To what extent were the Conservatives responsible for the for the Liberal revival in the years 1902-15?

to what extent were the conservatives responsible for the for the liberal revival in the years 1902-15?

After 1886, with the Gladstone’s powers diminishing and electorate disaffection with the Liberals, the Conservatives under Salisbury became the natural party of government. This was due for the most part to Liberal weaknesses, but also due to shrewd political manoeuvring by Salisbury. When Balfour took over Tory leadership in July 1902, though, the Conservative dominance which had existed under his uncle’s leadership quickly eroded, and the Liberals swept back to power in January 1906. From then on, the Liberals retained power for nearly 20 years. One interpretation of this Liberal revival is that the Conservatives’ own shortcomings allowed the Liberals to regain power - that it was very much a result of negative politics. A second interpretation cites post-Gladstonian New Liberalism’s strength as the primary reason for the revival. There are also those who hold the view that the general condition of England allowed New Liberalism to thrive. In truth, while the condition of England remained a constant factor throughout the period, it was the Conservatives’ weaknesses which led to Liberal victory in 1906, and Liberal strength which allowed the revival to endure after initial electoral success.

The stance that the Conservatives’ own failings led to the Liberal revival appears to have much to commend it. Balfour’s 1902 Education Act, while a considerable achievement in some ways, raised considerable anger amongst Nonconformists, as it meant that the local rates paid for in part by Nonconformists would be used to fund Anglican schools. This not only caused great controversy, playing a part in the 1906 Conservative defeat, but also united the Liberal Party, which had been split over many issues towards the latter stages of Gladstone’s leadership. Another issue which raised further controversy for Balfour’s government to deal with was that of Chinese Slavery in the Transvaal. The use of Chinese coolies to aid reconstruction at the end of the Boer War evoked memories of slavery and thus evoked the ire of middle-class voters on humanitarian grounds. This added to the anti-Imperialist sentiment which had replaced the jingoism of Disraeli’s heyday, and was exploited by the Liberals in opposition, further uniting. Furthermore, this appeared to set a precedent by which firms would undermine union action by importing foreign labour, again distancing the Conservatives from a section of the electorate to the Liberals’ advantage. The 1901 Taff Vale judgement, which implied financial ruin for any union that called a strike, Balfour’s inaction in its aftermath, and Chamberlain’s highly controversial proposal for tariff reform, further alienated the electorate and united the Liberals in opposition. All of these factors would lead to the landslide Liberal victory of January 1906, a key moment in the Liberal revival. Historians have been merciless in placing the blame for the Liberal landslide at the Conservatives’ feet, with Blake blaming Balfour personally for “misuse of Lords… Chinese Slavery and the response to Taff Vale”. However, it must be acknowledged that it would be harsh to blame Balfour and the Conservatives entirely for their part in the Liberal recovery. It could be argued that the Liberals flaws in Conservative measures; in terms of the much maligned Education Act, money for Church schools had been taken from a central governmental fund, so Nonconformist ratepayers were funding Church school before the legislation was passed. With Blewett contending that the “sudden crumbling of the government’s popularity… resulted apparently from the Education Bill of 1902”, the Liberal role in stressing Conservative failures must be accepted. With regards to Balfour, though, there cannot be any doubt that his weaknesses as leader aided the Liberal electoral victory. He had shown little inclination to introduce a programme of reform to alleviate working class poverty, and his public lack of accordance with Chamberlain over tariff reform reinforced the notion of him as an ineffectual leader. Balfour’s personal weaknesses, though, as well as a string of unpopular decisions from his government abetted the Liberal revival greatly by uniting them in opposition. After a crushing defeat in the 1906 elections, Balfour’s attempt to use a majority in the House of Lords to veto Liberal reform led to a crisis in which the Liberals pushed through limitations on the House of Lords. Thus, even in opposition, the Conservatives (Balfour in particular) provided issues for the Liberals to deal with, sustaining their progressive momentum. It is clear, unsurprisingly, that there were far more Conservative failings before 1906 than after, and that these undoubtedly contributed to the Liberal revival. However, it is also apparent that the Liberals themselves, again unsurprisingly, had a large hand in exploiting these Conservative failings to the fullest extent.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In recognising the Liberal role in exploiting Conservative weaknesses, one comes onto the wider second interpretation: that New Liberalism was the main cause for the Liberal revival at the beginning of the 20th century. One factor which greatly helped the Liberal victory was the steady leadership of Henry Campbell-Bannerman who, despite the political intriguing against him from within the Liberal Party, continued with the business of preparing for government. However, this aside, it was mainly exploitation of Conservative weaknesses which united the Liberals and won over the electorate. It was during the Liberal administration itself where the Liberals sustained the revival which had arisen as a result of Tory failings. A string of social reforms designed to protect the most vulnerable sections of society (children, the elderly, the sick and the unemployed) gave the impression that this Liberal government was committed to meeting the needs of the most impoverished and deprived in society. Watts held the view that New Liberalism had “no support among the Cabinet in 1906”: whether this was the case or not (i.e. whether ‘New Liberalism’ was a genuine political philosophy or merely a vote-winning tactic fuelled by political self-interest and fear of the burgeoning Labour movement) is irrelevant with regards to its role in the Liberal revival. Measures such as the 1906 Schools Meals Act and the far-reaching 1911 National Insurance Act meant that the government was at last attempting to tackle poverty, a concept far-removed from the stiff laissez-faire attitudes of Victorian Britain. Liberal reforms, then, did much to sustain the Liberal revival begun by Conservative shortcomings. As aforementioned, the constitutional crisis which arose in 1910 as a result of Balfour’s abuse of the Conservative dominated House of Lords meant that the Liberal revival kept its pace, showing that Liberals did still exploit poor Conservative decision-making after the 1906 election. However, it remained the case that the majority of Liberal success post-1906 was of their own doing, while the Conservative failures which preceded the election allowed the Liberals to unite.

