PC/AHC/WI: Liberal and Liberal Unionists united during 1898-1906

Thomas1195

Banned
With a POD from 1895-1896. Were there any possibilities for the Liberals and Liberal Unionists, maybe including the Chamberlain wing, to unite. For example, an Imperialist figure who was willing to sideline Home Rule became the leader of the Liberals?

How would an reunited Liberal Party perform in future elections? How would their policies be different from IOTL?
 
Last edited:
With a POD from 1895-1896. Were there any possibilities for the Liberals and Liberal Unionists, including the Chamberlain wing, to unite. For example, an Imperialist figure who was willing to sideline Home Rule became the leader of the Liberals?

How would an reunited Liberal Party perform in future elections? How would their policies be different from IOTL?
It seems very unlikely that this could happen, but if it did and it stuck then the result would be probably be a Conservative Government in 1906, as it was free trade that led to the landslide. Fight on an Imperialist Platform and there is no support from Labour, or the Irish parliamentary party, no peoples budget , no old age pensions, no parliament act. The Tories sans Chamberlain stand by free trade and win. The question is what do the Liberals do then. Do they stick with Imperialism? If so they risk losing again and again. The other question is how well did Labour do without the pact with Liberals. Probably not well, but just how badly could be crucial to what happens then.
The thing to remember is the Liberal Unionists may have started off as Liberals, but most of them were increasingly right wing. There is not going to be as much in common between Liberals and Liberal Unionists as one might think, it was not just Home Rule. Of course an imperialist platform in a merged party might not get as far as the debate on Imperial Preference/tariffs, but could well founder on the Boer War.
 
I would agree with @sarahz that this is extremely unlikely, although I'm not sure I agree with all the projections they make of what happens next.

You've got to remember that the Liberals and Liberal Unionists have been separated by a decade of bad-blood by the start of your timeline. Old wounds don't heal easily.

The biggest problem you have, though, is the Boer War, the wheels of which are already in motion by 1898. You won't get an Imperialist become leader of the Liberals after 1898 because of just how big a deal the Boer War was for the Liberals. Whilst there were MPs that supported it in the Liberal Party, much of the leadership was against it [Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Lloyd George etc]. Furthermore, it being seen at the time as Joe's [Chamberlain's] War further built up the rift between Liberals and Liberal Unionists. Post Boer War the Liberals as a Party were much more skeptical about Imperialism, be that in trade terms or in terms of military expansion [see, for example, their support for the Morley-Minto Reforms in India].

The ONLY way I can see this happening is if the Conservatives whole-heartedly endorse Chamberlain's Tariff Reform programme causing more Free Trade Liberal Unionists to cross the floor back to their old party. But that basically just gives you the 1906 election by other means and doesn't butterfly any of the attendant problems that the 1906 Liberal Government faced in our time.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Asquith, Haldane, Grey, Rosebery were Imperialists and support the War. However, the Imperialists strongly supported social and education reforms (even more than Campbell-Bannerman, who was not really a man of change) but on the ground of National Efficiency rather than moral cause. Also, the starting POD was 1895-1896.

I mean some combination of both factions' policies. I think Asquith and Haldane could do this.
OK, maybe opposing Tariff Reform together with Liberals' change in the tone when mentioning Home Rule (well, maybe "we will solve the Irish Question step by step", but no direct quotation of Home Rule).
ITTL, Liberals, while promoting reforms and National Efficiency, still attack the methods of barbarism; the Chinese slavery; and the facts that more than 40% of military recruits for the Boer War were declared unfit for military service, as well as the 1902 Rowntree study of poverty in York showed that almost a third of the population lived below the 'poverty line' (but not saying that "we oppose the war"); and finally the Education Act 1902.

Well, IOTL, fortunately, the Education Act in 1902 was not repealed despite Nonconformist opposition. It turned out to be a great Act, as it standardized and upgraded the educational systems of England and Wales, and led to a rapid growth of secondary schools, with over 1,000 opening by 1914.
 
Last edited:
(even more than Campbell-Bannerman, who was not really a man of change)

That's a bit unfair, as Campbell-Bannerman was quite a reformer but just someone who liked to work within established procedures. Plus he didn't really have a chance to show what he was or wasn't capable of.

OK, maybe opposing Tariff Reform together with Liberals' change in the tone when mentioning Home Rule (well, maybe "we will solve the Irish Question step by step", but no direct quotation of Home Rule).

That's a very quick fudge for an incredibly difficult issue. Plus it alienates the radical wing of the Liberals who were in favour of Home Rule, does Liberal MPs no favour in Scotland which was angling for its own Home Rule, and kills them in urban constituencies where there were Irish voters. Especially if there is no Lib-Lab Pact. Also what have you done with Chamberlain in this scenario - the man basically ran the Liberal Unionist party machine single-handed? There's no way he was going to abandon his Tariff Reform campaign.

ITTL, Liberals, while promoting reforms and National Efficiency, still attack the methods of barbarism; the Chinese slavery; and the facts that more than 40% of military recruits for the Boer War were declared unfit for military service, as well as the 1902 Rowntree study of poverty in York showed that almost a third of the population lived below the 'poverty line' (but not saying that "we oppose the war"); and finally the Education Act 1902.

Well, IOTL, fortunately, the Education Act in 1902 was not repealed despite Nonconformist opposition. It turned out to be a great Act, as it standardized and upgraded the educational systems of England and Wales, and led to a rapid growth of secondary schools, with over 1,000 opening by 1914.

