WI: Liberal Party united before 1918 Khaki Election

Thomas1195

Banned
Assume that Lloyd George and Asquith somehow settle their conflicts, and the Liberal Party united before 1918 election. Then, the Election would be the fight between Tories and Liberals like any other previous elections.

How would the Liberal Party perform in the 1918 election and beyond ITTL?

I think that something like Pipisme's TL would be more plausible if they were united in 1918 rather than in 1923, although I believe that the Tories would win with a majority in 1918.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
If the united Liberals decided to fight the election under a populist platform like "A Country fits for Heroes'' with policies like expanding People's Budget and other welfare provisions such as pensions, subsidies, housing and education to ''buy'' votes, something similar to the Newcastle Programme in 1892, would they have a chance?
 
I think the Liberals were a tired political force, most of their base support had largely migrated by 1918, as it was a common opinion that the end of the war required change. A key are where I can see Lloyd George failed was consolidating the Liberals, and resulted in a catastrophic divide. He was the liberals best and worst leader, a great war leader, granted. But one that failed to transition to peace time.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
I think the Liberals were a tired political force, most of their base support had largely migrated by 1918, as it was a common opinion that the end of the war required change.
Partly agree with this. But unlike 1922, a 1918 POD, I think it's not too late. The failed coalition caused as much damage as the war, since it destabilized Lloyd George's reputation for good. But in 1918, he was at peak. If the Liberals could unite and rely on LG's war winning reputation, combined with a platform of "A country fits for Heroes", I think they can survive at least as the main opposition in 1918.

If they could not won in 1918, they would have a chance in 1923, because a Tory government would perform even worse. With a Tory cabinet, there would be no or very little efforts to implement a scheme like "Homes fit for Heroes" but more things like Geddes Axe, while still facing a series of problems that LG had to face IOTL, such as Ireland or postwar slump. Consequently, Bonar Law would be discredited even more than LG IOTL because he lacked LG's war-winning reputation. Any effort to call for tariffs would worsen their position further.
 
Last edited:
Liberal reunification in 1918 is an old favorite of mine:

***
Was the estrangement really hopeless? My understanding is that while Lloyd George was negotiating with the Unionists, he was also putting out feelers to the Asquith Liberals for Liberal reunification, offering Asquith the opportunity to return as Lord Chancellor, an offer Asquith declined. Suppose the negotiations with the Unionists had failed (we'll say that LG refuses to swallow Bonar Law's limit on the number of Liberals who could get the "coupon"--the point of the limitation was of course to make LG a captive of the Unionists) and those with the Asquithians had succeeded? The Liberals might still lose--in fact, I would say that they probably would--but they would at least remain a major party that could (like the Conservatives after another victorious war leader's electoral defeat in 1945) hope for a comeback. Whereas in OTL the Asquithian Liberals were reduced to minor-party status and even the apparently stronger showing of the Coalition Liberals was misleading, since they largely held their seats on Unionist sufferance. (One could of course say that the difference between this *1918 and OTL's 1945 is that after 1945 the Conservatives faced no rival party on the Right, whereas the Liberals in this ATL would have to cope with the rise of Labour on the Left. But if the Liberals in 1918 and thereafter presented a united and reasonably progressive alternative to the Unionists, I am not certain that Labour would have grown as rapidly as it did, or would have become as hostile to the Liberals as in OTL, where IMO the hostility was partly based both on distrust of LG and on an eventual feeling of "we've overtaken the Liberals, now is the time to finish them off." Had LG refrained from his Labour-bashing of the "coupon" campaign, and if the Liberals remained stronger and Labour weaker, the latter might have been more open to Lib- Lab cooperation.)

What makes Liberal reunification IMO at least somewhat plausible is that there seem to have been (at least at the start of the campaign) very few philosophical differences between the Lloyd George and Asquith Liberals. See my discussion at http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/ed27e3f59966167f where I point out that the main objection of the Asquithian Liberals was not to LG's peace or domestic program but to his allowing himself to become the prisoner of a Unionist-dominated Coalition, thus assuring that however progressive his own ideas might be, they could never be enacted. I also note LG's November 12 speech (welcomed by Asquith and Woodrow Wilson) advocating both reform at home ("Revolution I am not afraid of. Bolshevism I am not afraid of. It is reaction I am afraid of.") and a just peace unsullied by the spirit of revenge. (The rest of LG's campaign was in many respects the opposite of the November 12 speech, leaving it for future historians to debate which was the "real" LG.)

