UK AHC: Liberals resurrect as major party

Well, everyone is gonna say "have Thatcher lose the Falklands War" but I'd be more keen at looking at a more successful Jo Grimond. That man had some remarkable charisma, bringing the Liberal Party from a measly little party at 3%, whose parliamentary group were said to be able to have their meetings in a phone booth to the unquestioned third party of British politics, constantly at the edge of grabbing a fifth of the national vote. Though their politics differed substantially, Grimond's persona and appeal was very close to Canadian NDP leader Jack Layton. In the words of my favourite Canadian political commentator:

New Democrats should never be satisfied with third or fourth place, he said, and ultimately defied widespread conventional wisdom in proving that it was, in fact, possible for them to be something else. His boundless enthusiasm for a cause and party that so many had written off during the 1990s played a huge role in changing minds; the NDP seemed more viable as a political option simply because Layton wouldn’t stop telling people it was.

That was the attitude of Jo Grimond, and in my view what really makes him stand out from any Liberal (or Liberal Democrat) leader since David Lloyd George. Jo Grimond didn't want the Liberal Party to merely be a British version of the FDP, but the British version of Canada's Liberal Party at the time, or under Proportional Representation what the Danish Venstre is today. He aspired to the premiership, not the deputy premiership. He wanted to be king, not kingmaker.

That's why voters gravitated towards him, and that's why he won their respect. Most unfortunately, every Liberal leader since (including Nick Clegg) seemed to have had no greater ambition than to make the Liberals the junior coalition partner, the kingmaker, and that doesn't appeal to voters in Britain, or the world in general for that matter either. People want to know where someone stand firmly on the issue, they want you to pick a side. You see this in countries with proportional representation of forms either. Back in the olde days, the Swedish Centre Party and the German FDP would wiggle back and forth, but both have since firmly established themselves as centre-right parties. That gives credibility because you know what you get when you're voting for them. In countries with FPTP (or even AV) this plays an even bigger role. You either pick a side, or you declare that you represent nobody but yourself, like Canada's "center" party, the Liberals.
 
How about during Thatcher's time as PM, with some help from the SDP? I read an interview with Peter Mandelson once (I can't find it now unfortunately). He said he (along with Blare and Brown) considered defection to the SDP around the time of the Benn/Heely deputy leadership contest. In OTL Heely just scraped through, but Mandelson said that had Benn won instead, he'd have defected.

So let's say that Tony Benn manages to become Deputy, leading to an even more vocal left-wing within labour. The defeat is about the same as OTL, but it's clear that the SDP is a growing force, with the OTL Labour "modernisers" of the early to mid 90's joining. With many of his OTL supporters joining the SDP, Kinnock finds he does not have the necessary support to modernise in time for the 1987 election and with Thatcher's third time in the bag, the media foccus turns to who will form the official opposition. The SDP overtake Labour in that election, but they're still nowhere near being able to form a government, the public sticking with the tried and tested. The SDP and Liberals have simelar talks to the one's they had in OTL around this time, regarding a potential merger. It is agreed upon in 1988 as in our timeline. It is clear to most people (all but the most ardent labour followers) that the Liberal Democrats are the most likely alternative to the Tory government. A great number of OTL labour MP's join the new party, agreeing with their more moderate ideology.

The Lib Dems enjoy high pole ratings during the late 80's and early 90's, with Thatcher experiencing the same troubles she had at this time OTL. Eventually the Heseltine challenge happens, leading to John Major's election as party leader in 1990.

Pundits inthusiastically predict that the liberal democrats will form the government, when the election is called.
However, the conservatives manage a 31 seat majority in the new parliament. Like OTL, John Major experiences his 5-year emplosion known as his 92-97 government. However, some moderate conservatives defect to the Lib Dems, satisfied with their moderate economic and social policies, along with their pro-europe line in general.

The 1997 election results in the first Liberal government since 1915, with Paddy Ashdown as Prime Minister.

Not sure if this is at all realistic, but it's a rough draft on how I think it could possibly happen...
 
Have IDS hang on as Tory leader in 2003 and have Blair forced into debates in the 2005 election. Kennedy easily wins due to his stance on Iraq whilst Blair and especially IDS struggle. On election day the Liberal Democrats win a plurality of the vote, and second in terms of seats.
 
The fundamental problem with the Liberal Party is that they have always lacked a true base. Labour's had the urban working classes (and historically the Scots and Welsh) while the Torries have drawn their support from the suburbs and rural areas in England. The Liberals have been stuck somewhere in-between. That's practically a death sentence in the current UK electoral system. I agree that it would help to have more victory-minded leaders like Jo Grimmond, but I doubt that would have really done the trick. The only way for the Libs to compete for 10 Downing Street would be to change to proportional representation or FPTP. At that point the party would have had to clearly articulate an alternative set of policies to both Labour and the Conservatives.
 
