WI: A Liberal Minority Government in the Mid 20s?

[Time Enough]

What If, instead of Ramsay Mac leading the first Labour Minority Government in 23/24 what if the Liberals managed to gain one last minority before there eventual collapse?

What would be the effects of per say a brief ‘23-25’ Asquith or DLG Government reliant on Labour support? How could this possibly happen and finally what be the effects on Labour and the Labour Movement in Britain.

 

[Lidenbrock]

With the trade unions demanding parliamentary representation and the organisational difficulties they had after years of decline, any Liberal minority in the '20s is tricky, but doable. If Lloyd George declined the Coalition Coupon, or he calls a halt to the Passchendale offensive in 1917 as he had reservations IOTL, and the government falls. Bonar Law, or if he didn't fancy it, another Unionist would pick up the Premiership, and the Liberals reunited in Opposition.

Asquith by Stephen Koss or Bonar Law by RJQ Adams have a few PODs to work with, I can bring DM you more ideas when I'm back home.

But any Liberal minority would show off why they deserve another chance. Negotiating away trade disputes to not anger the working classes - no General Strike perhaps? Infrastructure reforms, eletricity, housing, consensual, pro-Versailles diplomacy. Investment in industry and ideas of co-ownership if they get time for it.

Renegotiating war reparations and some manner of trade agreement with Ireland seems probable.

I think post-1918 any recovery was always in question, and post-1922, permanently impossible, for structural reasons. In this last Liberal government you probably just accelerate the split in the Liberal coalition - John Simon, et al, journey to the right, while the Radicals realise how well they work with Labour.

If the Liberals can sustain working class support, I can see some in Labour pushing the radical line, gaining extractions. But with the Liberals on life support, MacDonald's Cleggism for the Twenties may very well strengthen Labour in the long run. A split when DLG refuses to renationalise the mines but makes the mine owners forfeit their royalties?

William Adamson could have been LotO in 1918 when he came ahead of the Independent Liberals, but didn't assert his claim. I think there's a lot to be said for how Labour saw themselves as independent but a prop to the Liberal movement, until suddenly they weren't.

Pipisme's TL in the Other Place is good, sidesteps the how and shows you the what.

 

[Time Enough]

But any Liberal minority would show off why they deserve another chance. Negotiating away trade disputes to not anger the working classes - no General Strike perhaps? Infrastructure reforms, eletricity, housing, consensual, pro-Versailles diplomacy. Investment in industry and ideas of co-ownership if they get time for it.

Interesting, it reminds me a bit of a Ramsay Mac tenure but if he wasn’t having to constantly compromise at every turn. I get the sense that the Liberals (under DLG at least) would probably be more loose with the cash, which could lead to turmoil and Tory austerity measures the next time they get into government.

I think post-1918 any recovery was always in question, and post-1922, permanently impossible, for structural reasons. In this last Liberal government you probably just accelerate the split in the Liberal coalition - John Simon, et al, journey to the right, while the Radicals realise how well they work with Labour.

If the Liberals can sustain working class support, I can see some in Labour pushing the radical line, gaining extractions. But with the Liberals on life support, MacDonald's Cleggism for the Twenties may very well strengthen Labour in the long run. A split when DLG refuses to renationalise the mines but makes the mine owners forfeit their royalties?

I think the turn to Labour was bound to happen in a Post 1918 scenario, maybe someone like Runciman could staunch the bleeding for a bit but the collapse was likely going to happen. I could see a split occurring in which the folks like Wedgwood-Benn join Labour over something like Pensions or Miners pay or something.

William Adamson could have been LotO in 1918 when he came ahead of the Independent Liberals, but didn't assert his claim. I think there's a lot to be said for how Labour saw themselves as independent but a prop to the Liberal movement, until suddenly they weren't.

