Riding the Tiger the Liberal experience of ‘There was a young lady of Riga Who smiled as she rode on a tiger; They returned from the ride With the lady inside, And the smile on the face of the tiger.’ Coalitions between unequal partners can end up like the relationship between the tiger and the young lady of Riga. In March 2011 the Liberal Democrat History Group and British Liberal Political he story begins with Britain] does not love coalitions.’ Studies Group organised Disraeli’s famous com- But whether or Britain ment in the House does or does not love coalitions, two seminars to learn of Commons on 16 we have had three peacetime from the Liberal December 1852, in the coalitions in the last 120 years: Tmidst of a thunderstorm, in which the 1895 coalition between the experience of coalition he said this: Conservatives and the Liberal Unionists; the Lloyd George coali- The combination may be success- governments. Vernon tion between the Conservatives and ful, a coalition has before this been one wing of the Liberal Party; and successful, but coalitions, though Bogdanor introduces the National Government of 1931. successful, have always found All have been coalitions between this special issue, this – that their triumph has been Conservatives and Liberals, or brief. containing papers from between Conservatives and one ‘This, too, I know,’ he concluded, wing of the Liberal Party. In the the seminars. ‘that England [he meant, I suppose, case of the Lloyd George coalition

4 Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 Riding the Tiger the Liberal experience of coalition government

and the National Government, and the past three: the 2010 coali- In the current, coalition, if the there were also other small par- tion is the only one that occurred Liberal Democrats were to decide ties involved. But there have been after a hung parliament. After the to leave the government, there does no coalitions between the Liberals 1895, 1918 and 1931 elections, the not, admittedly, in consequence of and the Labour Party, although the Conservatives, had they wished to the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, Liberals have supported Labour do so, could have governed with- have to be a general election. But governments from the outside – in out the support of any other party. there would be a different sort of what would now be called a confi- Clearly, after 2010, that could not government – either a Conservative dence and supply agreement – in the have been the case. But, after previ- minority government or, possibly, a 1929 Labour government and, with ous hung parliaments, including the coalition of the left. That, of course, the Lib–Lab pact of 1977–78, the next most recent, in February 1974, makes it easier for the Liberal Callaghan government. the outcome was not coalition but Democrats to leave the coalition. There is, however, a fundamen- minority government. The fact that If the three previous coalitions tal difference between the three the 2010 coalition was, as it were, did not owe their existence to a previous peacetime coalitions and a coalition of necessity, alters its hung parliament, to what did they the present one. It is that the past dynamics very considerably. In pre- owe their existence? If one had to three coalitions were formed before vious coalitions the non-Conserv- grossly oversimplify and answer general elections and endorsed by ative elements were expendable. In in one word, that word would be the electorate in those general elec- 1918, , the Conservative ‘fear’. In 1895, the fear was of Irish tions – by landslide majorities, in leader, told his followers: home rule, which many otherwise fact. They were not, as the current intelligent people felt would mean by our own action we have made coalition has been, formed after a the disintegration of the United Mr Lloyd George the flag-bearer general election. In 1895, 1918 and Kingdom, and a surrender to ter- of the very principles on which 1931, governments went to the rorism and violence. The 1895 coa- we should appeal to the country. It country as coalitions and electors lition was founded on a negative is not his Liberal friends, it is the knew that they were voting for a proposition concerning home rule; Unionist Party which has made coalition. In 2010, the voters did not as soon as the coalition had to con- him prime minister and made it vote for a coalition and had to guess sider a positive policy, tariff reform, possible for him to do the great what coalition might ensue in the it began to disintegrate. work that has been done by this event of a hung parliament. Many In 1918, there was a positive government.1 guessed wrong, including The element as well as a negative – to Guardian, which advocated a vote But, if the Conservatives