Possibles...

Well, it's a challenge, no doubt, even for someone on the Liberal side of the fence. The points already made are valid - either one of the other two parties has to schism so severely as to effectively implode or has to have such a disaster as to make them unattractive even to their core.

A more successful (and larger) SDP schism in 1981 (encompassing some Conservatives) and no Falklands War has possibilities. Have the Alliance win seats like Mitcham & Morden, Beaconsfield and Darlington and get 35% in the General Election - at around that figure, the in-built bias against the Alliance would begin to ease and the number of gained seats would rise quickly.

I like the idea of Clement Davies dying in 1952 and Grimond becoming leader much earlier than in OTL. The breakthrough might begin in Inverness rather than Torrington and stronger Liberal performances in 1955 and 1959 lead to the party holding the balance of power in 1964. The journey to being a major player remains a tough one, however.

A third possibility is a military disaster - a far worse Suez or defeat in the South Atlantic.
 
Perhaps a combination of a very left-wing Labour leadership, with a sizeable split (in the way of the OTL SDP), coupled with a right-wing leadership in the Conservative Party that deals less well with a military conflict (and that also makes some One-Nation Tories joining the old OTL Liberals), followed by an alliance and posterior merger between TTL Liberals and TTL SDP.
 
Brought this up elsewhere recently - if you want a 1950s POD, best bet is Archibald Sinclair, the wartime Liberal leader keeps his seat in 1945, or wins it back in 1950. Both times it was agonisingly close. In 1945, Sinclair came third despite only having 60 votes fewer than the winner. In 1950 he was second by a hundred votes.

His victory either butterflies Clement Davies 11 year caretaker regime (imagine IDS running the Tories for a decade) or cuts its short. Sinclair suffered a series of strokes in the early 1950s and retired to the Lords. ITTL around 1952, he'll step down under similar circumstances, precipitating a leadership election. However Jo Grimond didn't get into Parliament until 1950, so he's unlikely to be chosen. The obvious progressive candidate would be Megan Lloyd-George, if you can get over the fact she is but a woman, which is easier said than done though her family name is still powerful and she might be a threat to Labour in Wales.

Another good POD would be no 1951 election. Under Sinclair they might do better but under Davies two elections within twelve months crippled the Liberal Party financially and popularly. In 1950 they got over 2.5 million votes, in 1951 due both to being half bankrupt and the old cliche 'a Liberal vote is a wasted vote' never being more true it fell to 700,000. If they have breathing room under a competent leader from 1950 until 1954 or 1955, Jo Grimond or whoever wont have to spend the next decade rebuilding voter confidence. A more left wing, or simply dynamic Liberal leader could maybe see Attlee reach out to them to reinforce his wafer thin majority, or simply have Labour do better and not call a second election. My number crunching has found up to 20 seats a tiny swing (45 under a larger 3-5% swing) could have seen Labour victories, only one of which effects a Liberal MP.
 
Could Lloyd George do something in the '20s or '30s? From a quick Genocidal scan, they need a popular vote at least in the upper 20s to hit 3-digit seat counts. Getting there would be a start- balance of power in a minority Parliament. Hitting the next step would require pushing Lab below 25%.
 
Could Lloyd George do something in the '20s or '30s? From a quick Genocidal scan, they need a popular vote at least in the upper 20s to hit 3-digit seat counts. Getting there would be a start- balance of power in a minority Parliament. Hitting the next step would require pushing Lab below 25%.

That's more or less what I've got outlined in a TL I've been working on. At some point though, I figure that PR is the only way to ensure the Liberals retain their position without simply being consumed by their counterparts.
 
That's more or less what I've got outlined in a TL I've been working on. At some point though, I figure that PR is the only way to ensure the Liberals retain their position without simply being consumed by their counterparts.

Perhaps a reverse of the original process that saw Lab cannibalize Lib. How to do that I haven't the faintest idea...
 
Could always avoid Bannerman-Campbell's backing of Labour candidates in 1905, say if Asquith's plot to remove him before the election works out. Then have the great reforming ministry introduce MP wages, weakening the need for union-supported candidates.

This would weaken Labour considerably in its early days. Avoiding WWI, or even just avoiding Lloyd-George's continuation of the Coalition after 1918 could do it. His actions tore the Liberals apart and made the 'Welsh Wizard' appear a Conservative stooge, upsetting many working-class Liberal supporters. Really, I've never gotten the "Strange Death of Liberal England" - it was practically an atomic explosion followed by a decade of turf war.
 
Perhaps a reverse of the original process that saw Lab cannibalize Lib. How to do that I haven't the faintest idea...

Avert WW1, or make it a short, incredibly successful war. Prevent the Liberal-Labour pact beforehand as well, that really was suicidal in hindsight.
 
Top