Can the Grand Old Duke of York March Back up Again? the Importance of Local Government for Liberal Democrats

Can the Grand Old Duke of York march back up again? The importance of local government for Liberal Democrats

As Liberal Democrats recover from the worst local election losses since the formation of the party, Matt Cole examines the place of the coalition years in the quarter-century of the Liberal Democrats’ life, and finds that these are not the first local losses, nor did the decline start with the coalition. The fall in local representation began before 2005, and the party’s peak of local success lies as far back as 1996. Nevertheless, local politics remains at the front line of Liberal t was asserted in the first poisonous element. Torbay MP Democrat politics: the major study of the Liberal Adrian Sanders complained in the IDemocrats that, for both prac- run-up to the local elections of 2011 most vulnerable to tical and ideological reasons, ‘the that: importance of local politics to the attack, the first to suffer Liberal Democrats cannot be over- We have irrevocably damaged losses, and yet the most stated.’1 Recent setbacks in local our public image. We now face council elections are therefore seen the brutal realisation that we essential to the heart and by some as more significant than have fractured our core vote, the usual cyclical losses of gov- lost a generation of young vot- to the recovery of the ernment parties, and the reputa- ers and alienated thousands of party. tion of the coalition is seen as the tactical voters in seats where it

16 Journal of Liberal History 83 Summer 2014 Can the Grand Old Duke of York march back up again? The importance of local government for Liberal Democrats

makes the difference between From the 1960s onwards, Liberal The Liberal Democrats’ electoral success or failure. The achievements were underpinned fortunes message on the doorstep before by the party’s commitment to local The formation of the Liberal Demo- the election was often ‘I support government. A Local Government crats showed that their strength in another party, but you seem to Department was established at party local government was an asset at a have more integrity and do more headquarters in 1962, the Association time of turbulent national leader- for local people so you have my of Liberal Councillors first emerged ship. There was considerable con- vote.’ Now it is ‘I used to vote in 1965 and was officially recognised tinuity in the core organisation for you, you still work hard for in 1969, and the decade saw a series of Liberal Democrat councillors, your local area, but you are dis- of parliamentary election victories – largely because the ALC dominated credited and lied just like the rest including those at Orpington, Colne its Social Democrat counterpart, of them.’2 Valley and Birmingham Ladywood the Association of Social Demo- – at least in part built upon success in crat Councillors, both numerically Analysing the position in 2013, local politics. and in terms of leadership, experi- author of the Local Elections Hand- In 1970 the role of local govern- ence and resources. SDP councillors book Professor Michael Thrasher ment in the Liberal Party’s profile were outnumbered by five to one even warned that Liberal Dem- was confirmed by the Assem- before the merger, and a proportion ocrats ‘need resurrection, not bly’s adoption of the community of these declined to join the Lib- recover y’; 3 and the losses of 2014 politics strategy, and by the addi- eral Democrats, leaving their erst- prompted pressure for a change tion of environmental concern while colleagues in an even smaller of leadership. However, a longer- to the existing focus on localism minority. The Association of Liberal term view of the Liberal Democrat and regionalism, to form a policy Democrat Councillors had its head- record in local government shows agenda particularly suited to fight- quarters in the Birchcliffe Centre that the party’s participation in the ing local elections. In 1977 the and the rallying cry for the party’s coalition is not the only factor in ALC’s strength was visible with first electoral test in May 1988 was Liberal Democrat local election the opening of its headquarters in given by former ALC General Sec- performance, and that local politics the Birchcliffe Centre in Hebden retary Maggie Clay.7 At a joint ALC remains vital to the Liberal Demo- Bridge, where its identity as what and ASDC conference in June a crats’ future fortunes. one supporter described as ‘the Lib- From the timetable was established (after what eral Party in exile’5 was expressed was acknowledged as ‘some hard in a programme of publications and 1960s bargaining’) leading to a launch of Liberals and local government4 campaign meetings, as well as in the joint organisation in November.8 The Liberal Party was born from criticism of the Liberal leadership onwards, Lib- The first two years of local elec- the municipal campaigning of over pacts and alliances with other tions were difficult as the Liberal Joe Chamberlain, built strength parties and departures from distinc- eral achieve- Democrats dealt with the fall- through the campaigns of Lloyd tive Liberal policy positions. ments were out from the merger, and the 1989 George’s rate strike in Wales and From a few hundred councillors county council elections saw the E. D. Simon’s plans for develop- (some of doubtful association with underpinned loss of 20 per cent of the seats won ment in Manchester and found even the party) in the 1950s, the Alliance in the big advance of 1985. There- in the dark days of the 1950s, when in 1986 passed the 3,000 mark, of by the par- after the party re-established and the party’s MPs could be counted whom 524 were Social Democrats.6 expanded its strength, though on the fingers of one hand, that On the eve of the merger between ty’s commit- national circumstances halted and council chambers provided the last the Liberals and Social Democrats, even sometimes reversed the pat- redoubt of Liberal power, the party the Alliance controlled dozens of ment to local tern more than once (see Fig. 1). remaining in control of a small councils and took part in adminis- By 1992 there were 3,800 Lib- number of local authorities. trations on dozens more. government. eral Democrat councillors;9 and