A third interpretation argues that, over narrow political reasons, it was the wider condition of Britain which meant that New Liberalism was bound to succeed over Conservatism. Proponents of this third interpretation would argue that the primary reason that the Liberals undertook such an extensive programme of reform was not political expediency, but was genuine response to a problem with national efficiency. These ‘efficiency’ problems became pronounced during the Boer War, when almost a third of the British volunteers had to be turned away on grounds of physical lack of fitness, and became even more pronounced when people like Booth and Rowntree in the late 19th century made detailed investigations into poverty and announced figures such as 35% of Londoners living in abject poverty. Here, then, was an external impetus for the Liberal Party to reform and thus become the natural party of government. Balfour’s lack of commitment to reform in light of such findings created a reforming vacuum for the Liberals to fill, further enabling the Liberals to overhaul Conservative dominance and assert their own ascendancy. It is clear that the issue of national efficiency certainly had a part to play in allowing the Liberal revival to happen over the period’s entirety, then, but it must be recognised that Conservative failings and Liberal pro-activity in reform had greater significance than this issue.

It may be most prudent, then, to view the election of January 1906 as a pivotal event in terms of the Liberal revival; for while the Conservatives were greatly responsible for the Liberal revival before the 1906 elections, uniting them in opposition due to numerous failures, the Liberals themselves maintained the revival during their time in power by carrying out numerous social reforms, the first time that any government had provided welfare benefits as a right. That is not to say Liberal strength and Conservative weaknesses did not occur before and after 1906 completely; in particular, Balfour’s abuse of the House of Lords allowed the Liberals a great coup in limiting the Lords’ power. With the issue of national efficiency both helping the Liberal cause and hindering the Conservatives’ through Balfour’s indifference to reform, it is clear that the party in government was most responsible for the Liberal revival; the Conservatives coming to the end of their spell in power with the Liberals exploiting the power of negative politics to ascend to power, and then New Liberalism tackling poverty, with the running theme of national efficiency contributing to both sides of the 1906 pivot.

To what extent were the Conservatives responsible for the for the Liberal revival in the years 1902-15?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

To What Extent Was Joseph Chamberlain's Tariff Reform Campaign Responsible...

To what extent was Arthur Balfour responsible for Conservative decline?

Account for the crushing defeat of the Conservatives in the general electio...

To what extent were the trading companies responsible for the growth of the...