Another noteworthy point is the fact that participation in these wartime governments did not mean that Labour had to take responsibility for the deeds of government that were unpopular after the war. It held positions in the coalitions from 1915 to 1918, and yet, it was only minimally associated with these governments. This meant that Labour was not directly responsible for the purported errors and misdeeds of the past. Therefore, many of those who thought the British government falling in duty regarding the war or who hoped to redeem the sacrifices by a new social order, abandoned the Liberals who were, according to them, tarnished by failure, and threw in their support for the Labour Party.
The split in Liberal ranks, when Lloyd George succeeded Asquith as Prime Minister in December 1916 meant that the old Liberal party, Labour’s main rivals on the left, was fatally undermined. The divisions of the Liberal Party could be seen as a distinct severe blow to their credibility. The line of division in the Liberal Ranks can be seen in different ways; one way being a division of the left (Asquithians) and the right (Lloyd Georgians), or the semi-socialists against anti-socialists, or the Whigs against radicals. Other types of explanation, however, find the key not in policy but in personality. This suggests that Asquithians were men who had rigid, political principles, with upright and/or narrow personal characters. Lloyd George’s followers, on the other hand, were more flexible with their principles. This approach to the division of the party would explain why Asquithians were unable to cope with the war – on matters involving principle, they were just too inflexible. As the war proceeded, an increasing number of Liberals began condemning their leaders, and indeed their party as a whole, for “betraying” liberal ideals. Some individuals even left to join the ranks of other like-minded parties to them – including Labour, who appeared to have a more orthodox left view at the time. Whether or not they left the party however, the fact was that the Liberals were still becoming weakened due to the support of the view that it was no longer a rightful holder of liberal principles.
Due to the war, the state had been more involved in controlling the economy, fixing wages and profits, and generally taking a more interventionist role in areas such as railways and the coal industry. The effects on the nation’s economy had expanded the importance of the trade unions, and thus stimulated their political consciousness. This of course correspondingly enhanced the position of the Labour Party – who had always gained much of its limited importance from its links with organised labour. A significant constituent that is also connected to this is the case of parliamentary reform in the form of the Representation of the People Act. This raised the electorate from 8 million to 21 million, including males over 21, many of whom were poorer working-class males in industrial regions, and (for the first time) women over 30. This increases the representation of industrial areas, and was now no longer just applicable to householders and landlords. One can see that support for the Liberal party in industrial areas collapsed. Mining districts provided 39 of the 86 London gains for Labour in the 1922 General Election, while 28 more came from Glasgow, Greater London, Tyneside, the Clyde and Sheffield. Glasgow returns provided the most remarkable result, with labour taking ten of the seats it contested, usually on large swings. Mining areas certainly helped the overall growth of the party’s popularity in the polls – the Labour vote rose from 22.2 per cent in the 1918 ‘coupon’ election to 29.4 per cent in 1922. Yet, the seats where Labour lost heavily in 1922 came in two main categories: agricultural seats, especially in the South Midlands, together with the textile districts of East Lancashire and West Yorkshire. This demonstrates the fact that the party still had a way to go before it appealed to all sections of the population, but this weakness was overshadowed by the dramatic gains made in industrial regions in 1922. It was no longer a relatively ineffective and insecurely based force – the votes gained meant that Labour now held the position of a vigorous and determined opposition.
The Labour Party was also able to gradually replace the Liberals as a major party through to their own changing measures as an institution. There was the gradual disassociation of organised labour, if not from the war, then at least from the governmental direction of the war, as reflected in the growing separation from their party of the Labour members of government. Labour seemed to have an excellent prospect in capturing working-class seats from orthodox Liberals. Its new constitution of 1918 established the modern Labour Party as a nation-wide organisation, which was determined to fight elections against both major parties. It was now a party for individual members, rather than solely for trade unions, and this now held grave consequences for the Liberal Party: the new conviction that Liberalism had nothing left to offer, and that Labour constituted the only real alternative as a left-wing governing force to the Conservatives. In ‘The Herald’ newspaper in November 1917, an article denouncing the three wartime ministries stated that a Labour government should now succeed – “Liberal, Coalition and Lloyd George Governments have failed – then let Labour try its hand.”
As the initial wartime hysteria gave way to horror as the casualties mounted up on the western front, anti-war protesters like Ramsay MacDonald, leader of the Labour Party, gained a new credibility. Indeed, by 1918 his political prospects were transformed. MacDonald was ideally placed to appeal to embittered trade unionists furious at the government’s betrayal of pledges to build ‘a land fit for heroes’. He also appealed to middle-class intellectuals, who were disgusted by the injustice and stupidities of the Versailles and other peace treaties, and the wider public to whom he seemed a ‘brave new world’ figure, full of hope for a better society. By the mid-1920s, MacDonald had built up the strongest democratic socialist Labour Party in the world. He had emerged as a dominant figure to which comrades in Germany, Italy or the United States looked at with admiration and with awe. He had replaced Lloyd George as the spokesman for the British left, and had provided the voice of conscience and idealism appropriate for a war-weary public. His role within the Labour movement is another crucial factor in Labour’s successes, and is seen by some historians as one of the most important concerning the first developments of the Labour Party. The political strategy that underlay Macdonald’s thinking was centred on the point that Labour could actually govern, contrary to the other parties’ opinions. To Macdonald, the 1923 election demonstrated that there was still a mass of middle-class, middle-of-the-road voters who still needed to be won to Labour’s side. To do this, the party must establish itself as the natural alternative to the Conservatives. Labour must govern not as a caretaker government satisfying no party but itself, but as a government of studied moderation carrying out useful and widespread reforms. Macdonald, rather than Asquith or Lloyd George, must become the natural leader of the old radical tradition. This appeared to have been successful – in 1922, Labour had 142 seats in parliament, holding 30.5 per cent of the vote. Labour was larger than both factions of the Liberal Party combined. In 1924, Labour held 191 seats, and 30.5 per cent of the total vote. This is where they formed their first administration, albeit a minority one which lasted less than a year. Throughout the 1920s, the Labour party’s electoral strength increased while that of the Liberals’ waned. In 1929, labour became the largest single party, and it was in 1945 when they finally held the top position as a majority government.
In conclusion, it is clear that there are many reasons that contribute to the overtaking of the Liberals by the Labour Party within this decade. In my opinion, the most important factor would be the outbreak of war, due to the repercussions it held for both Labour and the Liberal Party. The Liberals suffered from deep divisions within its own ranks, and this gave Labour an opportunity to benefit in political power. War also meant that the economic situation of Britain was changing, and this led to a social turnaround, with the increasing importance of trade unions. The effects of the war on the population were also significant, as it led many to believe that Labour was a better alternative to the wartime governments, which disillusioned many across the different social classes. Electoral success for Labour was also due to the changing policies of the party, and the efforts made by Ramsay MacDonald, which resulted in their transition from being a party of protest to a party of power.