I'm not sure, with due respect, what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that these would have been the policies a combined Liberal and Liberal Unionist Government would have enacted? Or are these factors that you see bringing the parties together to win an election? Because in either case that's a little contentious.

Sorry, I'm a little confused.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
That's a bit unfair, as Campbell-Bannerman was quite a reformer but just someone who liked to work within established procedures. Plus he didn't really have a chance to show what he was or wasn't capable of.
Well, IOTL, John Brunner demanded CB to allow state support to improve national transport and communication, but was rebuffed by the latter.

His education bill 1906 was also vetoed by the Lords (paradoxically, this turn out to be good for Britain in the long run).

I'm not sure, with due respect, what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that these would have been the policies a combined Liberal and Liberal Unionist Government would have enacted? Or are these factors that you see bringing the parties together to win an election? Because in either case that's a little contentious.
Well, these are just the attacks on Tories in election manifesto.

Their policies would be slightly different from IOTL, because they would also incorporate National Efficiency from the Imperialists (IOTL it took longer for the Liberals to incorporate National Efficiency and intervention, not until Asquith became PM). There would be more state intervention and more focus on (scientific) education reforms (based on Mosely Industrial Commission) to improve British global competitiveness, as an alternative for Tariff Reform.

That's a very quick fudge for an incredibly difficult issue. Plus it alienates the radical wing of the Liberals who were in favour of Home Rule, does Liberal MPs no favour in Scotland which was angling for its own Home Rule, and kills them in urban constituencies where there were Irish voters. Especially if there is no Lib-Lab Pact. Also what have you done with Chamberlain in this scenario - the man basically ran the Liberal Unionist party machine single-handed? There's no way he was going to abandon his Tariff Reform campaign.
Home Rule would not be completely abandoned but would become less significant, I mean, it would no longer dominate Liberal agenda like under Gladstone. However, it would be significant again if a hung parliament becomes likely. Meanwhile, the matters of National Efficiency (education, welfare, slump clearance, housing...would be prioritized).
 

Thomas1195

Banned
It seems very unlikely that this could happen, but if it did and it stuck then the result would be probably be a Conservative Government in 1906, as it was free trade that led to the landslid
I mean at least the Free Trade wing of the Liberal Unionists, and Chamberlain would be just a bonus. I just question the possibility that make the whole free trade faction of Liberal Unionists defect back to Liberal Party. I think this would bolster the Party as Liberal Unionists consisted of various industrialists and bankers (well, but the Whis aristocrats should never return).
 
Home Rule would not be completely abandoned but would become less significant, I mean, it would no longer dominate Liberal agenda like under Gladstone. However, it would be significant again if a hung parliament becomes likely. Meanwhile, the matters of National Efficiency (education, welfare, slump clearance, housing...would be prioritized).

The problem is that you can't just fudge it like that. Home Rule was the issue that divided the Liberals from their former brethren. In rejoining the Liberals, the unionists will want a cast-iron guarantee that Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, or whoever is leader won't pursue Irish Home Rule. Not only will that upset some of the radical wing of the Liberal Party, threatening a left-wards split, but it will also alienate some parts of the Labour movement and, of course, the Irish Parliamentary Party which is wedded to Home Rule. It can't just be a case of trying to push it into the long-grass and not talk about it unless a hung parliament comes up. That's been done before by the people involved in the split - both sides will want much more cast-iron guarantees, and I don't see how a Liberal Leader could appease both factions and bring about this reunification.

I mean at least the Free Trade wing of the Liberal Unionists, and Chamberlain would be just a bonus. I just question the possibility that make the whole free trade faction of Liberal Unionists defect back to Liberal Party. I think this would bolster the Party as Liberal Unionists consisted of various industrialists and bankers (well, but the Whis aristocrats should never return).

IMHO you aren't getting Chamberlain back now, unless he can become Liberal leader. By the mid 1890s he firmly had his sights set on the Premiership and was convinced Tariff Reform was the way to go about achieving it.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Fight on an Imperialist Platform and there is no support from Labour, or the Irish parliamentary party, no peoples budget , no old age pensions, no parliament act.
Liberal Imperialists strongly supported not only social but education and industrial reforms, even much more than the Gladstonians, but on the ground of National Efficiency rather than moral cause. Thus, there is no guarantee that Labour would not support them.

The thing to remember is the Liberal Unionists may have started off as Liberals, but most of them were increasingly right wing. There is not going to be as much in common between Liberals and Liberal Unionists as one might think, it was not just Home Rule. O
Most historical sources claimed that Liberal Imperialists like Asquith and Haldane were not much different from Liberal Unionists and Joe before Tariff Reform.

The problem is that you can't just fudge it like that. Home Rule was the issue that divided the Liberals from their former brethren. In rejoining the Liberals, the unionists will want a cast-iron guarantee that Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, or whoever is leader won't pursue Irish Home Rule. Not only will that upset some of the radical wing of the Liberal Party, threatening a left-wards split, but it will also alienate some parts of the Labour movement
With the exception of IPP, Labour and Radicals' main issues were social reforms. Giving reforms would distract them, similarly to the fact that Home Rule was Gladstone's brainchild that aim to distract the Radicals.

IMHO you aren't getting Chamberlain back now, unless he can become Liberal leader. By the mid 1890s he firmly had his sights set on the Premiership and was convinced Tariff Reform was the way to go about achieving it
The Free Traders (after Tariff Reform), as well as those who were more progressive could be get back, after the fact that since 1895, their demand for reforms was swept aside by Salisbury.
 
Top