Pipisme's TL in the Other Place is good, sidesteps the how and shows you the what

I’ve seen it around so I may check it out. I think the interesting thing about a Mid 20s Liberal minority government is it likely causes what happened in other Anglosphere countries like NZ to happen where after a period of time as a third party/opposition the Labour Party is able to jump ahead to a majority without the awkward year’s of Minorities and all that. Which definitely would mean a healthier and more stable Labour Party in the long run in some ways.

 

[Time Enough]

Asquith by Stephen Koss or Bonar Law by RJQ Adams have a few PODs to work with, I can bring DM you more ideas when I'm back home.

I’d be happy to hear them.

 

[Lidenbrock]

Interesting, it reminds me a bit of a Ramsay Mac tenure but if he wasn’t having to constantly compromise at every turn. I get the sense that the Liberals (under DLG at least) would probably be more loose with the cash, which could lead to turmoil and Tory austerity measures the next time they get into government.

Definitely the failures of a weak minority makes a majority Labour government more appealing.

I think the turn to Labour was bound to happen in a Post 1918 scenario, maybe someone like Runciman could staunch the bleeding for a bit but the collapse was likely going to happen. I could see a split occurring in which the folks like Wedgwood-Benn join Labour over something like Pensions or Miners pay or something.

Another Radical who considered jumping over was Charles Masterman (approached by Harold Laski in 1923 to stand in a safe Labour seat). He was in the Christian Socialist mould so would get on very well with Wedgwood Benn, and could bring over others like Hubert Henderson, Frank Briant, etc. I'm immensely fond of Masterman but he had too many personal problems by then, sadly.

I’ve seen it around so I may check it out. I think the interesting thing about a Mid 20s Liberal minority government is it likely causes what happened in other Anglosphere countries like NZ to happen where after a period of time as a third party/opposition the Labour Party is able to jump ahead to a majority without the awkward year’s of Minorities and all that. Which definitely would mean a healthier and more stable Labour Party in the long run in some ways.

Don't know enough about socialism in the Commonwealth then but agreed that a definite majority shows Labour as the concrete alternative.

 

[Time Enough]

Another Radical who considered jumping over was Charles Masterman (approached by Harold Laski in 1923 to stand in a safe Labour seat). He was in the Christian Socialist mould so would get on very well with Wedgwood Benn, and could bring over others like Hubert Henderson, Frank Briant, etc. I'm immensely fond of Masterman but he had too many personal problems by then, sadly.

Interesting (especially that Harold Laski was the one to propose it as well). The failure of the last Liberal Minority would likely lead to more jumping over earlier as it seems most of the Labour defectors did it around 25/26 around the General Strike period. It would likely lead to a rump Liberal party that mainly consists of Free Traders and Classic Liberals with a small base of Radical mixed in.

A Liberal minority would also probably put a final nail in the coffin on folks like Lloyd-George for folks like Ramsay.

Don't know enough about socialism in the Commonwealth then but agreed that a definite majority shows Labour as the concrete alternative.

A lot of the stuff with Labour’s rise in New Zealand has to do with the two big parties joining together to fight the depression and managing to annoy enough voters to cause vote splitting and a Labor victory, which does seem like something that could have happened (a 1930/31 Conservative-Liberal Government that collapses and causes an election seems like a possibility).

 

[heraclius]

There's an article based on this prospect in Duncan Brack and Iaian Dale's 'Prime Minister Portillo and Other Things That Never Happened' (Politico's Publ, 2003) by Richard Grayson, ie 'What if the Liberal Party had Emerged United from the First World War', pp. 1-20. This has Asquith not being toppled by a coup by Lloyd George in 1916 and surviving as PM until victory in 1918, with LG given more direction of the war effort and remaining loyal but increasingly the power behind the weakening PM. The Liberals win the 1918 election , but lose ground heavily in the post-War disillusion especially from a backlash against Home Rule for Ireland as one state (imposed as the initial Ireland plan post-War as promised in 1914 and needed to keep Redmond and co onside in the Commons as the Libs have lost a lot of seats to Labour in 1918) which the Conservatives stir up. In the end the Lib minister for Ireland, ironically Winston Churchill, has to agree to divide Ireland and let Ulster be separate from Dublin to stop PR disasters over 'betraying Protestantism' losing many more seats in the next election, but the Cons win in 1922 anyway as Asquith retires and LG is under pressure for financial sleaze- with Austen Chamberlain as Con leader. The Cons have a small majority, and are a weak govt in 1923-4 on the same shaky minority ground as the real life Labour govt; the Liberals are now losing working class seats en masse to Labour in the post-war recession for not doing enough for the unemployed or beefing up benefits in 1918-22.

