Labour although more lenient than tories, wouldn't much different.Any other thoughts?
Labour although more lenient than tories, wouldn't much different.Any other thoughts?
I though Labour was also Pro-Home Rule before ww1.Labour although more lenient than tories, wouldn't much different.
Labour were generally pro home rule (and still are) To be an effective opposition the Conservatives would probably need to reach a long way back into their history and revive some of the Tory Democracy proposals of FE Smith before he defected to the Liberals, due to his great friend Winston, or even further back Disraeli's almost forgotten One Nation conservatism..I though Labour was also Pro-Home Rule before ww1.
Regarding 1945 election, what could have been done to make the Tories perform better and become an effective opposition during the 1950s-1980s instead of a joke (still the second largest party but never came close to just prevent a Liberal majority)
Well, Stanley Baldwin campaigned and won the 1933 election with a One-Nation Tory message. The problem was how he governed. From austerity to appeasement. He and his successor Neville Chamberlain rejected Keynesian economics, substantially cut back the Liberals' public works and brought the country back to recession. He also appeased the rise of fascism, and refused to support Republican Spain.Tory Democracy proposals of FE Smith before he defected to the Liberals, due to his great friend Winston, or even further back Disraeli's almost forgotten One Nation conservatism
You mean the Anglo-centric Tories: No. They would have even tried (and failed of course) to keep India and other as pure colonies.Would the tories have created a federated system like the liberals did with the English regions having their own parliaments and the home nations?
What do you think Labour would have done on this?You mean the Anglo-centric Tories: No. They would have even tried (and failed of course) to keep India and other as pure colonies.
I believe Labour would have done the same as the Liberals, because they prefer spending money on social reforms AND nationalizations rather than enforcing rule on colonies.What do you think Labour would have done on this?
A few of them suggested that in the period immediately before the first world war devolution should be tried in a context of Imperial Federation and tariff reform, possibly including several Indian Dominions by another name. This was of course partly to try and square the Irish Home rule circle and once the Tories plumped for all out pro Ulster die-hardism that went by the by. On the plus side the Ulster die-hardism did keep them in control of Glasgow and Liverpool Councils (as unionists) until the early 1970's.You mean the Anglo-centric Tories: No. They would have even tried (and failed of course) to keep India and other as pure colonies.
I am shock to hear that they still have a significant appearance in these major cities despite being branded as "fascist friends" at least until Edward Heath. As far as I know, they mainly won seats in the countryside. You know, they were annihilated permanently in most of other urban centres and universities (of course universities were already pro-liberal).On the plus side the Ulster die-hardism did keep them in control of Glasgow and Liverpool Councils (as unionists) until the early 1970's
A few of them suggested that in the period immediately before the first world war devolution should be tried in a context of Imperial Federation and tariff reform, possibly including several Indian Dominions by another name
well them too, but I was thinking really of Balfour, Bonar Law and Smith, admittedly their influence was pretty limited outside Liverpool and Glasgow and part of the West Riding , the later due to the so-called wool pact aimed at the Labour Party. Of course the authors of the wool pact were not to know that the rise of an Independent powerful Labour Party would not really happen in the long term and that their pact aimed at that threat would fade away from irrelevance. Still it did boost Tory Parliamentary numbers in the short term.You mean Joe Chamberlain and the Liberal Unionists, they were just a small fringe with basically no say at all. Worse, many pro-Free Trade Liberal Unionists defected back to Liberal Party in 1906.
an unfortunate latent anti-Catholic vote of purely local significance, these days confined to the fans of Glasgow Rangers FC.I am shock to hear that they still have a significant appearance in these major cities despite being branded as "fascist friends" at least until Edward Heath. As far as I know, they mainly won seats in the countryside. You know, they were annihilated permanently in most of other urban centres and universities (of course universities were already pro-liberal).
OCC: Harold MacMillan was a Liberal ITTL.
I don't envy the Prime Minister her choices but that's why we chose her in the last leadership election and she got her mandate so she has to prove she's up to the job.
After the turbulent 1920s, it was clear that the Liberals had staved off Labour movements. However, their dominance was guaranteed due to the fact that the Tories had killed themselves during the 1930s by pursuing austerity and appeasement. After that, there were no Tory governments until 1985, when Thatcher took advantage of a recession caused by the worldwide oil crisis during the late 1970s-1980s.It was McKenna, Keynes and others developing the "Yellow Book" that ensured Liberal supremacy after the dark times of the 20s
They actually managed to establish Britain's world-leading positions in several new industries as well as pushing for energy efficiency with these technocratic infant industry policies. Britain was less damaged during the oil crisis.The problems have been when Liberals have tried to be corporatists or technocrats - Jenkins was a fine man but too easily influenced by "experts" and the party got too comfortable in power and we all remember how that turned out with a Liberal Government, yes, a Liberal Government, trying to coerce Councils by diktat.
I vote for jo Swinson or Ruth DavidsonOCC: who is she?
Oh sh*t, the Thatcher "Revolution". During her 5 year rule, the Tories privatized lots of public service providers, notably British Telecom, British Gas and Royal Mail. Fortunately David Steel kicked her out in the 1990 election. Imagine Thatcher winning in 1990. She might even try to privatize water supply, railway and worse, the National Bank and the NHS.After that, there were no Tory governments until 1985, when Thatcher took advantage of a recession caused by the worldwide oil crisis during the late 1970s-1980s.
David Cameron? You mean the Leader of the Opposition?I couldn't imagine David Cameron ever saying that but Chancellor Dr Cable has to make the sums work
Ruth Davidson, a "Liberal Conservative"? No. I would vote for Charles Kennedy, Tim Farron, or Simon Hughes, the social liberals. Lamb, Cable and Swinson are acceptable.I vote for jo Swinson or Ruth Davidson