could create a new world after the First for the Liberal Democrats to create make Mr Lloyd George, they could World War, with a new alignment a progressive coalition of the left. also break him, as in fact they did Left: David of parties in a society in which This is important since it means that in 1922. Similarly, after 1932, the Cameron and the old issues – church disestab- the 2010 coalition lacks the legiti- Conservatives could have got rid of Nick Clegg at lishment, free trade, home rule, macy of the past three peacetime Ramsay MacDonald, but decided the formation etc. – had disappeared. But there coalitions. to keep him as a fig leaf to cover up of the coalition was also a negative element – fear There is a further interesting what might otherwise appear as a government, of the trade unions, fear of a gen- difference between this coalition nakedly Conservative government. May 2010 eral strike, and, above all, fear of

Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 5 riding the tiger: the liberal experience of coalition government

‘Bolshevism’, sometimes equated, It was this element of fear that It was this personalities, and were in large part odd though it may seem today, with helped the Conservatives in 1895, responsible for breaking up the coa- the Labour Party. But, following 1918 and 1931, because, of course, element of litions in which they were domi- the Russian revolution in 1917, and when people are frightened, they nant. In Baldwin’s famous words, Communist uprisings in many of tend to vote Conservative. Indeed, fear that used at the meeting in the countries of central and eastern the Conservatives have benefited 1922, Lloyd George was a ‘dynamic Europe, there was a feeling, how- more than Liberals from coalitions. helped the force’ and a dynamic force was ‘a ever, misplaced, amongst mem- The Conservatives might well have very terrible thing’. There is a strik- bers of the governing class, few of won the elections of 1895, 1918 Conserva- ing contrast with Baldwin him- whom had any close understanding and 1931 even without their coali- self, who, as leader of the National or knowledge of the labour move- tion partners, but their partners tives in 1895, Government in the 1930s proved an ment, that Britain too might be on strengthened them, enabling them 1918 and 1931, emollient figure capable of holding the brink of revolution, and that to win seats in areas that were not the disparate elements of a coalition the forces of order should combine naturally Conservative. because, of together. A coalition does better together to defeat this threat. In As late as 1965, John Nott, who with an emollient head of govern- February 1920, the Deputy Cabinet was to become a minister in the course, when ment rather than a dynamic one. Secretary, Thomas Jones, recorded governments of and The Liberal Democrats hope that a meeting of Lloyd George with , came to be: people are the 2010 coalition will institutional- his advisers at which the Home ise recognition of a multi-party pol- selected as the National Liberal Secretary ‘outlined his proposals itics in which they can play a hinge and Conservative candidate for St frightened, to raise a special temporary force role, as the Free Democrats used to Ives – not the Conservative candi- of 10,000 soldiers for the national they tend do in Germany. But previous coali- date. I was told by the local associ- emergency’, the existing police tions proved to be a prelude, not to ation that St Ives could not be won force being inadequate. ‘There are’, to vote Con- multi-party politics, but to realign- by a Conservative – but that as the the Food Controller insisted, ‘large ment and the restoration of a new National Liberals had supported groups preparing for Soviet gov- servative. two-party system of a different sort, the Conservatives and had done so ernment’. Walter Long, the First helping primarily the Conservative since 1931, I should not fret about Lord of the Admiralty, was wor- Indeed, the Party. In 1975, the label. ried that ‘The peaceable manpower declared, perhaps with tongue in of the country is without arms. I Nott did not drop the National Conserva- cheek: have not a pistol less than 200 years Liberal label until the general The last purely Conservative old’. Bonar Law, the Conservative election of 1974, even though the tives have government was formed by Mr leader, summed up the discussion party wound itself up in 1968. The benefited Disraeli in 1874. It is the fact that saying that ‘All weapons ought to accumulated funds of the party, we have attracted moderate peo- be available for distribution to the amounting to £50,000 were then more than ple of a liberal disposition and friends of the Government’. Sir given to the Conservatives ‘who, of thought into our