Journal of Liberal History 83 Summer 2014 17 the importance of local government for liberal democrats

Figure 1: change in Liberal Democrat seats held at contests 1989–2014 national image only determine the shorter-term and most extreme swings in Liberal Democrat strength in local government. The long-term pattern is more complex.

Functions of local representation As well as carrying out their own work as representatives, councillors and their campaigns can play three types of wider role in a party – an electoral function; a communication function; and a recruitment function – and for the Liberal Dem- ocrats these have been especially important. Council election success is particularly important in giving credibility to the Liberal Democrats as the third party nationally. The slogan ‘Winning Round Here’ is in 1996 the figure was over 5,000 elections saw net gains, sometimes often held aloft on photographs and the party controlled over fifty of 8 or 12 per cent, in council seat in Liberal Democrat literature by councils.10 This partly resulted numbers. Significantly, these led to well-known councillors support- from the disintegration of Con- the capture or retrieval of north- ing parliamentary candidates, and servative support during the sec- ern, former Labour, administra- many Liberal Democrat MPs owe ond Major administration, but tions such as Newcastle and Pendle their seats to the confidence given had also been growing since 1990 – adding to Liverpool and Sheffield, to voters to back them by preceding because of the effective targeting which the party won in 1998 and local election success for the party. of scarce resources on winnable 1999 respectively. By 2007 the num- One MP noted that ‘most of the wards, referred to eight years ear- ber of Liberal Democrat Council- ’97 intake have seats built on local lier in Maggie Clay’s exhortation lors had returned to 4,700. government success’12 and this was to activists to ‘get on your bike’ to a This was, however, a peak. quantified by a study showing that target seat. Every year except one since 2006 eighteen of the twenty-eight new The ‘soft’ victories handed by has seen a decline in the number of Liberal Democrat MPs in that par- the national image of the Conserv- Liberal Democrat councillors and liament represented areas governed atives, including the near-doubling councils.11 Though heightened in by Liberal Democrat local authori- of the number of Liberal Demo- 2007 by the party’s national leader- ties. ‘For the Liberal Democrats, crat county councillors in 1993, ship difficulties, this pattern clearly local election success has been vital proved hard to defend as Tony Blair predates the formation of the coa- to their improvement in parliamen- replaced Major as prime minister lition and is reflected in the three tary representation since the 1990s’ in 1997, and consequently almost case studies below. This strengthens concluded Russell et al. ‘Building all of the 392 gains made four years the conviction that Liberal Demo- a strong local base has been one of earlier were lost in net terms. The crat performance at local elections the main mechanisms the party has whole of the first Blair premiership is only partly a result of national used to bridge the electoral cred- was a period of damage limitation events, and that on occasion the ibility gap,’ they continue, adding for Liberal Democrats in local gov- causal relationship can be the other that ‘the Liberal Democrat cam- ernment, each round of elections way around. paign strategy may have worked seeing the party shed up to 12 per It would be fatuous to dispute on a micro-scale since the victories cent of the number of seats it was that the record of the coalition, in Cardiff, Leeds and Manches- defending. The period ended with and its perception by the public, ter reflected gains at the local level the loss of another eighty county has damaged Liberal Democrat short of taking the council.’13 A council seats in 2001. The Liberal strength in local government. After particularly clear example is Burn- Democrats controlled twenty fewer four years of losses – not all unprec- ley, where the party went from councils than four years earlier. edented in scale, but previously seven councillors (one less than From this period onwards, how- unknown in succession – there the BNP) in 2003 to twenty-three ever – prior to the Iraq War, the first were by 2013 only 2,700 Liberal (and control of the council) in 2008 trebling of tuition fees or the inten- Democrat councillors, the lowest before winning the parliamentary sification of the Blair–Brown strug- number in the party’s history; in seat in 2010. There is also a meas- gle – Liberal Democrats in local 2014 this fell to under 2,400. The urable ‘horizontal’ electoral effect government showed their ability first and heaviest of these defeats in which success in one council to achieve growth independently led to calls for Nick Clegg’s resig- prompts confidence and improve- of, and prior to, the party nation- nation, but the record of the past ment in neighbouring Liberal ally. Each of the next five rounds of suggests that leadership change and Democrat council campaigns.14

