Gladstonian revival in the UK Liberal Party

With a POD of January 1, 1900, make it happen. They must retain control of the leadership and policy formation mechanisms. Implicit in the OP is the Liberals remaining a party of government. Bonus points if the Tories are the ones who kick the can, double bonus if Churchill becomes PM in the 1920s.

One caveat: no "accidental" deaths are allowed.
 
If they make themselves even more economically liberal whilst adopting less controversial social reforms and policy on Irish devolution, such as a lesser peoples budget and negotiating with the Lords instead of all out war, they may be able to steal the Conservatives clothes (Churchill would be an effective leader for this). If they can force a Conservative knee jerk to the left economically by doing this (or at least make it seem so) then the Conservatives might get gobbled up by the emerging Labour party in the twenties.

A quick victorious first world war, whether that's decisive German failures and Allied success or the war being held off until France and Russia are in a much stronger position would also strengthen the Liberal hand. Another landslide in a khaki election after an incredibly victorious war would solidify the Liberals as a party to stay. Maybe even the natural party of Government, although Attlee might have something to say about that.

Thus PM Churchill in the early 1920's with a massive majority after the victorious War of 1917 whilst the Labour and Conservative parties act as a divided opposition.
 
I think that the key to this question would be finding a 'continuity candiate' for the Liberal leadership. Gladstone wasn't entirely representative of his party and in many cases dragged it in his wake, such as during the Bulgarian Horrors. It's also worth remembering that whilst these days we take Gladstonian economics to mean hands off free marketeering this would not necessarily have been the view at the time. Gladstone's Irish land refroms were widely attacked for interfering in an Englishman's right to do what he liked with his property.

Given this I think that the most likely scenario for the Liberal Party retaining a Gladstonian tone would be if William Harcourt had retained the leadership of the party instead of handing it over to Campbell-Bannerman in 1899. Harcourt acted as Gladstone's political deputy and would have been more influenced by him than Campbell-Bannerman. Having said that Harcourt died in 1904 so his tenure in office couldn't have been long. If Harcourt had been given longer to use his powers of patronage he might have given John Morely (another friend of Gladstone) a more high profile office from which to take the leadership. With Morely as leader Asquith could has stayed as Chancellor of the Exchequer and might perhaps have been a touch less radical than Lloyd George.

I think it extremely unlikely that the Liberals could ever have replaced the Conservatives in any time frame where 'Gladstonian' would really mean anything. In the early part of the twentieth century the core support of the Liberals and Conservatives was too distinct. Free trade vs Preference, Non Conformism vs church of England and so forth. Whilst it is true that classical Liberal economic policies became increasingly indisinguishable from Conservative ones this didn't happen until Mrs Thatcher. The only way the Liberals could have replaced the Conservatives would be to tack to the right in response to the Labour threat, but that would probably just end up in their demise again.

If we're constructing a scenario where the Gladstonian element still dominates the Liberal Party it's hard to see how Churchill could have been PM. He was a free trader but he was also a very reform minded Home Secretary and it's hard to see his lifestyle going down well with a party still wedded to Gladstone's social predilictions.
 
Top