DBWI: The Liberal Party never dominated 20th century British politics

Thomas1195

Banned
As we know, the Liberal Party is the natural party of government in Britain. The party has dominated politics for much of Britain's history, holding power for over 70 years in the 20th century—more than any other party in a developed country. They even completely dominated the Keynesian era (not surprisingly, they invented this School of Economics), as the country's strong economic and productivity growth allowed them to governed 40 years non-stop until the Stagflation.

But after the world war 1, they suffered a leadership crisis that nearly tore the party apart. But then Reginald McKenna stepped in and won the leadership, and then united the party with a radical platform. Their main achievements were NHS - welfare state, modernization of industries,, tackling industrial unrest, high growth and low inflation (e.g. average real GDP growth was around 4-5% per annum during the 1950s-1970s, while productivity growth was over 3% during the same period), and the EEC (of which Britain was a founding country). Their effort to push for pan-European Defense Scheme also helped save billions of pounds in defense spending. Even the Second World War could have been averted if they were in charge between 1933 and 1938).

How would Britain look like if the party actually broke apart in 1918?

OCC: Liberals' Keynesian economics ITTL involved much less nationalization, except for NHS and other public services. Their policies were similar to Jo Grimond's plan IOTL and thus also more pro-growth. The growth rates of other developed countries were the same as IOTL.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The tories, if in power, would likely have continued to promote divide and rule in India. Is there a risk of partition?
Well, yes. The Tories wouldn't have deserted India like the Liberals did IOTL. However, Liberals' rapid tanking of India caused decades of unrest between Muslims and Hindus.

the Labor Party was gaining traction, but Liberal party absorbed it after ww2.
Except for the far-left.

Also, the prospect of Tories gaining power before 1980 was close to ASB after what they had done between 1933 and 1938, which were relentlessly vilified by the Liberal Government during the war. Winston Churchill's idea of the "Tories are Friends of Fascists" poster during the 1945 election was the most devastating blow to the Tories. Worse, Archibald Sinclair even managed to distribute such posters to RAF, RN, British Army, when soldiers already disliked to Tories. This damaged them for nearly 4 decades. You know, they won fewer than 100 seats for the first time in 1945.

The poster featured Hoare, Baldwin and Chamberlain kissing hands of Mussolini, Franco and Hitler, which referred to Abyssinia, Spain, and Munich. On the contrary, the Liberals always called for tough action, from closing the Suez and Gibraltar as well as imposing sanctions on Italy, arming and even offering naval support for the Republicans in Spain, to opposing Munich.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, I also believe that industrial relation in a Labour vs Tories world wouldn't be as good as IOTL. Note that before Liberal reforms during the 1920s, trade unions already had a tendency of opposing new technology due to fear of losing jobs. A Labour/Tory government might not be able to achieve the same success, because they ideologically opposed work councils and profit-sharing.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How can we actually break this party apart? Or at least make their 1945 poster a hair-brained embarrassment instead of a vicious blow to the Conservatives.
 
How can we actually break this party apart? Or at least make their 1945 poster a hair-brained embarrassment instead of a vicious blow to the Conservatives.
Breaking apart the whig is rather difficult. but Keynesian economic is adapted by Labour instead of Whigs might be a good choice.
 
So basically, you're asking what would happen if the Liberals in the UK went the way of the Democrats in the United States - relegated to a handful of seats in one part of the country after their base of liberals and urban/union voters jumped ship to the Socialists (or, I guess in the case of the UK, Labour)?

Don't know enough about British politics to comment more substantively, but it would be interesting.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
So basically, you're asking what would happen if the Liberals in the UK went the way of the Democrats in the United States - relegated to a handful of seats in one part of the country after their base of liberals and urban/union voters jumped ship to the Socialists (or, I guess in the case of the UK, Labour)?
Yes, but note that the definition of liberalism was very different in the US.

Actually, the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, was and is still the main party of civil rights and of the Northeast and West Coast. They were also the party of choice for intellectuals. The Socialists were more of populist and socially conservative. After all, they still inherited the Deep South.

Yes, my goal is to make Tory-Labour two-party system rather than a Liberal-dominated one.

OCC: The Republicans have the political position of Eisenhower, Dewey, Cabot Lodge Jr and recently Michael Bloomberg.