18 Journal of Liberal History 83 Summer 2014 the importance of local government for liberal democrats

Secondly, like other parties, the deputies of party groups, two cabi- two generations earlier. By 1953 Liberal Democrats use council rep- net members or committee chairs, there were no Liberals on the city’s resentation to assist dialogue within and two mayors. Although in 2010 120-strong council and no candi- the party. ‘One of my rules for run- the proportion of Liberal Democrat dates at council elections. But Lib- ning the Lib Dems’, reflected Paddy MPs with council experience fell eral Democrats built on the revival Ashdown, ‘is that, whenever the to 60 per cent, it remained above of the 1960s to achieve joint control Leader and the ALDC act together, the comparable figure for Labour of the city, from which came their we can always get our way.’15 Lead- (54 per cent) and far ahead of that first general election victory in ers who preside over dramatic for the Conservatives (21 per cent). Birmingham since before the First fortunes for the party would also Whilst some have regarded this World War (see Fig. 2).23 receive the reaction from council as regrettable because of its ten- The experience of Birming- groups, whether a boost as with dency to exclude ‘big personalities’ ham Liberal Democrat council Kennedy in 2001,16 or a backlash or because it inhibits the selection group’s longest-serving members such as Menzies Campbell suffered as parliamentary candidates of dates back to the 1960s when Wal- in 2007.17 This exchange also takes women, others argue it improves lace Lawler used community cam- place at constituency level, with parliamentary discipline. Either paigning and extensive casework Liberal Democrat MPs taking the way, the distinctively clear role of in the north of the city to build a pulse of local opinion from coun- local government experience in group of eight councillors and win cil representatives, and sometimes Liberal Democrat parliamentary the Birmingham Ladywood par- feeding back parliamentary busi- candidate selections is evident.22 liamentary seat at a by-election in ness or constituency cases to them. 1969. Lawler lost Ladywood at the ‘Politics when it works well is about 1970 general election and died the communication other than through Three case studies following year, but his colleagues the media’, concluded John Hem- Three case studies serve to illustrate maintained Liberal representation ming after two years as MP for at ward level the principles first on the city council through chal- Birmingham Yardley: ‘you have observable through the national lenging circumstances. discussions in the council group, data, and to indicate the impact of The turbulent fortunes of the for instance. Birmingham’s council local variables in such contests. The Liberals nationally in the late 1970s group obviously is more than just cases examined here, echoing the coincided with major demographic Yardley constituency, and we have regional examples of Orpington, change in the Aston and Newtown discussed issues there before com- Colne Valley and Ladywood in areas, which were Lawler’s political ing to a conclusion in Parliament.’18 the 1960s, are from the Midlands, base, and the Liberal group declined Lastly the Liberal Democrats Yorkshire and Greater London. to only two councillors. A stra- have used local politics to greater tegic decision was made to target effect than other parties in recruit- Birmingham City Council wards in the east of the city around ing, training and promoting The West Midlands – and espe- Sheldon, and victories there were members in the party structure. cially its urban areas – have proved supplemented by three SDP coun- Community politics emphasised difficult territory for Liberal candi- cillors established by 1986 from the importance of year-round cam- dates at all levels since the Second neighbouring Hall Green ward. paigning, and the effects of this are World War. Birmingham, in par- This group formed the founda- reflected in quantitative studies ticular, suffered until 1940 from the tion of Liberal Democrat success showing that ‘the Liberal Demo- effects of the Chamberlain dynas- in Birmingham, which grew from crats are more able to recruit their ty’s departure from Liberal ranks single figures after the merger to members to do election campaigning than is true of other parties’19 Figure 2: Liberal Democrat councillors on Birmingham City Council 1990–2014 and that 16 per cent of Liberal Democrat members have stood for elected office, compared to 9 per cent for Labour and 3 per cent for the Conservatives.20 It is inter- esting to note that at the formation of the Liberal Democrats, the party showed its keenness to pro- mote newer recruits through local government contests by drawing almost half of its council candidates from those under forty-five, compared to figures of a third for Labour and under a fifth for the Conservatives.21 Moving to the Commons, two- thirds of the largest-ever group of Liberal Democrat MPs (2005) had council experience, including thirteen former leaders or deputy leaders of authorities, six leaders or

