Was the Liberal party dying before WW1?

AS and A Level History

Plan

-How Lloyd-George’s budget benefited the Working class?

-Introduction of all the welfare reforms between 1906-14?

-Struggle with the House of Lords?

-How the Liberal government were able to deal with problems faced?

-Trade union unrest

-Suffragette movement

-Ireland situation

The Oxford Dictionary takes the verb ‘die’ to mean stop existing or functioning. From this definition, I take ‘dying’ to mean a period of decline that approaches an end or finale. The Liberals came to power in 1906 with a clear majority. The Liberal party were at their peak.

Lloyd-George’s 1909 budget increased support for the Liberals, dragging working class votes away from the Labour party. With the Labour party becoming more of a threat, the Liberals had to offer the working class an alternative party to vote for, whilst keeping the support from existing voters. After all, the working class made up the majority of Britain and so became vital come the general elections. The Liberals tried hard to make themselves the working class party. They increased estate duties and other death duties, which meant that taxes on amounts left by the wealthy when they died were increased. Land taxes too were to be introduced. Both these policies pleased the working class who were keen to see the rich being over-taxed to account for their poverty and hardship. The Liberals also removed child allowances for those earning under £500 for each child they had under 16. Income taxes on the rich were raised, which would contribute towards Old Age Pensions that would aid the struggling working class workers. However, Lloyd-George also increased taxes on alcohol and tobacco, whilst also increasing payments for pub landlord’ licenses. This didn’t impress the working class who were the largest alcohol and tobacco consumers. They were struggling to survive under the old laws and could not afford to pay for alcohol or tobacco after these changes. The 1910 elections proved to the Liberals that they could not rely on working class voters. In fact, the Liberals lost 2 MP’s in the parliament in the December 190 elections, whilst Labour actually gained seats. The Liberals may have been making inroads into representing a working class party, but were still a long way behind Labour in that department.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The welfare reforms between 1906-11 kept the Liberals in power, but never fully met the needs of general society. There were several reforms that went part way to help the less fortunate, but were never fully sufficient in meeting the requirements of the general public. For example, the Medical Inspections act in 1907 (adjusted in 1914) was a prime example of the Liberals appearing to show genuine concern for the health of people, but doing only the minimum to improving their condition. Sir Robert Morant put forward the proposal that required the council to make inspections. However, the council were not forced to take action on what they found out until 1914, a whole 7 years after the proposal was put forward. Only 2/3 of people inspected were given some form of treatment by 1914. This was not the only reform that was insufficient for the public. Other reforms ranged from the Introduction of School Meals to the 1911 National Insurance act. However, the Liberals were famous for the number of reforms that they introduced whilst in power. In many cases they brought in changes that people desperately wanted. Arguably the most important reform was the 1908 Old Age Pensions act. Many people were worried about having to ask for poor relief when they were old with all the humiliation involved. 40% of those that lived over 65 had to apply for poor relief in the last year of their lives. Pensions, however, were a simple way of surviving without being humiliated. They were given to those people over 70 and those that earned under £21 a year. There were many calls for this reform to be introduced, so it was well received amongst the majority of the population. Although only 45% of those over 70 received pensions, it was far better than showing up these 600,000. The Liberals were genuinely concerned in improving the lives of all people-be it old or young.

The struggle and defeat of the House of Lords showed that the Liberals were in still in prime control and able to bring in whatever reforms they wanted. The House of Lords rejected Lloyd-George’s 1909 budget. This led to a General Election in 1910. The Liberals emphasised the fight against the Lords in the Election and how they planned to restrict their power, but they first had to get their budget passed. The Lords accepted this; providing the Liberals had a parliamentary majority. This posed two major headaches for Asquith. Firstly, the Liberals had lost their majority and so depended on the Irish Nationalists. The Nationalists would accept the budget providing the Lords’ power was removed and the Liberals introduced Irish Home Rule. The second problem for Asquith was that he had to get the Lords to agree to any law that limited their powers. They would only agree to this if they were under pressure. However, the King was a possible threat to this. He could create enough Liberal peers for the Liberals to have a majority for any Liberal bill, if he were willing. The King at the time was Edward VII and he was willing providing that Asquith put forward a particular ‘project’ for Lords reform to voters in an election. The Liberals could have their peers providing the won another election on the basis of the ‘project.’ Inconveniently Edward VII then died. The new King, George V, promised Asquith the same conditions that Edward had made. A Second General Election was called in December 1910 that produced a similar result to January. George V promised to create the peers if they were needed, and Asquith brought in a bill to remove the Lords’ power to veto new laws. The defeat of the House of Lords was arguably one of the Liberals’ greatest achievements during their 1906-14 reign. On the other hand, the Liberals lost a lot of support from upper class members that saw the defeat of the Lords as an attack on them. Many people including many famous historians believed that the Liberals were turning more to the working class for support and leaving their own middle class supporters.