In any event, even if Liberal reunification would have the *immediate* consequence of LG's defeat, he would have a better chance of a comeback than after he later lost power in OTL, not only because he would (as I said above) have had a stronger Liberal Party to lead, but also because such a reunification would perhaps do something to lessen one of his worst political liabilities--his reputation for unscrupulousness. (His *historical* reputation would also be higher, of course. I can see posts here on whether the Versailles Treaty would have turned out better if only Lloyd George had still been in power in 1919...) To quote Trevor Wilson,

"Never the most trusted of politicians, he acquired from this performance a reputation for sharp practice and want of scruple which dogged him for the rest of his career. As one result, the Conservatives whom he served so well at this time were able, with shameless ingratitude, to cast him aside four years later, and to make it appear that such conduct reflected not on their honour but on his." *The Downfall of the Liberal Party 1914- 1935*, p. 157. Or as the old rhyme put it :

Lloyd George, no doubt,
When his life ebbs out,
Will ride in a flaming chariot,
Seated in state
On a red-hot plate
'twixt Satan and Judas Iscariot;
Ananias that day
To the Devil will say,
"My claim for precedence fails,
So move me up higher,
Away from the fire,
And make way for that liar--from Wales!"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/h9Pfm5FkXqI/5-qUjNJHA88J
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In any event, even if Liberal reunification would have the *immediate* consequence of LG's defeat, he would have a better chance of a comeback than after he later lost power in OTL, not only because he would (as I said above) have had a stronger Liberal Party to lead, but also because such a reunification would perhaps do something to lessen one of his worst political liabilities--his reputation for unscrupulousness.
Agree. Not to mention his Liberal fellows. His government's repeal of Land Tax also hugely pissed off the land reformers.

. I can see posts here on whether the Versailles Treaty would have turned out better if only Lloyd George had still been in power in 1919
So, the Tories did influence the OTL Versailles, didn't they? But a full Tory government might even take a "realist" but much politically worse step: preventing the partition of Austria-Hungary.

What makes Liberal reunification IMO at least somewhat plausible is that there seem to have been (at least at the start of the campaign) very few philosophical differences between the Lloyd George and Asquith Liberals. See my discussion at http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/ed27e3f59966167f where I point out that the main objection of the Asquithian Liberals was not to LG's peace or domestic program but to his allowing himself to become the prisoner of a Unionist-dominated Coalition
I usually thought that Lloyd George represented the radical wing, while Asquithians were more traditional. But the Geddes Axe have showed that LG Liberals were clearly a junior partner IOTL. But I believe that Lloyd George in a Liberal government would make "A country fits for Heroes" become true.

The rest of LG's campaign was in many respects the opposite of the November 12 speech
Yeah, hanging the Kaiser was not progressive at all. Worse, he failed to do so.

Never the most trusted of politicians, he acquired from this performance a reputation for sharp practice and want of scruple which dogged him for the rest of his career. As one result, the Conservatives whom he served so well at this time were able, with shameless ingratitude, to cast him aside four years later, and to make it appear that such conduct reflected not on their honour but on his
If the Tories ruled during 1918-1923, no doubt they would be blamed for all of the problems during that period.

The Liberals might still lose--in fact, I would say that they probably would--but they would at least remain a major party that could (like the Conservatives after another victorious war leader's electoral defeat in 1945) hope for a comeback.
If they managed to prevent the Tories from winning a majority, there would be plenty of room to destabilize the upcoming Tory government, like negotiating with Labour and voting against every single legislation put forward by the Tories (this was what Disraeli had done).
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
But David T, assumes if the Liberals won in 1918 (very unlikely), how would they react to Greco-Turkish conflict and Chanak? They had a tendency of being anti-Turks since Gladstone.
 
If the Liberal Party had reunited before the December 1918 general election election, there would only have been one more Liberal MP elected. That would have been in double-member constituency of Oldham, where the result was as follows:
Coalition Conservative: 34.3%
Coalition Liberal: 34.0%
Labour: 19.6%
Liberal: 12.1%.

