Conservative and Liberal Switcharoo

How would it be possible if a Conservative party were right wing on social issues, but left wing on economic issues, with a Liberal party being left wing on social issues but right wing on economic issues in the UK?

How could such a scenario come about and the effects of it?
 
I think the first Labour MP described Disraeli and the Conservatives as being the party of the working class in the 19th century. Perhaps you could have the Conservatives swallow Labour at some point, perhaps in a scenario that avoids the Liberal suicide of the 1920s? I'm no expert on the period, but how about something like...

Britain loses WWI, with imperial territorial gains a poor figleaf. There is an attempted Communist uprising, which several Labour MPs join, that is put down after quite a deal of bloodshed on both sides. With both Labour and the primarily Conservative Government discredited, the Liberals enjoy a long period in power until the later 1930s, presiding over a period of economic success, and imperial reorganisation, doing stuff like granting India Dominion status.

In the early 1930s, after a third Liberal victory, the Tories and the remnants of Labour agree an electoral pact, which eventually sees a Conservative/Labour coalition enter office around 1940. After a decade or so in power, staring defeat in the face, the two parties opt to merge together, retaining the Conservative name, but focused very much on the working-class vote.

My ignorance of early 20th century British politics probably shows here: thoughts from others?
 
How would it be possible if a Conservative party were right wing on social issues, but left wing on economic issues, with a Liberal party being left wing on social issues but right wing on economic issues in the UK?

How could such a scenario come about and the effects of it?

Left wing and right wing are bad descriptors for political position. I presume that economically you equate right wing with more laissez faire regulation, small government, and high market freedom. Left wing social policies, I presume, would describe a philosophy of promoting individual liberties. I don't know about the UK, but in the US that would perfectly describe the Libertarian Party. They are the most ideologically consistent political party in the United States. I was proud to vote for Gary Johnson instead of one of the pathetic hackneyed candidates of either major party.

I don't see how you can be pro individual economic freedom but be in favor of government restricting social freedoms, or vice versa.

I don't know much about UK politics, but if the US is anything to go by they will gain zero traction. We have a much more developed sense of individual freedoms and anti-statism than any other country, yet the Libertarian philosophy has only limited appeal here. I guess taking money from the evil rich and dictating what people can do in the bedroom are much better platforms.

I think such a scenario as you describe is possible in your country, but what it would take is prolonged and profound economic malaise and a national backlash to statist policies and government in general. Maybe some kind of extreme right or left wing government coming to power and trying to control every facet of British existence to a ridiculous degree. Though it has to be an extreme government that does not carry out monumental acts of evil or cause the civilized world to smash the UK with military might.

Bottom line is that it requires a national culture change, not just certain politicians becoming more or less successful. I think we may be seeing the beginnings of such a phenomenon here as a reaction to our astoundingly overbearing Federal government.
 
Left wing and right wing are bad descriptors for political position. I presume that economically you equate right wing with more laissez faire regulation, small government, and high market freedom. Left wing social policies, I presume, would describe a philosophy of promoting individual liberties. I don't know about the UK, but in the US that would perfectly describe the Libertarian Party. They are the most ideologically consistent political party in the United States. I was proud to vote for Gary Johnson instead of one of the pathetic hackneyed candidates of either major party.

I don't see how you can be pro individual economic freedom but be in favor of government restricting social freedoms, or vice versa.

I don't know much about UK politics, but if the US is anything to go by they will gain zero traction. We have a much more developed sense of individual freedoms and anti-statism than any other country, yet the Libertarian philosophy has only limited appeal here. I guess taking money from the evil rich and dictating what people can do in the bedroom are much better platforms.

I think such a scenario as you describe is possible in your country, but what it would take is prolonged and profound economic malaise and a national backlash to statist policies and government in general. Maybe some kind of extreme right or left wing government coming to power and trying to control every facet of British existence to a ridiculous degree. Though it has to be an extreme government that does not carry out monumental acts of evil or cause the civilized world to smash the UK with military might.

In the era this would all be happening the answer to statist policies failing to prop up failing industries would be left anarchism most likely, not an unrestrained capitalism.

The big problem the libertarians have a lot of the time is that they have none of the appeals of the left or the right, they lack the economic stuff on the left that often leads people to embrace the far left and they lack the moralist tinge that makes people prefer the far right, they are extremists of a very specific sort who embrace very right wing financial policies while also being left wing on social issues which is just not really a market that exists much in most of the world.
 
I think the first Labour MP described Disraeli and the Conservatives as being the party of the working class in the 19th century. Perhaps you could have the Conservatives swallow Labour at some point, perhaps in a scenario that avoids the Liberal suicide of the 1920s? I'm no expert on the period, but how about something like...

Britain loses WWI, with imperial territorial gains a poor figleaf. There is an attempted Communist uprising, which several Labour MPs join, that is put down after quite a deal of bloodshed on both sides. With both Labour and the primarily Conservative Government discredited, the Liberals enjoy a long period in power until the later 1930s, presiding over a period of economic success, and imperial reorganisation, doing stuff like granting India Dominion status.

In the early 1930s, after a third Liberal victory, the Tories and the remnants of Labour agree an electoral pact, which eventually sees a Conservative/Labour coalition enter office around 1940. After a decade or so in power, staring defeat in the face, the two parties opt to merge together, retaining the Conservative name, but focused very much on the working-class vote.

My ignorance of early 20th century British politics probably shows here: thoughts from others?

How exactly could the British Empire lose territory in WW1? Also, would there be enough support for a Communist uprising?
 
Top