I take the view that the Liberal party was not dying before World War 1. Dying indicates that the Liberals were ready to fold as a party and stop functioning. There is no suggestion from the knowledge and information that I have collected that remotely indicates that the Liberals were dying. They twice won the 1910 elections, though the gap between them and the Conservatives was close and closing. They defeated the House of Lords, which had been a thorn in their side since the 1890’s and were therefore able to bring in whatever reforms that they felt was necessary to remain in government. They were still introducing reforms such as the 1911 Health Insurance act, which improved the lives of injured and/or ill workers. They also seemed to be making progress with the working class, though were never likely to become the ‘Working Class’ party.

However, though I don’t believe that the Liberals were dying, I do take the view that they were in a period of decline. The 1910 elections proved that the Conservatives were posing a serious threat and were closing the gap on the Liberals. The Liberals also seemed to be struggling with trade union unrest, the suffragette movement and the Irish situation. 80 million working days lost between 1909-14 is an example of their poor handling. The 1909 Budget also had many sceptics who were angered by the Budget. Not one of the classes could say that they were fully supportive of Lloyd-George’s budget. I therefore feel that the Liberals were in a state of decline but were not dying.

The Political Impact of the Budget

The immediate importance of the 1909 budget lay in its transforming effect on the political situation. Between 1906 and 1908 the euphoria of the Liberals’ landslide election victory had worn off. For although the government had several achievements in social reform, bills that were dear to traditional Liberals had been mauled by the House of Lords which refused to be intimidated by the government’s popular mandate. The peers had shrewdly calculated that measures for licensing or education reform which pleased Nonconformist Liberal activists did not stir the public at large. Meanwhile Keir Hardie had freely attacked the government over unemployment, and the by-elections of 1907 suggested that the Labour party was gaining support.

Consequently Lloyd George always intended to recapture the initiative for the Liberals: in the event he exceeded that modest objective. For the rejection of his budget provoked a controversy of a kind that had not been heard since 1885 when Joseph Chamberlain launched his ‘unauthorised programme’ against the landowning class. In some rumbustious speeches at Limehouse in London and at Newcastle-upon-Tyne during July and October 1909 Lloyd George openly attacked the peers for their selfishness in refusing to pay a fair contribution to national defence and social reform. He was humorous as usual:

‘… a fully-equipped Duke costs as much to keep as two Dreadnoughts - and they are just as great a terror - and they last longer.’

But he also threatened a more radical assault on property:

‘They are forcing a revolution, and they will get it ... Who made ten thousand men the owners of the soil and the rest of us trespassers in the land of our birth?’

The Chancellor showed his tactical skill in engaging the enemy in this way, for the Conservatives could hardly withdraw from their intransigent position without humiliation. When the peers finally threw out the budget in November by 350 votes to 75, Lloyd George positively crowed: ‘We have got them at last’. By this he meant that the Liberals had been presented with a popular issue with which to attack the peers. In the past the temptation to over-rule them by appealing to the country had always been resisted. Now the risk could be taken - indeed, it had to be if the budget were to be saved. There followed a general election in January 1910 which was virtually a referendum on the budget and the peers.

The Liberals’ success at this election had important implications for all the other parties. Although the Conservatives recovered some of the votes lost in 1906, their gamble had clearly failed and the peers reluctantly swallowed the budget they had so vociferously condemned a few months earlier. Even worse, they now realised that Lloyd George had defeated their tariff reform strategy by proving that by widening the tax base the country could enjoy social reforms and a stronger navy on the one hand while retaining the benefits of free trade on the other. As a result the Conservatives began to fall into disarray over protectionism. Some questioned whether it was sensible to stick to a policy that had alienated working-class voters and thus threatened to keep them in opposition indefinitely.

In a rather different way the Labour party had also been trapped by the budget strategy, for Ramsay MacDonald and his colleagues fully supported the taxation of wealth and the attack on the House of Lords. This logically meant that the electoral pact with the Liberals must be continued in the 1910 elections. But while the pact ensured a secure group of 40 MPs for Labour, it also made it very difficult to grow beyond that point. No longer was there any danger of Labour outflanking the Liberals, and it is significant that no further gains were made even in by-elections.