is the period of
Asquithian and Lloyd Georgeite factionalism, the period when,
electorally, the Party collapsed, but the seeds of that disaster had
already been sown before World War I broke out.
In what is perhaps the most important chapter in the book. Dr. Douglas
traces the relationship of the Liberal Party with the Trades Unions, the
Labour Representation Committee, and, eventually, the Labour Party, in
the period up to the outbreak of war in 1914. It is an astonishing story
which unfolds. Although Lord Rosebery had issued a warning as far back
as 1894, consistently down to 1914 and even afterwards, "the Party
Whips fought those people who contended that the existence of a separate
Labour organisation would at best split radical votes and at worst
threaten the existence of the Liberal Party." Thus electoral
arrangements were concluded favouring the Labour candidates, no effort
was made to prevent the Miners' Federation from switching its
allegiance, and no resistance was offered when the Labour Party insisted
that Lib-Lab M.P.s defend their seats as Labour. None of this need have
proved fatal in the long run, though, if the Trade Union Act of 1913,
described by Dr. Douglas as "perhaps the most disastrous measure
which the Liberals could possibly have set upon the Statute Book,"
had not made provisions for a separate Union political fund, which by
definition could not be used for industrial action or for general
welfare purposes, and which inevitably therefore made its way in large
part into Labour Party coffers.
If the Liberal Party's collapse is attributable primarily to what
Liberals themselves did, or did not do, it is a good deal less easy to
explain why the Party has been able to maintain for the last thirty-five
or forty years its small but frequently vigorous hold on life. The
author suggests a number of possible reasons, but the most likely one
seems to be "that the Liberal persistence has been due to different
things at different times." Has the Party a future? Dr. Douglas
thinks so, though he does suggest that an internal danger faces Liberals
if they continue to ignore traditional Liberalism in the way they have
done in the 1960s.
|