DBWI: Chamberlain defected to the Liberal Unionists following First Home Rule Bill

Thomas1195

Banned
As we know, IOTL, Chamberlain was enlisted by Gladstone in the drafting of Home Rule Bill and supported GOM in the failed passage of the First Home Rule Act.

After Gladstone retired, he succeeded him as party leader and went on to become one of Britain's greatest PMs, before retiring in 1909 and succeeded by David Lloyd George.

However, he was actually a Unionist and an Imperialist and only converted to Home Rule just before the introduction of the Bill in the Parliament.

What if Gladstone decided to carry on the drafting of the Bill alone and in secret?

Would Chamberlain remain with the Liberals or would he follow the Whigs and defect to the Liberal Unionists? Could the man ever become PM if he defected?
Would Lloyd George still become PM in 1906 or be marginalized by the right-leaning faction led by Asquith and Grey, which should be more powerful without a Chamberlain party leadership?
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
One immediate consequence is that this would seriously weaken the Liberal Party, possibly leading to a Tory-dominated 1890s. Chamberlain, himself an industrialist, might have led a large number of captains of industry to the Conservatives/Liberal Unionists. Also, the Liberals would lose Birmingham, their strongest power base IOTL.

Do you think that Chamberlain could have still become PM as a Liberal Unionist and Lloyd George could have still become PM in 1909?
 
This is interesting because it sets up a "screw the Liberals" timeline. You might even get the Tories to be something more than the perennial third party they wound up becoming.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
You might even get the Tories to be something more than the perennial third party they wound up becoming
OOC: The Labour Party would have no reason to exist ITTL, since many if not all of their first generation leaders were Chamberlain followers. And a Chamberlain leadership would have easily secure union support for Liberals.
More plausible outcome would be Tories being unelectable opposition.
 
Last edited:
OOC: The Labour Party would have no reason to exist ITTL, since many if not all of their first generation leaders were Chamberlain followers. And a Chamberlain leadership would have easily secure union support for Liberals.
More plausible outcome would be Tories being unelectable opposition.

OOC: Even if Labour doesn't appear ITTL, there would still be some type of left-wing party. There were several of them that formed towards the end of the 19th century.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
OOC: Even if Labour doesn't appear ITTL, there would still be some type of left-wing party. There were several of them that formed towards the end of the 19th century.
OOC: Well, these would be just a bunch of far-left extremists or proto-Communist intellectuals rather than trade unions, which ITTL would ally with the Libs. These fruitcakes would never overtake the Tories, who despite losing the industrial interest, still have strong backing from land-owning aristocrats and City financiers.

This is interesting because it sets up a "screw the Liberals" timeline.
Well, agree, the Liberals would have lost Birmingham and maybe the whole West Midland to the Unionists, which IOTL was their foremost powerbase (100% Liberal). They might have also lost support from industrial interests.

A lost of a strong radical voice would strengthen the right-leaning faction at the expense of the Radicals. We would not see PM Lloyd George in 1909 but Asquith/Grey/Rosebery.
These guys were really dangerous and generally opposed radicalism, especially Rosebery as this guy was also an idiot. IOTL, Chamberlain and Lloyd George had to lock them away by putting them into the Foreign Secretary and Colonial Secretary posts so that they could pass reforms freely. These two right-wingers continuously evaded the Cabinet and form series of Alliance Treaties which eventually dragged Britain into an European War.

Personally I think Chamberlain would not even enter the Cabinet if he had defected. The Conservatives and the Whigs would join force to isolate him and lock him away.
 
There are profound long term implications which last beyond his stroke. His sons Austen and Neville were pretty significant political players themselves. Would they have revitalised the Tories rather than providing the necessary ballast to the Liberals that they did OTL. Bound to have attracted a wider following than Curzon, Steel-Maitland or Baldwin.
 
Would the so-called Centrist Century have followed the Tory collapse? Where the Conservative and Socialist Parties flipped between opposition and coalition partner to the Libs?

OOC: a slight exaggeration but some left-wing party is inevitable and I didn't think you wanted the LibUs to shift leftward. Here we end up with the Libs as generally centrist and often in coalition with a third party half its size - a 1 and 2 half party situation than the present 2 and 1 half party one.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
There are profound long term implications which last beyond his stroke. His sons Austen and Neville were pretty significant political players themselves. Would they have revitalised the Tories rather than providing the necessary ballast to the Liberals that they did OTL. Bound to have attracted a wider following than Curzon, Steel-Maitland or Baldwin.
They would if they move more towards conservatism than their father. But their father would be isolated by both Salisbury and Harthington. Most of his fellow Radicals were pro-HR, thus, he would only get a number of industrialists, who might fear that Home Rule could be the beginning of the breakup of the Empire. This would not be sufficient for him.

Long-run: Combined with Dilkes' scandal, this would greatly discredit the Radical cause, and we would see a powerful Labour emerges.


OOC: a slight exaggeration but some left-wing party is inevitable and I didn't think you wanted the LibUs to shift leftward
OOC: Chamberlain and Lloyd George could be considered as left-wingers of their time, unlike Asquith who was a centrist or Grey, a centre-right. ITTL, they essentially controlled the Liberals, so they would be a centre-left party, but still had support from industrialists due to Chamberlain's business background (but not from City financiers and the aristocrats).

Would the so-called Centrist Century have followed the Tory collapse?
The Tories would at least dominate the 1890s under Salisbury's leadership. ITTL, there would be no Chamberlainism to challenge him. The Liberals, with a more powerful Gladstonian wing, would not be sufficiently radical to actually stave off the Labour movement.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
One extraordinary thing that Chamberlain managed to achieve is to incorporate retaliatory tariff into the Liberal Newcastle Programme in 1892 in order to "promote international free trade". Such action was pivotal in consolidating industrial support for the Liberals. Frankly, only him could do so, but not before accumulating vast political capital from his prior social reforms, notably the Education Bill 1885 which created Britain's formal secondary education system.

To make "Chamberlain leaving Liberals" scenario happen, we must weaken his position during the 1870s. Well, let's prevent Russell from passing the 1867 Great Reform Act, and then Russell resigns and succeeded by Gladstone. IOTL, the last Russell ministry greatly strengthened the Radicals, since the PM had to relied on their support to pass various social reforms (e.g. Education Act 1870 and 1878).
 
Top