resentful towards the Liberals, for example someone who has a small business taken
over would lose his sense of achievement and his livelihood. This resentment was
further fuelled by the attacks on civilians carried out by German Aircraft, which for
the first time created a civilian life threat by war. DORA can therefore be seen as an
example of why the first world war killed the Liberal party, because the people were
dissatisfied and shocked at the government for entering Britain into a war that
affected them like they had never known possible. The reaction of several Liberal
MPs was also of disgust, as the deprivation of individuality and human rights
imposed by DORA offended the liberal ideological standpoint. DORA also introduced
censorship that the Liberal MPs despised because it curbed individual freedom.
Therefore, DORA not only caused citizen unrest with the party, but also helped to
create party tension from within which would help to catalyse its split later on in the
war. The DORA act was more of a problem in destroying the Liberal party than the
original entry to the war, because entry to the war would have caused resentment
towards any party eventually because of soldier’s death, but DORA specifically went
against liberal ideology and helped to cause tensions both inside and outside the
party.
The issues of Irish Home Rule and Disestablishment of the church of Wales
were declared as delayed until after the war. Irish Home Rule was on target to be
passed when outbreak of war was declared, and consequently, the citizens became
extremely angry at the delay, especially after the cold treatment they received from
Britain in the Easter Rising of 1916. The citizens experiences dashed rising
expectations, and therefore, they condemned the Liberals and this issue can thus be
seen as a problem which helped to cause decline in the party. Due to the fact the crisis
was brought about due to war, this evidence supports the statement. However,
although the Irish Home Rule crisis was a small factor in liberal decline, it was not
nearly as important as the introduction of DORA. DORA seriously reduced the
support of the electorate in Britain because of the war inflicting restrictions upon
citizens whereas the Home Rule crisis was a minor issue because it did not greatly
impose difficulties to the majority of lives.
The inefficiency of the Army in dealing with the war was another issue that
dramatically reduced Liberal support. Lord Kitchener was appointed Secretary of
State for war, and he was inefficient in communicating with the government and was
not used to dealing with politics or politicians. There was a great deal of animosity
between MPs and himself and there was beginning to be a faction created within the
party in terms of differences of opinions on the war and its handling. Asquith and his
supporters were opposed to war and some MPs campaigned for peace. Asquith
himself stayed very much out of war work and provided a weak leadership which was
strongly criticised by the militant Conservatives, and members of the Liberal party
who were beginning to unite under Lloyd-George♣. These differences in opinions over
the inefficiency of the war effort organisation helped to destroy the Liberal party by
splitting them from within. A party needs to have concordant ideas and MPs in a
party must have a united front together or the party is weak because they need the
strength together to defend their viewpoints or the party is inefficient. Therefore, the
difference in opinion began to make the party inefficient and also therefore weak.
This weakness was highlighted to the general public in May 1915 when The Times
published an article blaming the government for the shortage of shells on the
Western Front. Asquith’s inability to run a war smoothly was therefore questioned
not only by MPs but also by the public (electorate), and many devout Liberals became
disappointed and anxious about the competence of their leader. The lack of
confidence in Asquith because of certain faults that revealed themselves during the
war times perhaps helped to kill the Liberal Party and therefore, there is evidence
that supports the statement that the First World War killed the Liberals.
The incompetence of Asquith to run a war smoothly was a very important
aspect that helped to kill the Liberals, even more so than DORA because DORA did
not create two separate groups within the party with strong opposing views, just
caused mere tension. If Asquith had been more competent in war, the public may
have given the government more support because the war may have been more
successful. Having considered this however, Asquith did manage to reverse his lack of
public support by forming a coalition with the Conservatives and Labour. This proved
a competence on Asquith’s behalf, and perhaps suggests that the First World War was
not the only aspect that killed the Liberal Party, because they showed themselves to
be able to handle some aspects of the war in very clever political manoeuvres, such as
coalition. Therefore, other aspects that may have caused Liberal decline must be
examined.
Historian George Dangerfield labelled the period of 1910-14 “The strange
death of Liberal England”. He argued this because the Liberal party had apparently
run out of momentum and was devoid of fresh ideas. He also suggested that the
reforms the Liberals implemented were not satisfactory and people were unhappy
with them and demanded more reforms. These ideas all suggest that the public were
beginning to turn away from the Liberal Party who “were too rooted in the nineteenth
century to survive these challenges”. This alone suggests the First World War did not
kill the Liberal Party but infact the period before it did. Indeed problems such as the
suffragette movement, Irish Home Rule and Industrial unrest also raised at this time.