ranks which Auckland Geddes, the President course, blew it in an afternoon on Liberals from makes it possible to maintain a of the Board of Trade, ‘pointed to some futile advertising campaign’.3 Conservative government today.4 the universities as full of trained It was useful for the coalitions. men who could co-operate with Conservatives to have the sup- Coalitions have been of much less clerks and stockbrokers. (During port of Liberals and other group- benefit to the Liberals. Indeed, the the discussion Bonar Law so often ings because it gave them a national Liberals entered each of the three referred to the stockbrokers as a appeal over and above their purely peacetime coalitions as a disunited loyal and fighting class until one party appeal. And the landslide vic- party. The coalition of 1895 was felt that potential battalions of tories of 1918 and 1931 were assisted a product of Liberal disunion; the stockbrokers were to be found in by the fact that the coalitions were coalition of 1918 caused Liberal dis- every town.)’2 Perhaps the bankers led by non-Conservatives with union; while the coalition of 1931 are an equivalent ‘loyal and fight- the implication that their previous widened Liberal disunion. And after ing class’ today. parties – the Liberals in 1918 and two of those coalitions, one wing With regard to the coalition of Labour in 1931 – were irresponsi- of the Liberal Party came to merge 1931, it is easy to underestimate the ble and could not be trusted with with the Conservatives: the Liberal element of panic at the possibility power. The 1895 coalition was, of Unionists in 1912, and the Liberal of financial collapse amongst those course, led by a Conservative, Lord Nationals in 1968. The Lloyd who remembered the German infla- Salisbury, but the dominant fig- George Liberals nearly merged tion of 1923. When, in the previous ure in it was a non-Conservative – with the Conservatives, and the Labour Cabinet, Philip Snowden, . Many things Conservatives wanted them to, the Chancellor, was asked what have been said about Chamberlain, but, in the end the Lloyd George would happen if we were pushed off Lloyd George and MacDonald – Liberals decided against it. The the gold standard, he threw his arms some of them not particularly com- Liberal Nationals, who remained in up in despair and replied, ‘The del- plimentary – but one thing never the National Government through- uge.’ During the 1931 election cam- said about them was that they were out the 1930s, were, after the war, paign, Ramsay MacDonald held up Conservatives. They nevertheless called ‘Vichy Liberals’ – traitors worthless German marks and said helped to provide the Conservatives to Liberalism – by Lady Violet that Britain would face the same with landslide majorities. Bonham-Carter, Asquith’s daugh- fate if the National Government Chamberlain and Lloyd ter.5 And when Lord Samuel retired were not returned. George were, however, disruptive as leader of the Liberals in the

6 Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 riding the tiger: the liberal experience of coalition government

House of Lords in 1955, Lady Violet At the next general election, the candidate, this creates a problem for wrote to him the following enco- Liberal Democrats may face a prob- coalitionists. If a Conservative con- mium, Samuel having preserved lem which has also faced previous stituency association has to choose Liberal independence by leaving the coalitions. How can they maintain between two candidates, one of National Government in 1932: at the hustings the cooperation whom believes that the coalition they had enjoyed in government? ought to be continued, and another Joe Chamberlain became the Can a coalition in government be who believes that the party should mainspring of protection and replicated at the grass roots? In choose a candidate prepared to sup- imperialism. Lloyd George sold 1920, Bonar Law told Balfour, his port ‘real’ Conservative policies on the Liberal Party to the Tories predecessor as Conservative leader, Europe, immigration and crime, in 1918. Such things are possible ‘We cannot go on as we are, that is it is possible that the constituency for so-called radicals; impossible with a united party in the House association will choose the latter for any Liberal – you, my father, of Commons, but with no such candidate. This is roughly what Edward Grey.6 union in the constituencies.’8 As happened in Conservative constitu- The coalitions of 1918 and 1931 is well known, in 1918 a Coupon ency associations between 1918 and helped to ruin the Liberal Party. was arranged which proved to be, 1922. Liberal Democrat constitu- Kenneth Morgan has argued that as it were, a complimentary ticket ency associations may be faced with the coalition of 1918 destroyed