Journal of Liberal History 83 Summer 2014 19 the importance of local government for liberal democrats double in size within ten years and was reproached by the city council are also to be found in an earlier peak at 33 out of 120 councillors in chief executive for leading a group Liberal revival, and as in Birming- 2007. By this time the Liberal Dem- which brought more cases to the ham the Liberal Democrats were ocrat group had shared power with administration than any other, and able to go from the secure but lim- the Conservatives for four years, thanked the chief executive for the ited representation this achieved to with Paul Tilsley, first elected to compliment. take control of the council. the council in 1969, as deputy coun- The formation of the coalition A small but determined Liberal cil leader. The partnership with in 2010 clearly raised the prospect group was established on York City the Conservatives was made easier that the Conservative–Liberal Council from 1973 onwards under than one with Labour not by ideol- Democrat administration in Bir- the energetic but controversial ogy, but chiefly by Labour’s reluc- mingham would become victim leadership of Steve Galloway, a Lib- tance and the electoral politics of to public dissatisfaction at govern- eral activist in Yorkshire since the Birmingham local government, in ment policy. The Liberal Demo- 1960s. Galloway was Liberal parlia- which only one ward is a genuine crats’ support slipped to the point mentary candidate in York in 1974, contest between Lib Dems and the where the group was reduced to but when in the 1980s he was denied Tories. In 2005 the Liberal Demo- less than half its original size, and the opportunity to stand again by crats were able to use the support Labour retrieved control of the the decision to assign York to the and credibility they had developed council. However, the equation of Social Democrats, his hostility to in local government to secure the coalition with collapse of support the Alliance inhibited its electoral election of city councillor John is simplistic: the support of the Lib- progress in York. Hemming as the MP for Birming- eral Democrats was in decline from Galloway refused any Liberal ham Yardley, in which constitu- 2007 onwards, and in its heart- cooperation in York general elec- ency the party had already won land the party remained popular, tion campaigns, leading the SDP every council seat. winning the popular vote in the candidate Vince Cable to despair This success arose in part from Yardley constituency at the local that ‘even by the standards of a the failings of the Conservative and elections of 2011, 2012 and 2014, party with more than its share of Labour governments of the period, when all four wards in the seat were bloody-minded individualists, he with the controversy over Iraq con- won by the Liberal Democrats. was (and I understand, remains) in solidating support in wards such The impact of the coalition has a league of his own.’25 At local elec- as Sparkbrook. Added to this was been to return Liberal Democrat tions this isolation of the Social the discredit brought to Labour in council representation in Birming- Democrats restricted them to win- Birmingham by the overturning ham to its pre-Blair level. The ning only one council seat at a by- of three of its 2005 election vic- long-term resilience of Birming- election in 1986. When the York tories following successful pros- ham Liberal Democrats which was Liberal Democrats were formed ecutions for fraud.24 It also relied, visible in the 1980s, and the con- (with Galloway as their group however, upon careful targeting tinuing higher base in seats which leader) they had only six seats, of resources and the maintenance have been won and then lost in quickly reduced to four by the of the community politics phi- the interim, will be important in early troubles of the merged party. losophy of ‘actively seek out and restoring the balance in the future. In most York wards by the early deal with constituents’ grievances’, 1990s the Liberal Democrats had as group member Roger Harmer City of York Council fallen into fourth place behind the puts it. Veteran of the 1960s and The roots of the Liberal Democrat Greens. 1970s revival David Luscombe group on the City of York Council As Liberal Democrats, however, the group prospered, growing from Figure 3: Liberal Democrat councillors on City of York Council 1990–2014 four seats to eighteen by 1995, and peaking at twenty-nine in 2003 (see Fig. 3). As in Birmingham, there were both external and internal factors involved. Significantly, the former included the creation of the City of York Council in the 1990s, which broadened the authority’s territory to include the areas of Harrogate and Ryedale and thereby brought the activist body to what former group leader Andrew Waller calls a ‘critical mass.’ Deployed effectively around target wards, these supporters could make a telling difference to results. York Conservatives, meanwhile, did not learn this message, and allowed their activists to spread randomly, leaving them with no seats in 2003. The Conservatives also lost the parliamentary constituency of York

