A RETREAT FROM THE LEFT? The Liberal Party and Labour 1945–55

The ‘realignment of the left’ in British politics was one of the defining features of ’s leadership of the Liberal Party and has been an important factor in Liberal politics ever since that time. The Liberal Party of the 1940s and 1950s, by contrast, is generally regarded as leaning towards the right, defined by its relationship with the Conservatives and the rump National Liberal he Liberal Party began Conservatives from returning to Party.1 Little attention the 1945 parliament power. These moves were unsuc- broadly supporting the cessful, which was probably just has been paid to Labour government but as well from the point of view of relations between the gradually became more preserving the independence of Tcritical, particularly after Frank the Liberal Party, but showed that Liberals and Labour Byers replaced Thomas Horabin there was considerable interest in as Chief Whip in 1946. A number re-establishing a progressive coa- during this period. of former Liberal MPs defected to lition in UK politics well before Labour during the late 1940s and Grimond reinvented the Liberal Robert Ingham early 1950s and high-level talks Party after 1956. The extent to exanines the record. took place between the parties which the Liberal Party was split in 1950 aimed at preventing the down the middle in its approach to

38 Journal of Liberal History 67 Summer 2010 A RETREAT FROM THE LEFT? The Liberal Party and Labour 1945–55

its major rivals at this time is also The immediate problem for Liberals in parliament 1945–50 now starkly apparent. Some senior the Liberals after the election The first decision Davies and Liberals were talking to Labour was to select a new leader, as Horabin had to take concerned about keeping the Conservatives Sir Archibald Sinclair had been the Liberal attitude to the King’s out of power at the same time as defeated in Caithness and Suth- Speech, which outlined the leg- others were discussing the pos- erland. Sinclair’s National oppo- islative programme of the new sibility of electoral arrangements nent, Eric Gandar Dower, had government. Then, as now, the with the Conservatives aimed at rashly promised to resign his seat debate at the start of the par- defeating Labour: when Japan was defeated, and liamentary session lasted sev- may well have been party to both Liberals expected Sinclair to win eral days and there were usually sets of conservations. the ensuring by-election. In the votes on opposition amendments. The results of the 1945 gen- event, Gandar Dower changed Unusually, no amendments were eral election showed a marked his mind and served for the full moved in 1945. Clement Dav- shift to the left in British politics, Parliament. Faced with this situ- ies devoted much of his speech with the Labour Party sweeping ation, Liberal MPs selected Clem- to international affairs – war was to power. The number of Labour ent Davies as their chairman for still raging in the Far East – and MPs increased from 166 at disso- the parliamentary session after a his remarks about the new gov- lution to 393, with the Conserva- process in which all of the MPs ernment’s domestic agenda were tive total falling from 398 to 213, were asked in turn if they would positive: their lowest number since 1906. consider taking the job. Thomas The Liberals had hoped to benefit Horabin became Chief Whip. I am sure that we can all rejoice from this swing, not least because Davies was a controversial at the end of the Tory régime, their ranks included Sir William choice. Elected for Montgomery- at the end of reaction and Beveridge, author of the epony- shire in 1929 he followed Sir John chaos. We are looking forward mous report which was to become Simon into the Liberal Nationals, not only in this country but in the keystone of the welfare state before becoming an independent all countries of Europe, where and who had been elected Liberal in 1939. He rejoined the Liberals democracy is rising with new MP for Berwick in 1944. In fact, in 1942 and was associated with the hope, to this progressive Gov- the election marked a new low left-wing group.2 ernment We wish this Gov- in the long-term decline of the Horabin was also associated with ernment well, but we want Liberal Party and a mere twelve Radical Action and the views them to take that road firmly. Liberals were returned to parlia- expressed in his 1944 monograph We want them to show plenty ment. Beveridge was one of the Politics Made Plain put him well to of backbone, determination casualties; and one of the Liber- the left of Sinclair and other Lib- and courage. [An Hon. Mem- als returned at the poll, Gwilym eral grandees. Only a year before ber: ‘Do not worry.’] I am not Lloyd George, was only a nomi- Davies and Horabin had emerged worrying; I am just express- nal supporter of the party and was as leaders of the Liberal MPs, ing the hope. Why should I later to side unambiguously with Lady had not give them this reminder? the Conservatives. The best that described them as examples of the Left: Clement If they fail, if there is a breach could be said about the election ‘lunatics and pathological cases’ Davies, Leader of of faith, they will not only do result was that the Liberals had not prominent in the party because of the Liberal Party permanent damage to their been wiped off the map. its weak position.3 1945–56 own party, but to the cause

