British Political Parties Research Articles

VII. The Liberal Party Divided 1916–1918

A great deal of published historical work has been devoted to establishing the causes and chronology of the demise of the Liberal party in British politics. The downfall of the Liberals has been ascribed to the inevitable outflanking development of the Labour party; to the mutilation of Liberal principles involved in waging the first ‘total’ war; to the personal rifts and feuds between the rival followers of Asquith and Lloyd George—and to various combinations of these factors. Yet there has been no detailed analysis of the division within the Parliamentary Liberal party during the First World War. Although at the end of 1916 obviously certain Liberals supported Asquith and others Lloyd George, no attempt has been made to examine the way in which the rifts in the party were reflected in political action in the House of Commons during the time of the second coalition government, nor to determine accurately the lines of division in the party. An answer to the question of ‘How did the Liberal party divide during the First World War?’ has proved elusive, although some historians of the period have been more successful than others.

Rebels and Whips: Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties Since 1945.

Rebels and Whips: Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties Since 1945.

Rebels and Whips: Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties since 1945. By Robert J. Jackson. (New York: St. Martin's Press Inc., 1968. Pp. 346. $10.00.)

Rebels and Whips: Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties since 1945. By Robert J. Jackson. (New York: St. Martin's Press Inc., 1968. Pp. 346. $10.00.)

Rebels and Whips: An Analysis of Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties

Rebels and Whips: An Analysis of Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties

Book Review: Great Britain and the Commonwealth: Rebels and Whips: An Analysis of Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties

Book Review: Great Britain and the Commonwealth: Rebels and Whips: An Analysis of Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties

Rebels and Whips: An Analysis of Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties

Rebels and Whips: An Analysis of Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties

A constitution against parties: Madisonian pluralism and the Anti-party tradition

THAT POLITICAL PARTIES DID NOT HOLD A RESPECTABLE PLACE IN 18th-century American political theory was a reflection of the low place they were believed to hold in practice. Wherever the Americans looked, whether to the politics of Georgian England, their own provincial capitals or the republics of the historical past, they thought they saw in parties only a distracting and divisive force representing the claims of unbridled, seKsh, special interests. I do not intend here to try to penetrate the thickets of 18th-century politics either in England or in the American provinces. We long ago learned not to identify the Whigs and Tories of the 18th century with the highly developed British political parties of modern times, and not to imagine that England had a well-developed two-party system at the close of the 18th century or even during the first two decades of the 19th. Modern parties have grown up in response to (and in turn have helped to stimulate) the development of large electorates, and their institutional structures are in good measure an outgrowth of the efforts necessary to connect the parliamentary party and the mass party. The modern party is, in this respect, the disciplined product of regular party competition in the forum of public opinion. It also deals with legislative issues, over which the established parties differ.

Political Parties in Western Democracies

Presents a brilliant, persuasive case that American political parties, so often dismissed as immature or ineffective compared with their European counterparts, are in fact old and durable political organizations, seriving well the needs of a pluralistic society. What chiefly distinguishes this work is the inclusion of considerable material on American partics in a comparative context to the analysis of British, Scandinavian, European, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand political parties.

Rebels and Whips: An Analysis of Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties

Rebels and Whips: An Analysis of Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties

India and British Party Politics in the 1870’s: Conflicting Attitudes of Empire

India and British Party Politics in the 1870’s: Conflicting Attitudes of Empire

British Political Parties: The Distribution of Power Within the Conservative and Labour Parties, by R. T. Mckenzie

British Political Parties: The Distribution of Power Within the Conservative and Labour Parties, <i>by R. T. Mckenzie</i>

British Political Parties: The Distribution of Power within the Conservative and Labour Parties, Rev. ed. By R. T. McKenzie. (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964. Pp. x, 694. $3.95.)

