One of the more obscure effects of the constitutional crisis of 1910/11 was that in the spring of 1911 there was a brief movement within the Tory radical right to break away and found their own organisation, which would probably have been called 'National Party'. OTL, it didn't really come to much beyond a fair amount of correspondence between various 'Diehards' and Richard Verney, the 19th Lord Willoughby De Broke on the subject. After apparently giving the matter serious consideration, Verney reluctantly abandoned the idea, telling his erstwhile supporters that "There is no escape from the conclusion that nothing in this country has a real chance until it is adopted by one of the Party machines" and throwing his energy instead into bringing the Conservative Party around to his own line of thinking.
But that's OTL and rather dull. WI Verney had decided to take the risk and 'break the mold'?
Let's hand-wave the exact PoD for now- There's a big difference between discussing idle schemes of rebellion and actually going through with it after all, and Verney came to his conclusion for eminently sensible reasons. Perhaps Balfour decides not to return to politics after losing his Manchester seat in the 1906 election and somebody less competent succeeds him, producing the neccesary bitterness to cause a split? If we can make it happen though I think the results will be very interesting indeed, not least because the years immediately before the First World War are probably the best period in modern British politics for a new party to appear and actually make a difference. Anyway, for now let's just say that by the summer of 1911 the new National Party has come into being, just in time to futilely vote against the final passing of the Parliament Act.
Who's in the new Party? Well, for a start it'll have a decent presence in the Lords as the members of the Halbury Club and similar Diehard groups will doubtless join en-masse. This gives us the Milnerites, and doubtless quite a few others. It's at this point I should mention some names, but unfortunately I don't have the books to hand- I do think there will be quite a few defectors however. In the Commons the National Party will probably get itself at least half a dozen MPs from the Tory radical right, particularly people like Page-Croft, Richard Cooper and the other supporters of OTL's National Party. There will probably be more defecters then OTL however as the movement has greater respectability and gravitas- Leo Amery will be in for example, as he was a Halbury member himself. Then there's the Irish Unionists, who are going to love the hard line National takes on Home Rule. Carson as National's first leader in the Commons?
Policy-wise National will be rather distinctive- I think Verney's own words sum it up nicely; "We are pledged to reconstruct the constitution, the Navy and the Tariff. In other branches of national life the whole field is open to us. Eugenics and Education. have got to be faced if we would keep our place within the nations. Let us rely on the National character and aim at preserving it by breeding from the best stock. reared. in the ideals of religion and patriotism, equipped with a trade education, protected by a tariff from unfair foreign competition, trained to bear arms. and alive to all the duties of Membership of the British Empire". I think there's a niche for this, and a party that unashamedly campaigned for what Austen Chamberlain called the 'radical authoritaire' would potentially do rather well at the polls, especially in stealing the working-class Tory vote. Not that the polls hugely matter, as National also have the advantage that in 1911 a new election is a long time away- WW1 will doubtless kick off as OTL and this means that National will have longer then the normal length of a parliament to establish itself. This insulates them somewhat from the normal fate of breakaway parliamentary parties in British politics, which tend to get gutted the second a general election comes along as most of the defecting MPs lose their seats to loyalist candidates from the party they left. I'm wondering if the War will stop this from happening, although I'll come to that in a second.
Firstly, the political state 1911-1914. I think in this TL the Tories are potentially going to have a lot of their thunder stolen by National, which will be very bellicose on Home Rule (assuming they aren't moderated by Milner, who I believe was rather more pragmatic on the issue then others of his ilk). This may make them redouble their own rhetoric to compete with National and avoid being outflanked on the Right. Might this make the Home Rule crisis even more bad-tempered then OTL? I think the danger is that by 1914 the Tories are going to look very limp indeed compared to their rivals, or like desperate imitators.
Then we come to the war. This is the crisis that National have been predicting for some time, and having their policies put into action to mobilise the country by the Liberal government will do wonders for their credibility. I can see National quite willing to support Asquith in a
government of 'National Unity' along with the Conservatives, as it fits their ideological attraction to decisive government that isn't party-based. Having said that, the Party will soon become intense critics of the war effort and urge greater sacrifices- I can see them being extremely happy to unseat Asquith in conjunction with Lloyd-George, assuming they haven't left in disgust already.
After this, who knows? I can see National making common cause with Lloyd George and his breakaway Liberals, but the numbers don't quite add up enough to make a viable coalition. If enough Tories can be persuaded to join in though then things would work out fine, and a 'coupon election' immediately after the war would probably entrench this new government. God knows what this will do to the course of the war and the resulting treaties, let alone Ireland. The Lloyd-George Liberals and National will make good bedfellows, and I could see this being enough to make National a lasting political force- By the late 1930's do we see the British political scene being divided between the right-wing interventionists of National, socialist Labour and the smaller laissez-faire Liberal Conservatives?