There is, to Westminster: of 322 couponed a similar dilemma, of choosing the Liberals as a party of govern- Conservatives, 294 were elected, between a candidate who favours ment, while the coalition of 1931 however, one and of 159 couponed Liberals, 133 continuation of the coalition and destroyed them as a party of oppo- were elected; but of the Asquithians, another who declares that coalition sition. Will the coalition of 2010 important only twenty-eight were elected. In with the Conservatives is a betrayal destroy the Liberal Democrats as a 1931, there was no centrally directed of the Liberal tradition. third party? difference coupon, but great efforts at local and Local constituency bodies are Both in 1918 and 1931, fears of regional level were made to ensure, autonomous bodies, and the more socialism and Bolshevism drove between as far as possible, that there was only that the parties have developed as the Liberals into the arms of the one National Government candi- membership-based organisations, Conservatives. Coalitions between the Liberal date in each constituency. The main the more constituency parties two unequal parties, as David consequence was to ensure that have come to prize their autonomy Butler has argued, can turn out to Democrat Labour did not win seats through a and to resent interference by their be like the relationship between split in the vote of the parties sup- party leaders. Selecting a candi- the tiger and the young lady of position in porting the National Government. date is the only reward that many Riga.7 Both coalitions confirmed In 1931, the Labour vote did not fall constituency activists have for the the fragmentation of the Liberals the 2010 coa- by very much from its 1929 level – hours of hard work they put in can- and proved to be stages on the lition and the from roughly 33 per cent in 1929 to vassing, addressing envelopes, and way to the development of a two- 30 per cent in 1931 – but, whereas conducting voluntary activity for party system in which the Liberals position of in 1929, Labour had won 123 of its their party. were to have no place. And on 288 seats on a minority vote, in 1931 An electoral pact involving the each occasion the Liberals found the Liberals the Conservative national agents reciprocal withdrawal of candidates it impossible to maintain a secure declared that there was only one cannot be imposed by party leaders identity, and found themselves the in previous constituency where a split in the alone, but must be agreed by local victims of the binary assumptions National vote had prevented the constituency parties. The cri de coeur, which lay behind British politics. coalitions. Conservatives from winning a seat. in the case of the attempt by the Left-leaning Liberals thought that This question of local coopera- Liberals and SDP to form an elec- the Conservatives were the main It is that the tion has always been a fundamen- toral pact in 1982, of a Liberal candi- enemy; right-leaning Liberals – tal problem for a coalition, and the date who was asked to stand down, such as in the 2010 coali- reason is that under the first-past- was this: 1920s and the Simonites in the 1930s the-post system, party headquar- Seven years ago, when I became – regarded Labour as the enemy. tion is the ters cannot impose an electoral prospective parliamentary candi- Proportional representation would pact, because this requires that one date for this constituency, we sold have helped the Liberals, but the only one in of the candidates of the two coali- a home that we all dearly loved to Liberals did not support that until tion parties stands down, and that move into this constituency. Our 1922. The first time that propor- peacetime requires agreement at constituency youngest left her school and all tional representation appeared in a level. The current Conservative three children eventually went to Liberal manifesto was in the mani- in which a Party constitution requires every school locally. My wife changed festo of the Asquithian Liberals in to put united Lib- her job to teach in the local 1922. But by then it was too late. up a candidate – although the comprehensive school. And we There is, however, one impor- Conservatives are currently try- eral party accepted this upheaval because we tant difference between the Liberal ing to alter these arrangements. both believed that for me the only Democrat position in the 2010 coali- At the next general election, every has joined way to nurse the constituency was tion and the position of the Liberals constituency will be a new con- to live in it and become part of it.9 in previous coalitions. It is that the the Con- stituency, since the number of 2010 coalition is the only one in seats is being reduced from 650 to It is therefore not easy for central peacetime in which a united Liberal servatives in 600, and there is to be a boundary headquarters to dictate to a con- party has joined the Conservatives review to be completed by 2013. If stituency party. When it tries to in coalition. coalition. every constituency is to reselect its do so, the constituency party may

Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 7 riding the tiger: the liberal experience of coalition government

up to this point, in a number of simply ignore headquarters. That is who remained in the government, cases at least, no sooner would the what happened in 1918 in Asquith’s were, for all practical purposes, official candidate be withdrawn, constituency of East Fife. Although dependent on the Conservatives when out of the undergrowth an Asquith was not, of course, a sup- for their survival. In both cases the unkempt figure would emerge porter of the Lloyd George coali- fundamental purpose animating calling himself, as the case might tion, Lloyd George and Bonar Law the coalition had disappeared. The be, an Independent Liberal or decided, out of respect, not to put Lloyd George coalition, indeed, Conservative, or, in the case of up an official Conservative against had always been widely distrusted some Welsh or Scottish constitu- him. But the Conservative constitu- because of the whiff of corrup- encies, a Nationalist, and carry off ency association decided to ignore tion surrounding it, and one wag all the votes which had been bar- this edict from the centre and put described the government as ‘a deal gained and sold as a result of this up a baronet with a distinguished between a flock of sheep led by a arrangement. The supporters of a war record, Captain Sir Alexander crook [the coalition Liberals] and a political party, therefore, are not Sprot, who defeated Asquith in the flock of crooks led by a sheep [the like members of an army whose seat which he had held since 1886. Conservatives].’12 It seemed to have votes can be transferred at their Indeed, in 1918, of forty-five uncou- no purpose except to perpetuate party leader’s wish. They will poned Conservatives, twenty-three itself. Similarly, once the immediate only transfer their votes if there is were returned. panic of 1931 was over, the Liberals some overriding cause there.10 Even if an electoral pact can be led by Samuel no longer saw the agreed and there are no unofficial preservation of the coalition as an candidates, it does not follow that That overriding cause was found overriding purpose. the electors will necessarily follow in 1895 in the desire to defeat Irish In 1922, the revolt which the dictates of party headquarters. home rule; in 1918 in the desire to destroyed the government came Would Liberal Democrats necessar- The fun- defeat candidates who had sup- not from the Conservative leader- ily vote Conservative if their can- posedly shown themselves to be ship, which wanted to maintain the didate had stood down, or would damental unpatriotic during the war; and in coalition, but from the backbenches they vote Labour or Green? Would 1931 to ensure that the pound was and from parliamentary candi- the Conservatives vote Liberal point is that not destroyed by the financial crisis. dates. All the great figures of poli- Democrat if their candidate stood On each occasion, the nation had tics – Churchill, Lloyd George, F. E. down, or would they vote UKIP or coalitions to be ‘saved’. That is what gave the Smith and – some other party? Lord Hailsham, dynamic to pacts which, if they are wanted the coalition to continue. chairman of the Conservatives from depend, to be successful, must go with the Only two obscure members of the 1957 to 1959, summed up the dif- grain both of constituency opinion Cabinet were opposed to it. The ficulties of electoral pacts, having not so much and also of public opinion. revolt which destroyed the coali- been frequently enjoined to seek on those The fundamental point is that tion came from the grass roots. such a pact with the Liberals: coalitions depend, not so much on Many historians have emphasised those at the top but on the grass the meeting of Conservative MPs I can think of no more certain at the top roots; and coalitions come to an at the Carlton Club in 1922, which way for a party in office to ensure end, not because those at the top voted against the coalition, but, its own defeat than to be seen but on the necessarily want to break them up, long before that, the coalition had to make an arrangement of this but because of opposition at the been repudiated by Conservative kind before holding an election. grass roots; grass roots. That grass roots support constituency associations, who It must be remembered that on in turn depends on some overrid- had been adopting candidates