WI/AHC: Liberals and Labour become the 2 major British political parties

[Goweegie2]

The title says it all. What if the Liberals and Labour became the 2 major political parties in the United Kingdom and the Tories faded into obscurity? And try and find a scenario in which it could happen. Bonus points if the POD is post-WW1

 

[David T]

Lloyd George tried in 1919 to get the Coalition Liberals to merge with the Conservatives to form a "Centre Party." The decisive opposition to this plan came not from the Conservatives (who knew they would dominate the "new" party, whatever its name) but from the Coalition Liberals, who made it clear that they still regarded themselves as Liberals. Even if LG could have gotten more of the Coalition Liberals to go along, and such a party was formed, it would still be basically a Conservative party (especially since some Coalition Liberals were certain to refuse to join it) and would still eventually oust LG. Indeed, even if the "new" party included the word Liberal in its name, it would be no more "liberal" than the Australian Liberals today.

 

[Vornado]

I assume the situation far down the line will be like Australia. The Tories died out there but the Liberals are the same rose by a different name.

 

[Thomas1195]

Or like Denmark, or Switzerland until the 1990s. I mean, like in these cases, the Liberal Party would remain an actual liberal party, but being economically centre-right.

 

[Politibrit]

To add a few later PoDs, I suppose you could have a situation where the SDP-Liberal Alliance does better (Maggie loses the Falklands maybe) and obliterates the Tories in an early eighties GE. Steel or another Liberal somehow manages to become PM either instead of Jenkins or when he retires, but Owen becomes the leader of the SDP, and even though FPTP remains in place, he opts to end the Alliance at the next GE. As the Liberals would be perceived as the senior partner in the coalition, they win the lions share of the old alliance vote, and the party system that emerges is the Liberals and Labour as the two main parties, an Owenite SDP as the third party, with the Tories either non existent or reduced to the size of the Liberals in the 1950s/60s.

If we are allowing the Lib Dems as well as the Liberals, another option would be to make the Tory collapse during 1992-1997 even worse than OTL. There were points during that parliament when New Labour was polling over 50%, with the Tories and Lib Dems roughly even on around 20%. At that point, FPTP becomes far less of an advantage for the Tories, and if there were somehow an election in that situation, the Lib Dems could find them well placed to leapfrog the Tories into second, or at least come close enough to do it at the election after that.

 

[The Red]

In the same way that the First World War was the single most destructive event in the Liberal's decline, the coming showdown in Ireland that it delayed would arguably have been the end of the Tory party. The implementation of Home Rule was going to be fought by the loyalist community, militarily if necessary. The anti-Home Rule Ulster Volunteers were stockpiling rifles and ammunition for such an event and the Tories were aiding them in this, had civil war broken out in Ireland over Home Rule it's likely that you would have Tory backed militias killing British soldiers, alienating the British public at home and arguably even leading to criminal charges. This could have easily resulted in Britain becoming a dominant party state for a while until Labour can rise to challenge the Liberals seriously (arguably later than happened in our time) with the Tories being reduced to a far-right fringe.

 

[Alexander the Average]

One scenario I've been thinking of for this is if Labour had been able to win a more workable majority in 1950 (say 20-30 seats). This would have two main consequences:

Firstly, Labour would be able to benefit from being in office during the postwar economic boom, which gives them a good position to win re-election in 55 and 60. In addition, remaining in office would go some way to alleviate the tensions between the left and right wings of the party whose internal disagreements were heavily informed by multiple election defeats IOTL, which means a more unified party.

Secondly, it gives the Liberals a chance to recover from their disastrous showing in 50 where they pulled out all the stops to contest as many seats as possible and ended up losing a quarter of their seats. IOTL this left them extremely weakened and in no position to fight the 1951 snap election which basically forced them to give up any pretensions of being a major party. Having a full 5 years to recover puts them in a stronger position to remain relevant and also means that they could serve as a spoiler for the Conservatives, further entrenching Labour's postwar position.

This puts the Conservatives in a difficult position. Repeated election defeats are going to exacerbate internal factional tensions as different groups keep pointing fingers and blaming each other for their exile to the political wilderness. Around the mid-50s, after the Tories lose their third election in a row, the National Liberals decide to end their association with the Conservatives and rejoin the Liberals, effectively doubling their seats. With Labour hegemonic, the Liberals on the rise and the Tories in disarray things come to ahead and the Tories split during the 60s SDP style with the modernising centrists going their own way. This gives the Liberals the chance to take the lead as leaders of the opposition. Afterwards they absorb the centrist offshoot of from the Conservative Party and go on to win the next election forming the first non-Labour government in about a quarter of a century, establishing a new two-party system and relegating the rump Conservatives to political irrelevancy (incidentally fulfilling Nye Bevan's dream of 25 years of Labour government and the political extinction of the Conservative Party).

 

[mr1940s]

One scenario I've been thinking of for this is if Labour had been able to win a more workable majority in 1950 (say 20-30 seats). This would have two main consequences:

Firstly, Labour would be able to benefit from being in office during the postwar economic boom, which gives them a good position to win re-election in 55 and 60. In addition, remaining in office would go some way to alleviate the tensions between the left and right wings of the party whose internal disagreements were heavily informed by multiple election defeats IOTL, which means a more unified party.