British Political Parties: The Distribution of Power within the Conservative and Labour Parties, Rev. ed. By R. T. McKenzie. (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964. Pp. x, 694. $3.95.) - Volume 58 Issue 3

Home rule and the liberal party, 1899–1906

Gladstone’s dramatic commitment of the liberal party to a policy of home rule for Ireland in 1886 was followed by the Grand Old Man’s two attempts at turning his policy into legislation. The first home rule bill, that of 1886, was defeated in the house of commons and then in a general election: the second, that of 1893, was overwhelmed in the house of lords and then dropped by Gladstone’s fourth government. Though the Gladstonian commitment remained and the liberal party continued to be a home rule party — and though the pros and cons of the union of 1800 remained the major structural feature of British party politics — it was not until 1912 that the liberals did anything further about their major Irish policy. For most of the period 1893-1912 they were, of course, impotent in opposition and consequently in no position to take the initiative on home rule. In 1906, however, they won a landslide victory over their unionist opponents and it is striking that this electoral victory and the great impulse it gave to one of the most dynamic governments in the whole history of British liberalism was not followed, as had the last two liberal victories under Gladstone, by the introduction of a third home rule bill. Had the liberal landslide of 1906 been put behind another home rule measure the whole history of the matter would certainly have been radically different. The house of lords would have been easily overwhelmed; the great advance in constitutional reform for Ireland would have been carried in a spirit of liberal reform rather than of political surrender; the development of Sinn Fein would have been frustrated or at least diverted. But the liberal victory of 1906 was not so used. Home rule was postponed and sidetracked and was taken up again only when the liberal party once more desperately needed Irish votes in the budget election which followed the rejection of Lloyd George’s financial measures by the lords in November 1909. The home rule banner was hoisted afresh by Asquith, the prime minister, in his Albert Hall speechof 10 December 1909 and the third home rule bill appeared in due course in 1912 in direct — and significant — succession to the budget and the parliament act for both of which the Asquith government needed Irish support in the commons.

Francis Schnadhorst and Liberal Party Organization

Previous articleNext article No AccessFrancis Schnadhorst and Liberal Party OrganizationBarry McGillBarry McGill Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Modern History Volume 34, Number 1Mar., 1962 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/238994 Views: 1Total views on this site Citations: 4Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1962 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:David Powell The Challenge of Labour, (Jan 1996): 98–130.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24895-7_5Theda Skocpol, Gretchen Ritter Gender and the Origins of Modern Social Policies in Britain and the United States, Studies in American Political Development 5, no.11 (Dec 2008): 36–93.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X0000016XAlan R. Ball The Emergence of British Political Parties, (Jan 1987): 26–51.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18725-6_3Thomas William Heyck New Sources and Methods In the Study of the Nineteenth Century Parliament, Albion 4, no.22 (Jul 2014): 67–81.https://doi.org/10.2307/4048123

The Birth of the Third Party in British Politics

The Birth of the Third Party in British Politics

The Birth of the Third Party in British Politics

The Two-Party System THE PLIGHT of the old political parties of Great Britain after the First World War calls for deeper consideration than has been given to it by the historians. The two-party system had been maintained with only one serious break since the time of Sir Robert Peel. The revolt of members of Gladstone's cabinet, in the Eighties, over the Irish question, brought the small group called Unionists into the Commons, but it exerted no great influence in the constituencies. In 1902 when Joseph Chamberlain announced his proposals for colonial preference (misnamed tariff reform), some of the men who had revolted on the Irish question (peers and commoners) opposed the campaign and denounced it from Free Trade platforms. One other change was made, which turned out to be of a more serious consequence, when during the Boer War, Lord Rosebery and Mr. Asquith with others, who had been staunch Liberals, formed a group called the Liberal Imperialists. The composition of the House of Commons before the General Election of 1906 was, on the whole, representative of the two old parties. Such members as William Abraham, John Burns, Charles Fenwick, Keir Hardie, and Thomas Burt sat as Liberals. Some of these men had been in the House since 1885, that is, for twenty-five years before members were paid by the government. The first to hoist the banner of the toiler was Keir Hardie, who after the 1906 election became chairman of an organization called the L.R.C. (Labor Representation Committee).

British Political Parties

British Political Parties

British Political Parties: The Distribution of Power within the Conservative and Labour Parties.R. T. McKenzie

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsBritish Political Parties: The Distribution of Power within the Conservative and Labour Parties. R. T. McKenzie D. M. AmackerD. M. Amacker Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 18, Number 2May, 1956 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2127004 Views: 4Total views on this site PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

British Political Parties: The Distribution of Power within the Conservative and Labour Parties. By R. T. McKenzie. (New York: St. Martin's Press. 1955. Pp. xv, 623. $7.50.)

British Political Parties: The Distribution of Power within the Conservative and Labour Parties. By R. T. McKenzie. (New York: St. Martin's Press. 1955. Pp. xv, 623. $7.50.)

REVIEWS

REVIEWS