So with a reunited party the Liberals would have gained one seat from the Tories. In Bishop Auckland the Labour candidate was elected with 50.6% of the vote, and the Coalition Liberal and Liberal candidates combined received 49.4%. The following constituencies elected Liberals, although each had two Liberal candidates and candidates from other parties:
Berwickshire and Haddingtonshire, Blaydon, Bristol East, Buckrose, Caernarvonshire, Huddersfield, Shoreditch, Western Isles.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If the Liberal Party had reunited before the December 1918 general election election, there would only have been one more Liberal MP elected. That would have been in double-member constituency of Oldham, where the result was as follows:
Coalition Conservative: 34.3%
Coalition Liberal: 34.0%
Labour: 19.6%
Liberal: 12.1%.

So with a reunited party the Liberals would have gained one seat from the Tories. In Bishop Auckland the Labour candidate was elected with 50.6% of the vote, and the Coalition Liberal and Liberal candidates combined received 49.4%. The following constituencies elected Liberals, although each had two Liberal candidates and candidates from other parties:
Berwickshire and Haddingtonshire, Blaydon, Bristol East, Buckrose, Caernarvonshire, Huddersfield, Shoreditch, Western Isles.
Well, but in Bishop Auckland, there might be a swing to Liberal since the two Liberal candidates wouldn't have fought each other.

But would the Tories win with a majority?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, I think a united Liberal would have no problem winning over 100 seats. Although the Asquith wing was discredited due to their mishandling of the war, Lloyd George was the man who won it. Also, their election platform would be very attractive, "A country fits for Heroes", especially if it is transformed into something like the Newcastle Programme in 1892.

Losing the 1918 election would actually help the party, especially if the Tories could not win a majority. Why? Because the Tories would have to deal with all of the postwar problems alone, with unemployment being the most important one. Based on their laissez faire policies IOTL, I think they would fail ITTL. Meanwhile, Liberals would have time to recover. Lloyd George, instead of losing popularity like IOTL, ITTL he would enhance his reputation by criticize the Tories for the postwar problems. By 1923, the Tories would be severely damaged. If they tried to impose Tariffs, this would further destabilize their position and unite their enemies. Now, the only thing Liberal had to do would be to win a close second place, enough to form a Lib-Lab coalition.
 
Well, but in Bishop Auckland, there might be a swing to Liberal since the two Liberal candidates wouldn't have fought each other.

But would the Tories win with a majority?

If a reunited Liberal Party won Bishop Auckland and the second seat in Oldham that would have increased their number of MPs to 165. The Tories would still have a majority in the House of Commons with 381 seats.

If there was a five percent swing from Conservative to Liberal, and no change in the votes of other parties and independents, the Liberals would have gained twenty-four seats from Conservative. The Conservatives would have 358 MPs and the Liberals 187 MPs. As the 73 Sinn Fein MPs did not take their seats, the Tories would have a majority of the 634 seats [707-73].

In Fife East the Conservative candidate polled 54.2%, Asquith 42.2% and an Independent Progressive 3.6%.

I have taken the constituency results from British Parliamentary Election Results 1918-1949 compiled and edited by F.W.S. Craig, Glasgow: Political Reference Publications, 1969; and the overall results from British Parliamentary Election Statistics 1918-1970, compiled and edited by F.W.S. Craig, Chichester: Political Reference Publications, 1971.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If a reunited Liberal Party won Bishop Auckland and the second seat in Oldham that would have increased their number of MPs to 165. The Tories would still have a majority in the House of Commons with 381 seats.

If there was a five percent swing from Conservative to Liberal, and no change in the votes of other parties and independents, the Liberals would have gained twenty-four seats from Conservative. The Conservatives would have 358 MPs and the Liberals 187 MPs. As the 73 Sinn Fein MPs did not take their seats, the Tories would have a majority of the 634 seats [707-73].

In Fife East the Conservative candidate polled 54.2%, Asquith 42.2% and an Independent Progressive 3.6%.