20 Journal of Liberal History 83 Summer 2014 the importance of local government for liberal democrats in 1992, and between then and 2010 Figure 4: Liberal Democrat councillors on Haringey Council 1990–2014 the local government success of the Liberal Democrats was matched in general elections, at which Andrew Waller was three times the candidate and the party’s poll share rose from 10.6 per cent to 25.2 per cent, the latter figures less than 1 per cent behind the Conservatives. Waller attributes the growth in general election votes partly to the training and recruitment of activists at local elections, though the increase in support did not mirror the ward- by-ward pattern as clearly as in Birmingham, and this effect has been reduced by the introduction of ‘all in’ local elections at four-year intervals. Responsibility for the more recent decline of the York group’s size and influence is placed squarely at the door of the party leadership by Waller, who, along with ten other Liberal Democrat councillors including Galloway, lost their of circumstances both within and three behind Labour) in 2006 (see seats in 2011. Waller pointed to ‘a outside the group’s control. Fig. 4). At the previous year’s gen- very serious change of approach The Liberal Democrats con- eral election Lynne Featherstone, that’s needed at the leadership of tinued to run York as a minority one of the 1998 victors, secured the party’26 and claims that local administration, finding the Con- Hornsey and Wood Green, one of government representatives of the servatives realistic partners com- the two parliamentary seats in the party have been treated as ‘road- pared to Labour, whose councillors borough. The Liberal Democrats’ kill’. Though the raw vote of estab- are accused by Waller of ‘sabotage’. first attempt to win the seat only lished Liberal Democrat councillors Labour ministers at national level, thirteen years earlier had garnered held up, he claims, the ineffec- however, Waller found more help- less than one vote in ten. tiveness of the Liberal Democrat ful than coalition ones after 2010: Mark Pack, who joined the Lib- leadership in imposing the party’s he found the Liberal Democrat eral Democrat campaign team in identity positively on the coali- national leadership ‘did not care 1997 after cutting his electioneer- tion’s image led to a rallying of the about local government’. In York, ing teeth in York and at various Labour vote to overhaul him and a Liberal Democrat group with parliamentary by-election cam- his colleagues. a strong tradition of independ- paigns, attributes the party’s success As in Birmingham, however, ence and radicalism has found itself there to three factors, any two of this is only part of the story. The alienated from the party leadership. which are in his experience neces- organisational recovery of the Con- This is not an unknown scenario sary for success: the right demo- servatives meant that they gained in party history, and blame for it graphic base, party organisation, eight seats and deprived the Liberal may be placed on either side. What- and external factors such as national Democrats of overall control in ever else is true, the coalition envi- politics or failure locally by other 2007. Cable also blames Galloway’s ronment amplified the scenario’s parties. divisive leadership for some loss of unwelcome features. Pack argues that, as well as tar- support in his five years as council geting, organisation in Haringey leader: whilst significant improve- Haringey has benefitted from the integration ments were made in environmental Liberal Democrat representation of campaigns at all levels: coun- policy, and the Liberal Democrat in the Borough of Haringey dis- cil, mayoral and London Assem- council pioneered the ‘York Pride’ appeared in 1990 when the party’s bly, parliamentary, and European project, Cable claims Galloway lone councillor was beaten at the elections. The largely interlocking ‘made mistakes which led to them nadir of the merger process. This cycles of these elections has meant being swept out.’27 Whatever the left the authority a virtual one- they have become ‘building blocks’ reason, there can be no dispute that, party affair, with Labour holding for continuous campaigning by as in Birmingham, the ebbing of fifty-seven of its fifty-nine seats, consistent teams: each ward team the Liberal Democrat tide began running an administration which in Hornsey and Wood Green shows before the formation of the coali- earned national publicity for the MP Lynne Featherstone as a mem- tion. York’s ‘natural’ state is one of poverty of its standards. It was not ber on local campaign literature. no overall control, a balance that until 1998 that three seats were Pack also points to the impor- was lost in the Liberal Democrats’ secured by the Liberal Democrats, tance of the atmosphere and culture favour before 2007 and to their dis- rising rapidly to fifteen in 2002 of campaign teams; of avoiding a advantage after that date, as a result and peaking at twenty-seven (only ‘self-reinforcing circle’ of veteran