withdrawal of either a Liberal or and coali- ing purpose which seems to tran- opposed to its continuation. By Conservative candidate the votes scend everyday party battles – the the time of the general election of he would otherwise have won are tions come defeat of home rule, the defeat of 1922, 180 Conservatives opposed not automatically transferred. A to an end, Bolshevism or saving the pound. to the coalition had been chosen by number of voters would abstain As soon as that overriding purpose constituency associations. These in disgust; a number of Liberals not because is lost, the coalition comes to be candidates were opposed to the would almost certainly vote unstable. policies of their party leadership, socialist in the absence of a Liberal those at the What is remarkable about the but the party leadership could not candidate. Reciprocal withdrawal Lloyd George coalition is how repudiate them because they had would be impossible unless there top neces- quickly it collapsed after its land- been chosen by perfectly proper was already a feeling of cordiality slide victory in 1918, when Bonar methods. If the party leadership sufficient to make the association sarily want Law had said of Lloyd George, ‘He ignores its grass roots, the leader- lined up for sacrifice willing to can be prime minister for life, if he ship will be repudiated. Austen withdraw its candidate. Such feel- to break likes.’11 But, after just four years, Chamberlain, the Conservative ings of self-sacrifice cannot nor- the coalition collapsed, and Lloyd leader who had replaced Bonar mally be imposed from above, and them up, but George was never to hold office Law in 1921, when the latter retired on a level of constituency organi- again. The National Government owing to ill health, thought that he sations nothing can be more dis- because of won a large landslide in 1931. But could destroy the rebels by a show heartening or destructive for years the only really independent element of force and he called a meeting at afterwards with morale than such opposition in it other than the Conservatives the Carlton Club to try and pre- a request coming from national – the Liberals led by Sir Herbert empt them. But had the Carlton headquarters. Finally, and most at the grass Samuel – left the coalition just one Club meeting voted to continue the ludicrous of all, if it went through roots. year later. The National Liberals, coalition, the Conservatives would

8 Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 riding the tiger: the liberal experience of coalition government have split as they had in 1846. The fundamental principles of liberty Coalitions perhaps they are more loved in rejection of the coalition was inevi- and equality could be made com- and . Coalitions table. One leading Conservative, patible through the idea of ‘one can be cohe- can be cohesive and enjoy a solid as he was going up the steps of the person, one vote’. In the twentieth basis in wartime, when there is Carlton Club, when asked ‘What is century, when the political agenda sive and a single overriding aim, but in going to happen?’, answered, ‘a slice has come to be dominated by social peacetime they tend to be uneasy, off the top’.13 What he meant was and economic issues, the two prin- enjoy a solid nervous and insecure after the situ- that local constituency parties had ciples of liberty and equality come ation that produced them has been already decided against the coali- into conflict. Some Liberals, there- basis in war- resolved. And it is for this reason, tion and the only choice left for the fore, will be drawn to the left, on as Disraeli predicted, that although leadership was whether to accept the grounds that liberty is best time, when coalitions triumph, their triumph that decision or to see the party secured through an extension of there is a sin- has often been brief. Perhaps the split. In the event, every major fig- social welfare. Others, fearful of binary assumptions of British poli- ure in the Tory party organisation the growth of the state, will swing gle overrid- tics are stronger than many of us voted against continuation of the to the right. This tension existed at had previously believed. That is coalition. the beginning of the twentieth cen- ing aim, but the conclusion I reached, somewhat In 1932, also, pressure from the tury, with the growth of the New unwillingly, when considering the grass roots was important in the Liberalism, an attempt to reconcile in peacetime history of coalitions for my book, decision of the Liberals to leave the Liberalism and social democracy. The Coalition and the Constitution. National Government and then, in Many of the New Liberal reforms they tend to 1933, to move on to the opposition involved compulsion. For example Vernon