Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman

[Jammy]

Right i think this is the right forum for it.

Im doing some work on the Liberals and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, when the Boer War broke out the divisions within the Liberal party almost broke it apart. Liberals such as H. H. Asquith and Lord Rosebery were Imperalist and supported the War, whilest others such as David Lloyd George and John Morely we called Little Englanders and condemed the War.

Now Sir Henry Campbell-Banner followed a policy of supporting the War but condemming certain aspects of it, in particular the scorched earth policy, calling it "methods of barbarism.

Now what if in doing this it gainned a vote of no confiedence in him and he was forced to resign? the Liberals had already been through 3 leaders (including him) in 8 years, the divisions within the party would be opened up even more; Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was picked because he "cause the least diversion".

Without him the election victory of 1906 would prossible not happen (and with it many of the social reforms) and because a split party rarely gets voted into power, its likely Balfour and his conservatives carry on.

What would be the likely outcomes of these points?

 

[Grey Wolf]

OK, I don't recall this clearly (I sometimes wonder if I recall anything clearly) but political parties at the turn of the century tended to have TWO leaders whilst in Opposition, one in the Lords and one in the Commons. It was most definitely not clear long in advance which one would rise to become Prime Minister. I remember a discussion with regard to Earl Spencer, who was IIRC the Liberal Leader in the Lords in 1905. He expected to be made Prime Minister if the Liberals won the election, but was incapacitated by a stroke, and played so little part it was a laughable proposition by the time that the victory was won in 1906, though he still clung to pathetic hopes that Edward VII would call him to form a government.

I don't know if that's of any use

Grey Wolf