The other option of course is for them to be re-absorbed into the Conservative Party in a Coalition government and over the course of the 1920's, much as many Liberals were in the same period. In this situation, might the scare given by National make the Conservatives more radical in their policies and give rise to somebody less moderate then Baldwin becoming leader?
But that's OTL and rather dull. WI Verney had decided to take the risk and 'break the mold'?
Let's hand-wave the exact PoD for now- There's a big difference between discussing idle schemes of rebellion and actually going through with it after all, and Verney came to his conclusion for eminently sensible reasons. Perhaps Balfour decides not to return to politics after losing his Manchester seat in the 1906 election and somebody less competent succeeds him, producing the neccesary bitterness to cause a split? If we can make it happen though I think the results will be very interesting indeed, not least because the years immediately before the First World War are probably the best period in modern British politics for a new party to appear and actually make a difference. Anyway, for now let's just say that by the summer of 1911 the new National Party has come into being, just in time to futilely vote against the final passing of the Parliament Act.
Who's in the new Party? Well, for a start it'll have a decent presence in the Lords as the members of the Halbury Club and similar Diehard groups will doubtless join en-masse. This gives us the Milnerites, and doubtless quite a few others. It's at this point I should mention some names, but unfortunately I don't have the books to hand- I do think there will be quite a few defectors however. In the Commons the National Party will probably get itself at least half a dozen MPs from the Tory radical right, particularly people like Page-Croft, Richard Cooper and the other supporters of OTL's National Party. There will probably be more defecters then OTL however as the movement has greater respectability and gravitas- Leo Amery will be in for example, as he was a Halbury member himself. Then there's the Irish Unionists, who are going to love the hard line National takes on Home Rule. Carson as National's first leader in the Commons?
Policy-wise National will be rather distinctive- I think Verney's own words sum it up nicely; "We are pledged to reconstruct the constitution, the Navy and the Tariff. In other branches of national life the whole field is open to us. Eugenics and Education. have got to be faced if we would keep our place within the nations. Let us rely on the National character and aim at preserving it by breeding from the best stock. reared. in the ideals of religion and patriotism, equipped with a trade education, protected by a tariff from unfair foreign competition, trained to bear arms. and alive to all the duties of Membership of the British Empire". I think there's a niche for this, and a party that unashamedly campaigned for what Austen Chamberlain called the 'radical authoritaire' would potentially do rather well at the polls, especially in stealing the working-class Tory vote. Not that the polls hugely matter, as National also have the advantage that in 1911 a new election is a long time away- WW1 will doubtless kick off as OTL and this means that National will have longer then the normal length of a parliament to establish itself. This insulates them somewhat from the normal fate of breakaway parliamentary parties in British politics, which tend to get gutted the second a general election comes along as most of the defecting MPs lose their seats to loyalist candidates from the party they left. I'm wondering if the War will stop this from happening, although I'll come to that in a second.
Firstly, the political state 1911-1914. I think in this TL the Tories are potentially going to have a lot of their thunder stolen by National, which will be very bellicose on Home Rule (assuming they aren't moderated by Milner, who I believe was rather more pragmatic on the issue then others of his ilk). This may make them redouble their own rhetoric to compete with National and avoid being outflanked on the Right. Might this make the Home Rule crisis even more bad-tempered then OTL? I think the danger is that by 1914 the Tories are going to look very limp indeed compared to their rivals, or like desperate imitators.
Then we come to the war. This is the crisis that National have been predicting for some time, and having their policies put into action to mobilise the country by the Liberal government will do wonders for their credibility. I can see National quite willing to support Asquith in a
government of 'National Unity' along with the Conservatives, as it fits their ideological attraction to decisive government that isn't party-based. Having said that, the Party will soon become intense critics of the war effort and urge greater sacrifices- I can see them being extremely happy to unseat Asquith in conjunction with Lloyd-George, assuming they haven't left in disgust already.
After this, who knows? I can see National making common cause with Lloyd George and his breakaway Liberals, but the numbers don't quite add up enough to make a viable coalition. If enough Tories can be persuaded to join in though then things would work out fine, and a 'coupon election' immediately after the war would probably entrench this new government. God knows what this will do to the course of the war and the resulting treaties, let alone Ireland. The Lloyd-George Liberals and National will make good bedfellows, and I could see this being enough to make National a lasting political force- By the late 1930's do we see the British political scene being divided between the right-wing interventionists of National, socialist Labour and the smaller laissez-faire Liberal Conservatives?
The other option of course is for them to be re-absorbed into the Conservative Party in a Coalition government and over the course of the 1920's, much as many Liberals were in the same period. In this situation, might the scare given by National make the Conservatives more radical in their policies and give rise to somebody less moderate then Baldwin becoming leader?