Bogdanor is a Research Professor benches. Liberal Party members the National Insurance Act of 1911 be uneasy, at the Institute of Contemporary British were suspicious of the 1932 ‘agree- required compulsory insurance History, King’s College, London, and ment to differ’ on the introduction contributions from employers and nervous and author of The Coalition and the of a tariff, and the 1932 conference employees; the Trade Union Act of Constitution, published by Hart in of the National Liberal Federation 1913 required trade unionists specif- insecure March 2011. condemned it. The Liberals, in an ically to contract out if they did not odd compromise, continued to sit wish to contribute to the Labour after the 1 Robert Blake, The Unknown Prime on the government benches until Party. In addition, the Liberal con- Minister (Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1933, saying that they would sup- stitutional agenda had come to be situation 1955), pp. 387–8. 2 Thomas Jones, Whitehall Diary: vol. port the National Government on broadly accepted by the other par- that pro- 1, 1916–1925, ed. Keith Middlemas ‘national’ matters, but oppose it on ties. What, then, was the purpose (Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. ‘Conservative’ matters – an odd dis- of the Liberal Party? The Liberals duced them 99–101. tinction. But they were pressed to came to be inherently divided: some 3 John Nott, Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: end the compromise, again by the of them were becoming, in effect, has been Recollections of an Errant Politician (Polit- National Liberal Federation which social democrats. By the late 1970s, ico’s, 2002), pp. 125–6. 4 Harold Macmillan, The Past Masters declared that the ‘appropriate place’ social democrats, too, came to be resolved. (Macmillan, 1975), pp. 18–19. for the Liberals ‘is on the opposi- divided: in 1981, one wing, led by 5 David Dutton, A History of the Liberal tion benches’.14 Lloyd George said Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Party in the Twentieth Century (Palgrave that the undignified position of the Shirley Williams, left the Labour Macmillan, 2004), p. 147. Liberals resembled that of a cat that Party and helped form the Alliance; 6 John Bowle, Viscount Samuel: A Biogra- ‘has pushed its head into a cream the other, led by and phy (Gollancz, 1955), p. 357. jug and cannot get it out without 7 David Butler (ed.), Coalitions in British Roy Hattersley, remained with the Politics (Macmillan, 1978), p. 118. either breaking the jug or hav- Labour Party. Now some social 8 Kenneth O. Morgan, Consensus and ing someone pull it out by the tail. democrats have moved back into Disunity: The Lloyd George Coalition It is the latter process that is going the Labour Party. Social demo- Government 1918–1922 (Clarendon on at the moment and I hope it will crats, therefore, are still divided and Press, 1979), p. 184. succeed’.15 Liberals are also divided. Liberal 9 Jeremy Josephs, Inside the Alliance: An The longevity of the current Democrats find it difficult to answer Inside Account of the Development and Prospects of the Liberal/SDP Alliance coalition will, therefore, depend whether their main enemy is on (John Martin, 1983), p. 155. not primarily on relations between the left – perhaps that is what Nick 10 Lord Hailsham, The Door Wherein I Cameron and Clegg, but on reac- Clegg and David Laws believe Went (Collins, 1975), pp. 174–5. tions at the grass roots. For this – or on the right – which is per- 11 Hugh Purcell, Lloyd George (Haus, reason, the 2010 coalition may be haps what Simon Hughes and Tim 2006), p. 73. somewhat less stable than many Farron believe? That is the Liberal 12 Michael Kinnear, The Fall of Lloyd George (Macmillan, 1973), p. 4. commentators suggest. Democrat dilemma in a binary 13 Rhodes James, Memoirs of a Conserva- political system. ~ tive: J.C.C.Davidson’s Memoirs and I have found it salutary to con- Papers, 1910–37 (Weidenfeld and Nicol- The dilemma facing the Liberal sider the history of coalitions, son, 1969), p. 127. Democrats in coalitions is not, I since the conclusion that I have 14 Trevor Wilson, Downfall of the Liberal think, contingent, but inherent in been forced to draw from this brief Party, 1914–1935 (Collins, 1976), p. 376. 15 Bernard Wasserstein, Herbert Samuel: the nature of modern Liberalism. historical survey goes somewhat A Political Life (Clarendon Press, 1992), In the nineteenth century, when against my political prejudices. p. 360. politics was dominated by constitu- My conclusion is that Disraeli may tional issues, Liberalism had a clear well have been right, that England and coherent ideological basis. Its does not love coalitions, although

Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 9