Journal of Liberal History 83 Summer 2014 21 the importance of local government for liberal democrats activists; and of recognising the Local poli- same time even more important Democrat politics: the most vul- point at which charismatic per- for the future. It is likely – and this nerable to attack, the first to suffer sonalities – best for ensuring the tics remains was confirmed by the experience losses, and yet the most essential to survival or revival of small and of the Eastleigh by-election victory the heart and to the recovery of the threatened groups – need to step at the front in February 2013, based upon dec- party. back to create the collegial atmos- ades of success in council elections phere which sponsors growth. line of Lib- – that the inevitable challenge to Matt Cole is a Teaching Fellow in the Campaigns can also be inhibited the Liberal Democrats’ parliamen- Department of Modern History at the by ‘lack of experience of knowing eral Demo- tary number arising from the expe- University of Birmingham. He is grate- what winning an election means.’ rience of coalition in 2015 can be ful to Roger Harmer, Andrew Waller Opponents on both sides sup- crat politics: offset to some extent by strength in and Mark Egan for interviews, from plied Haringey Liberal Democrats local government. which quotation not otherwise attributed with a great deal of ammunition: the most vul- Secondly, Liberal Democrat is taken. local Conservative tactics are nerable to success in local government often described by Pack as ‘inept’, leav- builds on the achievements of Lib- 1 M. Temple, ‘Power in the Balance’ in ing them with no seats at all after attack, the eral and Social Democrats over D. McIver, (ed.), The Liberal Democrats the last three elections; the ruling decades, but at its height produced (Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1996), p. 225. Labour group, on the other hand, first to suffer results greater in scale than even the 2 Liberator, April 2011. has gained national notoriety for Alliance’s most prosperous periods. 3 M. Thrasher, ‘Lib Dems need Resur- low standards of service. In 2009, losses, and Recent detailed studies of Liberal rection not Recovery’, http://news. Haringey’s performance was placed Democrat activity in local elections sky.com/story/1157349/lib-dems- by OFSTED in the bottom nine in yet the most show that, contrary to widespread need-resurrection-not-recovery, the country for children’s services, assumption, campaigning and 21 October 2013 (accessed 1 January and the whole council was listed essential to organisation remain key factors,28 2014). by the Audit Commission in the and the survey above suggests 4 A good summary of the Liberal Par- worst four nationally, the worst in the heart that national images of the Liberal ty’s post-war record in local govern- London. Democrats and their opponents are ment is B. Keith-Lucas, ‘The Liberals National image effects were and to the variable in their impact on local and Local Government’ in V. Bogda- limited until 2014, with Labour’s election results. nor (ed.), Liberal Party Politics (OUP, decline (as in York and Birming- recovery of The idea that the coalition has 1983), pp. 242–59. ham) preceding the party’s difficul- killed the Liberal Democrat repre- 5 I. Bradley, The Strange Rebirth of Lib- ties in government. Similarly, the the party. sentation in local government is