Secondly, it gives the Liberals a chance to recover from their disastrous showing in 50 where they pulled out all the stops to contest as many seats as possible and ended up losing a quarter of their seats. IOTL this left them extremely weakened and in no position to fight the 1951 snap election which basically forced them to give up any pretensions of being a major party. Having a full 5 years to recover puts them in a stronger position to remain relevant and also means that they could serve as a spoiler for the Conservatives, further entrenching Labour's postwar position.

This puts the Conservatives in a difficult position. Repeated election defeats are going to exacerbate internal factional tensions as different groups keep pointing fingers and blaming each other for their exile to the political wilderness. Around the mid-50s, after the Tories lose their third election in a row, the National Liberals decide to end their association with the Conservatives and rejoin the Liberals, effectively doubling their seats. With Labour hegemonic, the Liberals on the rise and the Tories in disarray things come to ahead and the Tories split during the 60s SDP style with the modernising centrists going their own way. This gives the Liberals the chance to take the lead as leaders of the opposition. Afterwards they absorb the centrist offshoot of from the Conservative Party and go on to win the next election forming the first non-Labour government in about a quarter of a century, establishing a new two-party system and relegating the rump Conservatives to political irrelevancy (incidentally fulfilling Nye Bevan's dream of 25 years of Labour government and the political extinction of the Conservative Party).

In 1951 the Tories benefited from the absence of Liberal Challengers in many seats, and the underfinanced campaigns run by those that did compete. If the Liberals did slightly better in 1950, it could make the difference in some of the closest Labour-Liberal Seats. In this scenario there is unlikely to even be a snap election as with a larger Labour majority, Clemente Attlee will be less receptive to the argument over the kings health which would create a major complication if the government lost its majority or needed to call a snap election.

One answer could be if Alec Duncan Smith is able to pull out a very narrow victory in 1964 and promptly gets Britain involved in the Vietnam War. A more right wing Labour leader, such as James Callaghan who blamed Gaitskell's defeat in 1959 on his opposition to the Suez Canal Invasion, could lead to the Liberal party becoming the voice of educated liberal, middle class, and youth protest. With the Tory party loosing ground over the Vietnam War, it is possible they could split in government or fall in a vote of no-confidence. One outcome could be the emergence of Enoch Powell, who attempts to run on a right wing immigration platform (combined with admitting Vietnam was a mistake), or of another leader trying to appeal to traditional Labour supporters on a policy of immigration restrictions.

This could mean that politics is realigned as the Tories become an EU Skeptic, anti-immigration party, Labour as the left wing party and the Liberals as the party of the middle, often forming coalition with the left, or any other smaller nationalist, left wing or right wing party which emerges.

 

[sarahz]

Lloyd George tried in 1919 to get the Coalition Liberals to merge with the Conservatives to form a "Centre Party." The decisive opposition to this plan came not from the Conservatives (who knew they would dominate the "new" party, whatever its name) but from the Coalition Liberals, who made it clear that they still regarded themselves as Liberals. Even if LG could have gotten more of the Coalition Liberals to go along, and such a party was formed, it would still be basically a Conservative party (especially since some Coalition Liberals were certain to refuse to join it) and would still eventually oust LG. Indeed, even if the "new" party included the word Liberal in its name, it would be no more "liberal" than the Australian Liberals today.

hmm that's not quite correct, efforts were ongoing until 1922 and the famous meeting which Bonar-Law nearly did not attend, but in the end, did resulting in the overthrow of the coalition. It is fair to say Tory back benchers were no keener on merger than many Liberals.

 

[sarahz]

In 1951 the Tories benefited from the absence of Liberal Challengers in many seats, and the underfinanced campaigns run by those that did compete. If the Liberals did slightly better in 1950, it could make the difference in some of the closest Labour-Liberal Seats. In this scenario there is unlikely to even be a snap election as with a larger Labour majority, Clemente Attlee will be less receptive to the argument over the kings health which would create a major complication if the government lost its majority or needed to call a snap election.

One answer could be if Alec Duncan Smith is able to pull out a very narrow victory in 1964 and promptly gets Britain involved in the Vietnam War. A more right wing Labour leader, such as James Callaghan who blamed Gaitskell's defeat in 1959 on his opposition to the Suez Canal Invasion, could lead to the Liberal party becoming the voice of educated liberal, middle class, and youth protest. With the Tory party loosing ground over the Vietnam War, it is possible they could split in government or fall in a vote of no-confidence. One outcome could be the emergence of Enoch Powell, who attempts to run on a right wing immigration platform (combined with admitting Vietnam was a mistake), or of another leader trying to appeal to traditional Labour supporters on a policy of immigration restrictions.

This could mean that politics is realigned as the Tories become an EU Skeptic, anti-immigration party, Labour as the left wing party and the Liberals as the party of the middle, often forming coalition with the left, or any other smaller nationalist, left wing or right wing party which emerges.

who is Alec Duncan-Smith? Douglas-Home? I cant see the Tories doing Vietnam, maybe they could dig in in 1951 in against Atlee and the Liberals over the welfare state and marginalise themselves, but Vietnam seems unlikely.

 

[Derek Jackson]

IDS stays as tory leader. Charles Kennedy takes and keeps non alcohol pledge. Blair decides to go on an on?