I have taken the constituency results from British Parliamentary Election Results 1918-1949 compiled and edited by F.W.S. Craig, Glasgow: Political Reference Publications, 1969; and the overall results from British Parliamentary Election Statistics 1918-1970, compiled and edited by F.W.S. Craig, Chichester: Political Reference Publications, 1971.

If we don't take into account factors that could not be calculated, then things would be like that.

However, in this scenario, the scheme "A Country fits for Heroes" would become a pure Liberal slogan, and this together with Lloyd George's personal popularity (at peak) would make results better than IOTL (IOTL, both the slogan and LG's popularity was used in the Coalition manifesto, thus helped prop up the Tories). Not to mention there would not be any Labour bashing from LG like IOTL, so Labour would have won more from Tories. But I agree there would be little possibility of pushing Tory number down to 316.

But what would be Tories' policies ITTL? I expect a more laissez-faire policies with much fewer reforms like IOTL, plus there might be still Geddes Axe, which would piss off returning soldiers even more. Meanwhile, in the opposition, the call for "A country fits for Heroes" would be still there and increasingly attractive, LG would continue to cement his popularity with his slogan (note that Asquith had lost his seat and LG would be the sole leader during the period).
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
But if the much more unlikely case, Liberal winning in 1918, occurs, nothing could dislodge them until 1930s. Asquith losing his seat means PM Lloyd George with a full Liberal Cabinet: no-one could stop him from pursuing Homes fit for Heroes to the end, which means he would be even more popular.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
What makes Liberal reunification IMO at least somewhat plausible is that there seem to have been (at least at the start of the campaign) very few philosophical differences between the Lloyd George and Asquith Liberals. See my discussion at http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/ed27e3f59966167f where I point out that the main objection of the Asquithian Liberals was not to LG's peace or domestic program but to his allowing himself to become the prisoner of a Unionist-dominated Coalition, thus assuring that however progressive his own ideas might be, they could never be enacted. I also note LG's November 12 speech (welcomed by Asquith and Woodrow Wilson) advocating both reform at home ("Revolution I am not afraid of. Bolshevism I am not afraid of. It is reaction I am afraid of.") and a just peace unsullied by the spirit of revenge. (The rest of LG's campaign was in many respects the opposite of the November 12 speech, leaving it for future historians to debate which was the "real" LG.)
I agree with you on this. If DLG was firm in this direction, it would be clearly possible to reunite with Asquith. However, he made an u-turn not long after that.
 
The Liberals in 1918 have the same political problem as the Democrats in the US. They got into World War II, despite a clear and repeated promise not to (the Democrats) or a history and preferred policy of non-intervention in the European continent and skepticism towards militarism and imperialism in general. Plus the Liberals introduced conscription.

Neither party was going to be anything other than a walking corpse after World War II. In the US, the Democrats were saved by a ton of stuff in how politics is organized in the US preventing the formation of new major parties, and by the Great Depression. Lloyd George actually positioned the Liberals favorably with the Great Depression, but without a British equivalent of the Palmer raids, directed against Labour, this was always going to be very difficult to pull off.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The Liberals in 1918 have the same political problem as the Democrats in the US. They got into World War II, despite a clear and repeated promise not to (the Democrats) or a history and preferred policy of non-intervention in the European continent and skepticism towards militarism and imperialism in general. Plus the Liberals introduced conscription.

Neither party was going to be anything other than a walking corpse after World War II. In the US, the Democrats were saved by a ton of stuff in how politics is organized in the US preventing the formation of new major parties, and by the Great Depression. Lloyd George actually positioned the Liberals favorably with the Great Depression, but without a British equivalent of the Palmer raids, directed against Labour, this was always going to be very difficult to pull off.
I don't remember that the Democrats ever faced a formal split, while Liberal, twice. Even the second split in 1931 was partly caused by resentment towards DLG. Due to DLG's deed in 1916, many never accepted him as leader.

Unlike FDR, who was pretty clean, DLG by 1929 had lost all reputation, I mean, people no longer remembered him as a hero, but as a betrayer to the his party and to the veterans, as well as a corrupt politician. In other words, he was unpopular and unreliable. As I remember, Labour found no difficulty in attacking DLG's infamous "A Land fits for Heroes" in 1929. Meanwhile, Asquith was too old and weak and died in 1928, and McKenna had retired from politics.
 
Last edited:
Top