far eral England (Chatto & Windus, 1985), peak of Liberal Democrat success too simplistic: decline in the par- p. 166. was 2006; three councillors were ty’s number of councillors began 6 The Social Democrat, 15 May 1986. lost in 2010, and two more resigned before 2010, as did the weakening 7 ‘Local elections show us only 2% the party following the formation of the transfer of local success to behind Labour!’, Democrats News, no. of the coalition. The 2014 elections, parliamentary representation. The 3, 27 March 1988, p. 1. Maggie Clay when the party lost over half of its analysis by Russell et al. of the 2005 (1947–2009) was a legendary figure councillors, showed how far this intake of Liberal Democrat MPs of northern municipal Liberalism pattern has been extended by the shows that ‘only Cambridge fol- whose endorsement of the Liberal Liberal Democrats’ time in national lowed the 1997 stepping stone pat- Democrats reflected and encouraged office – especially with a local MP tern’29 and suggests that the party’s Liberal councillors’ acceptance of the who is a government minister – general decline in local politics merger. See http://www.bramley. but, as in Birmingham and York, began before 2005. Indeed, the Lib- demon.co.uk/obits/clay-LDN.html. the tide was already receding from eral Democrats’ peak of success in 8 Social & Liberal Democrat News, 20 the Liberal Democrat high water- terms of numbers of councillors May 1988. mark before 2010. and councils lies as far back as 1996. 9 Liberal Democrat News, 15 May 1992. The rises and falls in Liberal 10 C. Rallings and M. Thrasher, ‘The Democrat local government for- Electoral Record’ in D. McIver (ed.), Conclusions tunes before and since that date The Liberal Democrats (Harvester Several issues worthy of further demonstrate the persistency of Wheatsheaf, 1996), p. 209. examination are raised by this the party at municipal level: even 11 2008 saw an increase of thirty-three survey, including the regional the loss of three-quarters of Lib- in the number of borough councillors patterns, parliamentary and elec- eral seats fought in the 1977 county on a day when the Liberal Democrats toral records of Liberal Democrat council elections (held as the Lib– won over 1,800 seats, and gained one councillors. From these introduc- Lab Pact got underway) did not more council; in 2013 no councils tory observations, however, it is signal the end of the party; and it were lost. clear, firstly, that local government was strength in local government 12 A. Russell and E. Fieldhouse, Neither remains more important for Liberal which helped all but three Liberal Left nor Right? The Liberal Democrats Democrats than for other parties MPs hold their seats in the general and the Electorate (MUP, 2005), p. 61. in sustaining electoral credibil- election two years later. The Grand 13 A. Russell, D. Cutts and E. Field- ity, conveying ideas internally and Old Duke of York (or Birming- house, ‘National–Regional–Local: preparing the next generation of ham, Haringey or anywhere else) The Electoral and Political Health implementers of party policy. The has been further down the hill and of the Liberal Democrats in Britain’, coalition has made each of these will march up again. Local politics British Politics, no. 2 (2007), p. 206. processes more difficult, but at the remains at the front line of Liberal 14 I. MacAllister, E. Fieldhouse and

