AHC/WI: Liberals whole-heartedly and successfully implemented The Newcastle Programme

Thomas1195

Banned
In UK 1892 election, Liberal Party was able to win the election by campaigning for an innovative Radical programme called Newcastle Programme, which fused radical reforms with Home Rule agenda.

Here is the Newcastle Programme:
The Newcastle Programme was a statement of policies passed by the representatives of the English and Welsh Liberal Associations meeting at the annual conference of the National Liberal Federation (NLF) in Newcastle upon Tyne in 1891. The centrepiece of the Newcastle Programme was the primacy of Irish Home Rule, but associated with it were a raft of other reforms, in particular: land reform; reform of the Lords; shorter parliaments; district and parish councils; registration reform and abolition of plural voting; local veto on drink sales; employers' liability for workers' accidents and Scottish and Welsh disestablishment.

The Newcastle Programme was therefore important for two reasons; first, it gave the Liberal party a Radical agenda on which to fight the next general election and second, the detailed 'shopping list' of policies it adopted was innovatory in British politics, setting a precedent for modern political parties. Today ordinary members of all major political parties participate in policy development and the parties present the electorate with a programme or manifesto for government, agreed or endorsed in some way by their members.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Newcastle_Programme

IOTL, only the death duty was passed.

What should have been done to make more of the Programme being passed?
Especially after Gladstone, who cares about Home Rule more than the Programme, retired. Who should succeed him instead of Rosebery? Morley, Spencer, or Harcourt?

Besides, how would a successful Newcastle Programme affect future Britain? Would this prevent the future rise of Labour as the second largest party?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Any thoughts on this?

Up until 1890s, Liberal still had strong support from trade unions. Would they be able to succeed in absorbing them with a successful Newcastle?
 
Spencer probably had the best chance of pushing it all through. Harcourt rather hot tempered and not wonderful at compromise. Morley's working class background would have been used against him to paint him (quite undeservedly) as some sort of Jacobin.
 
I think its a complicated scenario.

Firstly, it won't prevent the rise of Labour as a political party. Although in the 1880s the Liberals had support from some Trade Unions, it important to remember that the very nature of Trade Unionism was changing in the period. The phenomenon of New Unionism, and the growth of new mass movement unions who were interested in fusing and combining to work together, meant that increasingly the labour movement was diverging from the Liberal Party. There is very little in the Newcastle Programme that would directly appeal to Unions, for example, beyond the Workman's Compensation stuff that was being mulled over by the Tories by that point as well. OTL the preponderance of financiers and industrialists in the Liberal higher echelons were already balking at doing too much for the Unions. Likewise it does very little for the growing socialist movement in Britain, that was going to feed into the Labour Party. It doesn't touch key socialist talking points like nationalisation, labour exchanges, enfranchisement, or the reform of the poor law that were motivating many left-wing radicals at the time.

Whether it prevents Labour becoming the second party and eclipsing the Liberals is harder to tell - so much of that was due to events beyond the scope of this program such as the war.

Secondly, though, I think it would be very difficult for the Liberals to push this agenda through. OTL much of the leadership was very skeptical about the program as a whole, and ignored more than they took onboard. Even with a change of leadership, you'd see the same push back from the Tory dominated House of Lords as you got in 1909-1910 without the 'Dreadnaughts and Welfare' argument that the Liberals were able to make use of in 1910 given that the international climate was less heated in the 1890s.

If it passed? Its hard to say. I don't think, given the vast unpopularity of Home Rule amongst some voters OTL, that the Liberals Government would survive much longer even if they did pass the whole of the program [and that is a very big IF]. You might even see Tories and Liberal Unionists combine to overturn some of the laws when they got into office - potentially you might even see defections from the Liberal Party given the OTL opposition of figures like Rosebury to Lloyd George's reforms.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
OTL much of the leadership was very skeptical about the program as a whole, and ignored more than they took onboard
Thats why I mention Gladstone's resign. Having a more enthusiastic reformer as the new leader. But I believe his successor would be less obsessed with HR.

It doesn't touch key socialist talking points like nationalisation, labour exchanges, enfranchisement, or the reform of the poor law that were motivating many left-wing radicals at the time.
It's hard to pass all of these before 1900.
 
Thats why I mention Gladstone's resign. Having a more enthusiastic reformer as the new leader. But I believe his successor would be less obsessed with HR.


It's hard to pass all of these before 1900.


Well maybe, but firstly Gladstone was incredibly popular with the Liberal rank and file, so it would maybe be more realistic for him to die than just up sticks and resign. But more importantly, the Irish Parliamentary Party hold the balance of power in the 1892-1895 Government. How is any Liberal leader going to put Irish Home Rule on the backburner without risking the collapse of his minority Government without Irish support? Redmond would just keep piling on the pressure. Plus the Newcastle Programme put Irish Home Rule front and centre.

As for the Trade Unions, yes of course its hard to pass though before 1900. But my point was that was what the Unions wanted in the 1890s and was part of why they grew impatient with the Liberals. What I was trying to say was that your POD doesn't change that urge to find alternative parliamentary support that led the Unions to help set up the Labour Party because it offers almost nothing of the things that either they or the nascent socialists wanted.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well maybe, but firstly Gladstone was incredibly popular with the Liberal rank and file, so it would maybe be more realistic for him to die than just up sticks and resign. But more importantly, the Irish Parliamentary Party hold the balance of power in the 1892-1895 Government. How is any Liberal leader going to put Irish Home Rule on the backburner without risking the collapse of his minority Government without Irish support? Redmond would just keep piling on the pressure.
Rosebery. And his government collapsed due to his conflict with Harcourt (which dated well before he became PM), and the Cordite vote, rather than Home Rule.

Someone like Spencer might be more skillful to hide Home Rule away quietly and focus on other issues first, like Lord Reform or other issues. But for things like Labour Exchange, you need at least someone more progressive, at least equal to HCB, Arthur Acland, or Asquith.
 
Top