The Socialists ITTL, whose leadership was hijacked by former New Deal Dixicrats, became socially conservative.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Breaking apart the whig is rather difficult. but Keynesian economic is adapted by Labour instead of Whigs might be a good choice.
Well, the Lloyd George - Asquith split between 1916 and 1918 could be extended without McKenna. Lloyd George faction IOTL actually came close to receiving Coupons from Bonar Law and thus would run as a separate party in the 1918 election. But McKenna was able to topple Asquith and negotiate with him. What if he could not?

There were some signs that young Radical Liberals like Charles Trevelyan or Wedgewood Benn were ready to defect to Labour if Lloyd George split the party.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Conservative Socialism? Whoa.. Is there any other Socialist parties that is socially conservative?
They target white working class, many of whom were socially conservative and were frightened by the civil right movement.

OCC: many Dixicrats were borderline socialist.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Prolong the Asquith-Lloyd George split in 1916 by butterflying away McKenna's leadership coup to reduce the credibility of the Liberals, and have the young radical liberals defecting to Labour. Meanwhile, have the Tories shifting to the centre ground instead of staying right-wing. The Liberal Party would be squeezed and destroyed. But the Conservatives would dominate post-war politics due to the Red Scare and the fact that many people would suspect Labour's ability to govern.

I don't want to have PODs like "Keynes crashing his head?" because he single-handedly saved Britain during the Great Depression. The Conservatives proved their economic ignorance during their last government (1935-1938) by reversing Keynes' policies and bringing Britain back to recession.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
One thing that I am sure is that there would be no British-led Grand Western Trade Bloc which includes both ECSC members and former British White Dominions. The Conservatives were too protectionist to do so.
 
One thing people keep getting confused about is that the British Labour Party is technically a separate party, though it has had an electoral pact with the Liberals since 1906 and I agree they are functionally the same party. Then there is an Independent Labour Party that really is separate, though they have never gotten more than 10% of the popular vote in any general election though they usually do manage to elect a few MPs.

The situation is similar to the arrangements between the Liberals and the Nationals in Australia, the Christian Democrats and Christian Socialists in the UK, and the Socialists and the Left Radicals in France, and I think there was a timeline here where the Radical Party in France remained as the main left wing party, to mirror the British situation.

But there are two questions here. The first is how things would have worked with Labour, or the ILP, as the main party on the left in UK politics. I imagine you have to look at what Socialist and Social Democratic Parties have done on the continent. And would the Liberals be a minor party allied with Labour in this scenario, like the Left Radicals in France, or would they try to compete as an independent third party, or just die out completely?

The second is whether the Tories could have become the more dominant party in a two party system, something they did achieve in 1885-1906. I agree the key here is to keep the Tory right from dominating like they did IOTL. Maybe the real POD is Walter Long not winning the 1911 leadership contest? But if the Liberals collapsed, the Tories would have absorbed some Liberal pols, which would have strengthened the pragmatists within the party.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The second is whether the Tories could have become the more dominant party in a two party system, something they did achieve in 1885-1906. I agree the key here is to keep the Tory right from dominating like they did IOTL. Maybe the real POD is Walter Long not winning the 1911 leadership contest?
Walter Long was too right-wing, yes. You need someone who was closer to the centre ground, like Bonar Law or even the Liberal Unionist Austen Chamberlain. Letting someone who opposed the National Insurance Act become party leader would not be a wise choice. Worse, he even gave support to UVF, allowing Churchill to denounce the Tories.

the Christian Democrats and Christian Socialists in the UK,
Oh, two small parties, one of them was actually a left-wing fringe of the Tories.

But there are two questions here. The first is how things would have worked with Labour, or the ILP, as the main party on the left in UK politics. I imagine you have to look at what Socialist and Social Democratic Parties have done on the continent
You don't want them to mess up the economy with their Clause IV, which was far more extreme than European Social Democrats.

But if the Liberals collapsed, the Tories would have absorbed some Liberal pols, which would have strengthened the pragmatists within the party.
Well, let the Liberals truly split during 1916-1918 would help a lot.

If the Liberals were relegated to a third party, they would not be in a position to devastate the Tories with their infamous "Friends of Fascists" in 1945. Later studies estimated that the poster alone caused Tory poll to collapse by more than half. Such poster would be far less damaging if not counter-productive if the Liberals were never the main party. Labour participated in writing "The Guilty Men", but that poster was purely a brainchild of Churchill and Sinclair.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How would a Tory government have handled Ireland differently? Or Labour for that matter?
Tories would certainly intervene, either via direct military intervention or via UVF. Ireland would be a mess. There would be a full partition of Ireland and we would see IRA committing terrorist attacks on Northern Ireland or even England.
 
Top