22 Journal of Liberal History 83 Summer 2014 the importance of local government for liberal democrats

A. Russell, ‘Yellow fever? The Liberal Democrats at the Grassroots pp.259–79. uk-england-york-north-york- political geography of Liberal (OUP, 2006), p. 72. 23 A fuller summary of this back- shire-13284976 (6 May 2011, support’, Political Geography, 21 20 L. Bennie, J. Curtice, and W. ground can be found in P. Tils- accessed 3 January 2014). (2002), pp. 421–447. Rudig, ‘Party Members’ in ley, ‘Birmingham: Birthplace 27 Cable, Free Radical, p. 219. 15 P. Ashdown, The Ashdown Dia- MacIver, The Liberal Democrats of Radical Liberalism’, Journal 28 D. Cutts, ‘‘Where We Work We ries Volume 1 1988–97 (Allen Lane, (Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1996), p. of Liberal History, no. 70 (spring Win’: A Case Study of Local 2000), p. 194. 139. This figure was confirmed 2011), pp.19–21. Liberal Democrat Campaign- 16 G. Hurst, Charles Kennedy: A ten years later in Whitely et al., 24 John Stewart, ‘A Banana Repub- ing’, Journal of Elections, Public Tragic Flaw (Politico’s 2006), p. Third Force Politics. lic? The Investigation into Elec- Opinion & Parties, vol. 16, no. 3 194. 21 G. Stoker, The Politics of Local toral Fraud by the Birmingham (2006), pp. 221–242. This article 17 M. Campbell, My Autobiography Government (Macmillan, 1988) p. Election Court’, Parliamen- analyses Liberal Democrat suc- (Hodder & Stoughton 2008), p. 37. tary Affairs, October 2006, pp. cess from 1999 onwards in Bath 279. 22 M. Cole, ‘Growing Without 654–67. & North East Somerset. 18 Interview, 19 May 2007. Pains’, British Journal of Politics and 25 V. Cable, Free Radical (Atlantic 29 Russell et al., ‘National– 19 P. Whitely, P. Seyd, and A. Bill- International Relations, Vol 11 No Books, 2009), p. 218. Regional–Local’, p. 206. inghurst, Third Force Politics: 2, May 2009 (Wiley-Blackwells) 26 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ The Liberal Party and the First World War A one-day conference organised by the Journal of Liberal History and King’s College, London. Saturday 1 November 2014, Room K2.40, Strand Campus of KCL

In this year, 100 years since the coming of war in August 1914, the conflict is remembered chiefly for its impact on the millions of ordinary men, women and children who who were to suffer and die and over the following four years. Lives were altered forever and society transformed. But the war had political consequences too: empires fell, new nations emerged and British political parties and the party system underwent profound change, a transformation which plunged the Liberal Party into civil war and caused it to plummet from a natural party of government to electoral insignificance within a few short years. This conference will examine some of the key issues and personalities of the period.

Papers already confirmed: • Lloyd George and Winston Churchill (Professor Richard Toye, Exeter University) • Asquith as war premier and Liberal leader (Dr Roland Quinault, Institute of Historical Research) • The First World War papers of H H Asquith and Lewis Harcourt (Mike Webb, Bodleian Library) Papers are also being sought on: • Sir Edward Grey and the road to war • The Liberal Party and the politics of the First World War • The Liberal Party, the Irish question and the First World War The day will conclude with a panel discussion on whether or not the war was the destroyer of the Liberal Party (the Trevor Wilson thesis).

Full details of all speakers, guest chairs and papers will appear in the autumn edition of the Journal of Liberal History.

The cost of the conference will be £15 (students and unwaged £10) to include morning and afternoon refreshments. (Lunch is not provided but there are plenty of cafes and sandwich shops in the vicinity of the Campus.)

To register please send your name and address to Graham Lippiatt, 114 Worcester Lane, Four Oaks, Sutton Coldfield, B75 5NJ, or [email protected]. Payment can be taken on the day.

Journal of Liberal History 83 Summer 2014 23