The evidence to support Dangerfield’s theory however, is not strong. Despite these
worries, the Liberals were ‘certainly not on the high road to political oblivion’. The
Liberals managed to tackle all problems with a good degree of success, such as
reforming parliament to pass Home Rule, negotiate terms with the strikers, and cast
public opinion against the violent suffragettes. It is regarded by many that
Dangerfield also underestimated the profound positive effects of the reforms and
therefore, this period cannot be considered the death of Liberal England because it
had a great deal of positive outcomes despite the bad ones. This means that
something took place after this period was instead, and this something was the First
World War. Thus, Dangerfield’s arguments being evaluated as weak, there is more
evidence that the First World War killed the Liberal Party because nothing before it
was seen to dramatically weaken the Liberals.
The other issue that arose other than the First World War, was the rise of the
Labour Party. The Labour Party took over from the Liberals as second party in
Britain after the war, and therefore, it has to be considered that perhaps the Liberals
did not decline, but the Labour party became more successful. However, the Labour
Party only really became successful after the First World War and their popularity
before it was very limited. The Liberal reforming programme stile much of Labours
momentum and people had no need to vote Labour as Liberals had carried out most
of their policies to appease the working class. However, although Electoral support
was not great (1914 they only had 37 MPs) Labour had 550,000 members and
increased their seats every year in local government elections between 1910-13.
Despite this, Labour were not a huge threat to the Liberal Party and it was only after
the war that they had success, and even then the conservatives overshadowed Labour.
Therefore, it can be seen that the Labour Party were not a huge part in the decline of
the Liberal party. Thus the First World War killed the Liberal party because between
1914-1918, the party declined and because this was a war period, evidence would
suggest the war was to blame.
Perhaps the key issue to the decline of the Liberal Party, was their split in
1918. Many Liberal Backbenchers had been shocked at Asquith ending their
government and entering a coalition without consulting them and this increased the
resentment between PM and some MPs. The ministers might have been happier if the
coalition helped the war effort, but it did not, and therefore the anger within the party
was not eased and this anger caused damage to the party due to the First World War
and this supports the statement that the decline of the party was from the first world
war. Lloyd-George began talking to with Bonar Law and eventually forced Asquith to
resign with the support of the general public who could read of his incompetence in
The Times. Lloyd-George went on to become Prime Minister but with the
conservatives serving under him and all the Liberals left the government with
Asquith and refused to serve under Lloyd-George. This was a huge split and threw the
Liberals out of power and into the public eye in contempt. To make matters worse,
Asquith could not criticise the Lloyd-George government because it was wartime and
illegal. Therefore, the Liberals were seen to be failures and the public lost support in
them. This later would affect voting behaviour as the public lost faith and lack of
support means a government cannot be in power and thus they decline. Therefore, it
is seen that actions during the First World War killed the Liberal Party. This was the
biggest issue during the First World War because it actually resulted in the Liberals
being ousted from power, having being in power for the last time ever. Asquith’s
failure to let compromise with Lloyd-George and Bonar Law resulted in him being
removed from power, and this is the reason for the decline of the Liberals because
once out of power, Asquith was susceptible to great criticism and he was unable to
defend himself.
To conclude, the feud between Asquith and Lloyd-George went on to destroy the
Liberals, and this feud came about only because of the First World War. If the first
World War had not come about then Asquith would never have been highlighted as a
bad leader and a coalition or compromise of Liberalism would never have had to
taken place. This would have meant public support would not have been lost.
Therefore, because there was only a limited decrease in support for the Liberals
before 1914, and by the end of 1918, they were irrepairably destroyed, gaining only 28
seats compared to Lloyd-George with the conservatives who gained 526 MPs, it can
be concluded that the First World War killed the Liberal Party.
♣ Lloyd-George and a group of Liberal MPs believed they had no choice but to concentrate all efforts on winning the war, even if it meant acting ‘illiberally’. They soon lost confidence in Asquith’s leadership because of his inefficiency.