Chamberlain cannot solve the problems and lacks the mindset to do anything radical; the Cons lose in late 1924 to a Liberal party revived and energised by LG but LG cannot form a govt without the support of Labour as the Libs are still losing ground in urban and working-class seats for inadequate reaction to recession and too many 'alien' middle-class candidates unappealing to the workers. Henderson not Macdonald is leading Labour, as a 'reassuring' figure and a good organiser, and enters coalition with LG - Labour gets assorted cabinet seats and secures recognition of the Soviet govt , which the Tories exploit in a 'Red scare'. The left of Labour ends up dissatisfied as LG creates an equivalent of his real life industrial revival plan to boost the economy and boosts pensions and unemployt pay too but his tax-hikes to pay for this (imposed by Churchill as Chancellor) scare off middle class voters. LG cannot solve the economic problems and is dogged by more sleaze allegations plus anger from the Asquith wing of the party at his being 'hostage' to the Left and dropping Asquithian rivals from Cabinet; the Cons present a reassuring, incorrupt and lower-tax image under Baldwin after Chamberlain has to retire as 'out of touch' and they win the late 1928 elections. Baldwin then runs a majority govt after 1928, but is hit by the Depression and imposes austerity on the bankers plan in 1931 as in real life forced on Macdonald. The Labour left object to the LG govt including their party leadership propping up capitalism in 1924-8 and when Mosley is elected by MPs to succeed Henderson as leader they break off as a separate ILP, led by Maxton.

Reasonably plausible; my own ideas however centre on a slightly higher Lib vote in Dec 1923 putting the Libs , then led by Asquith after an uneasy reconciliation with LG, ahead of Labour and thus leading a Lib-Lab coalition, with Macdonald as Foreign Sec in 1924-8. Asquith would have to retire early in the Parlt, probably in 1925/6 as over 70 (however much drink or exhaustion had taken their toll), and LG takes over and imposes his industrial plan with Lab support. His conciliation to capital to get them onside splits the Lab party , and the sleaze aids the Cons under Baldwin (who has been PM in 1923-4 in this scenario, as in OTL) who win in 1928. A minority Con govt has to rely on the main Lab faction under Macdonald for support in the Commons and collapses in 1930, and Lab wins the next election as a clear alternative to years of devious minority govt politicking symbolised by LG's notorious deals but is still with only a small majority and is hostage to left wing MPs revolting in votes. Lab under Macdonald then gets hit by the recession in 1931 and Macdonald is unable to form a Nat govt without losing most of his MPs, so he resigns in Sept 1931 - and we get Baldwin with a Con majority plus austerity in 1931-7.

 

[Time Enough]

Reasonably plausible; my own ideas however centre on a slightly higher Lib vote in Dec 1923 putting the Libs , then led by Asquith after an uneasy reconciliation with LG, ahead of Labour and thus leading a Lib-Lab coalition, with Macdonald as Foreign Sec in 1924-8

My only complaint about that is that MacDonald disliked the idea of joining a coalition with the Liberals, someone like Clynes would be more amicable to a situation like that.

But over all it makes sense, having Asquith and DLG forgive each other and unite after all the chaos would likely lead to a briefly stronger Liberals before they inevitably collapse due to infighting and personality problems.

 

[Lidenbrock]

Compromising with the Liberals to gain power in a minority would probably enhance greater fissures in Labour and delay a straight majority that bit longer, I reckon. But a temporary Liberal revival gives Labour the chance to show what a really Progressive government can do.