Question on the Liberal Decline

Hi,

I've found that one of the factors leading to the decline of the Liberal party was the 'polarisation of the working class vote'. What is this about, and why and how did it lead to the decline of the Liberals? I've tried looking up on it, but can't seem to find anything.

Thanks! :smile:

Reply 1

punki_rach

I can't stand this topic but I'll give it a go. Polarization means a division of a group into opposing factions so I guess it means that the working class were torn over who to vote for. The Labour party was emerging so some would be inclined to vote for them as a natural choice for working class men, I guess. Also, after the great reforms of the Gladstonian governments in the late 19th century, the population began to be more interested in 'bread and water' policies. This basically meant they weren't interested in making Britain more democractic, just wanted enough money for food/water etc. The Liberal party never realised this so lost a lot of votes, particularly in the 1910, 1920's.

I think.

As I said I can't stand this subject and I'm not very interested in politics but this is the general feeling I got about the decline of the Liberals.

Other issues include poor local organisation, divisions within the Liberal party and the fact that many parties just stole the Liberal's ideas etc.

Reply 2

Oooh, oooh, i love this topic. :smile:

In fact, i've just written a 4000 word essay on the decline of the Liberals!

The polarisation of the working class is talking about how the working class vote was split between the Labour and Conservative parties. Most people tend to assume that this was because Labour was able to be much more left wing/radical than the Liberals and that it was inevitable that Labour would overtake the Liberals - this is not the case, however. The Labour Party were not a more left-wing version of the Liberal Party, their policies were in fact near carbon copies of the Liberals'. The polarisation of the working class occurred for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, the Liberals were losing nonconformist (a type of christianity) support since about the turn of the century. The nonconformists had achieved much of what they wanted to achieve through the Liberals and there wasn't much left for them to fight for. The loss of nonconformist support in the working class areas was a massive blow to the Liberals especially as most nonconformists were either radical or pacifist and therefore drifted towards Labour. There were more Labour nonconformist MP's in the commons in 1924 than there were Liberal.

Secondly, the Liberal party lost a lot of grass roots support during the war which meant that Labour were able to take over their left wing support. A lack of organisation/leadership during the war meant that most local Liberal associations went into decline and a lot of vital activists (important for stirring up support for the Liberals) left, due to a lack of leadership, and joined the Labour party. The Liberal policy against suffragism before the war also meant that women activists (who formed a massive part of the local Liberal associations) were alienated and left for Labour as well.

With no more successful social reforms the Liberals were struggling in power, the working class people were looking for improvements in their daily lives and a complete lack of local organisation meant that they were not convinced the Liberals could achieve this.

Another important factor was the Conservative working class vote. Many working class people were keen to vote for the conservative party after the war, as they were the party pushing for the harshest penalties to be imposed on Germany and they also wanted to vote for Lloyd George, the 'man who won the war'. This also applied to the new women voters, and those voting for their husbands, who saw voting conservative as 'doing their bit' to punish Germany. Many working class voters were also keen on 'retrenchment' - the basis of conservatism, the policy of leaving things the way they are.

Basically, the Liberal party declined for several reasons:

-Loss of grass roots support meant that the party had little following in the country and so could no revive itself after the split. Loss of activists meant that Liberal associations were seriously decaying in the inter-war era. Working class voters had polarised between the other two parties who assumed control of the left and right wing of politics - leaving the Liberals in the middle ground with no support. Many radical/pacifist MP's left the Liberals to join Labour and more right wing Liberals, like Churchill, joined the Conservatives. Other elderly 'old' Liberals retired in 1918 or died. The Liberal Party was swallowed from either side.

-The obstinacy of Asquith was a major factor. He refused to negotiate over the War Committee, refused to join the government and took so long to step down as leader that by the time he did Lloyd George could do little to revive the party.

- Asquith completely failed to lead his party. Following the split in 1916 he took no position, he didnt attack the war and he didnt support the coalition by joining it. His lack of policy in the 1918 election destroyed the Liberal Party, they were simply blamed for the disasters of the early years of the war and were reduced to just 28 MP's.

-Post War revival was hampered by a complete lack of funds. While Lloyd George had millions of his own money, he was reluctant to give it to the Liberal Party with Asquith in charge.

I've simplified it a lot so it's not too long, but i hope that helps. :smile:

Let me know if you have any questions.