Coalitions and Liberal Parties

As I said on Monday I've just finished reading A Short History of the Liberal party 1900-1988.

One thing that has become clear is how bad coalitions were for the Liberal party. Of course we aren't the Liberal Party, we're the Liberal Democrats. Totally different. But a quick recap is sobering:

1915-1922 Coalition under Asquith and Lloyd George saw us go from 270 seats in 1910 election to 36 seats in 1922. Having split into Liberals and Coalitions Liberals.

The 1931 election elected 72 Liberals (split into Liberals and National Liberals). The National Liberals were in coalitions with the Tories (and Labour for some of it), and by the end of the crisis in 1945 we were down to 12 seats.

In case you think it is just a Tory thing, don't forget in 1974 we had 13 seats, and the Lib-Lab pact cost us 2 seats net. (over 15%!)

Mind you it has to be said that this does knock the idea that coalitions are unstable on the head: both coalitions lasted over the length of a modern parliament. Didn't do us much good electorally though.

A Short History of the Liberal Party (1900-1988)

Another of my Hay purchases was Chris Cook's A Short History of the Liberal Party 1900-1988.

This was the third edition of the book, the first being 1900-76, the second 1900-1983. Since 1988 there have been editions for 1900-2001 and oddly enough a new edition is due out later this year.

It is a well written book for the most part. If I was to be very critical I'd comment on three things:

1. Often Cook mentions some important controversy without explaining the detail. Whilst this is fine for the Thorpe scandal (say), it is a bit more of an issue when talking about (say) the Taff Vale decision.
2. The book does gloss a little over the scandals of Liberalism: we don't get much on the Lloyd-George honours scandal, and the Thorpe conspiracy trial isn't mentioned at all.
3. The later sections aren't as detailed as the early sections, becoming catalogues of by-elections.

The third one is probably inevitable. The sources for the details on the spats and controversies of the earlier chapters is presumably private papers that only become available over time. Except for the merger talks, where the fighting was so public, the details of these since the 1970s weren't available in 1988.

I'm quite inclined to buy the new edition when it comes out, partly to see if the 1970s onwards bits have improved, however I'd imagine the bits about the Kennedy and Campbell era will be short of the important details about knife wielders...

I could summarise this book (or, to be fair, the subject matter) with three sentences. For each era pick one...

• The performance of the Liberals at the general election of XXXX failed to live up to the promise of the by-elections or polls; or
• Then the party split into two or more parts; or
• Both of the above

The second one particularly happened when we had coalitions with the Tories. I'm just saying.

Overall it was an enjoyable quick guide, but just a starting point. Definitely worth the £2.50 I paid at Hay.

How about this for a parliamentary insult

I recently found myself searching Hansard for something and I found this little episode:

Sir, the hon. Member who has just sat down must recollect that those who meet him in debate do not meet him on equal terms. He never makes any mistakes; he is not subject to any human infirmity; he knows what a man can deny, and what not; and when he asserts that my right hon. Friend cannot deny a certain statement, and when my right hon. Friend does deny it, the hon. Member continues with unabated confidence to assert that my right hon. Friend had not denied it. The hon. Member's means of acquiring knowledge are derived from higher sources than are available to us—sources of which we know nothing, and to which we have no access. We must approach him as infirm mortals, and any humble suggestions we make must be submitted to his infallible judgment.

Ouch. Now, that insult was from the Prime Minister, a Mr Gladstone when discussing the Lords' amendments to the 1872 Ballot Act. Would one get away with such dripping sarcasm today?