Journal of Liberal History 67 Summer 2010 39 a retreat from the left?

of democracy throughout the drift under Clement Davies’ lead- a former Liberal candidate and world. They may do more ership’.10 Evidence of a shift away chairman of Radical Action, pro- damage even than 20 dictators. from undiluted enthusiasm for duced a discussion paper for the I am perfectly sure that they Labour’s programme can be found remaining members of Radical will go on with this great pro- in the autumn and winter of 1945. Action in 1948 which described gramme; all I hope is that pros- Speaking on the second reading of Byers as ‘irritating’ and ‘inad- perity will follow upon their the Dock Workers (Regulation of equate’ and implied that he was work.4 Employment) Bill, Davies agreed responsible for the party’s ditching with Labour’s aim of putting an its radical stance.17 It seems clear, Liberal support for government end to the casual labour system however, that Byers was reinforc- measures was expressed on sev- for engaging dock workers but ing a trend which had begun ear- eral occasions during the 1945–46 expressed concern at the impact lier and which reflected Davies’s session, mostly by Davies himself on the liberties of individual own view that Labour had insuf- who seems to have received lit- workers.11 Three weeks later, and ficient regard for civil liberties. tle support from his colleagues in somewhat surprisingly given his The King opened the 1946– flying the party flag in the Com- remarks in August, Davies partici- 47 session of parliament on 12 mons. His support for the nation- pated in a Conservative motion November 1946 and Clem- alisation of the Bank of England of censure on government policy, ent Davies made his speech in was criticised by the Conserva- moving a Liberal amendment response the next day. General tives as a ‘blank sheet’ policy.5 which attacked Labour for sacri- support for Labour’s programme Later in 1945, Davies supported ficing civil liberties.12 It is notable was combined with a note of cau- the National Insurance (Indus- that Davies’s concerns were ‘right- tion, absent a year earlier: trial Injuries) Bill but admon- wing’ in terms of the language of ished the government for being the times but were entirely con- With regard to the legisla- insufficiently radical.6 Criticism sistent with the Liberal Party’s tive proposals, I repeat what of socialist timidity was also traditional approach to individual I said at the beginning of this expressed by in rights. Parliament … we as Liberals his maiden speech. Bowen, widely When Horabin resigned as will support every progressive regarded as a right-winger,7 began Liberal Chief Whip he claimed measure which is really for the his speech on the Trunk Roads that this was because he wanted benefit of the community as Bill with the words ‘I shall ven- to contribute more often to a whole … But that is on one ture to criticise a socialist Minis- debate in the House.13 He made Left-wing condition, that whereas we ter on the score that his scheme of only one speech – on foreign want these radical economic nationalisation is of far too limited affairs in June 1946 – before he Liberals were reforms as much as any hon. a character’.8 resigned the Liberal Whip in later in no Member sitting on that side of The approach taken by Dav- October 1946. On this occasion the House, we will not part ies and Horabin was based on the he was more candid about the doubt that with a single one of our spir- notion that the Labour and Liberal reasons for his departure, com- itual liberties, which are far and Parties were united by a common plaining that the Liberals had Byers had away more important than any purpose and differed only in terms moved to the right and that the economic reform.18 of zeal and commitment: this government deserved the support moved the view was reflected in a confer- of radicals.14 Davies appointed The Liberals also brought for- ence organised by Radical Action , the new MP for party to the ward an amendment for debate, at Brackley in April 1946, which Dorset North, to replace Horabin attacking the trade union closed Davies and Horabin attended. as Chief Whip. Described by right, well shop. This direct assault on the Could radical Liberals be critical Roy Douglas as ‘one of the small heart of the Labour movement of the fact that Labour was imple- group of visionary and indefati- away from was devised by Frank Byers, who menting what one participant, gable individuals determined to opened the debate. Everett Jones, considered to be a infuse vigour and determination the role set The Liberals’ opposition to largely Liberal programme? The as well as a sense of organisa- the 1946 Transport Bill, in which answer was an overwhelming tion into the party’,15 he quickly out by Dav- it was proposed to nationalise all no. Horabin, who had recently became one of the most domi- inland public transport save for resigned as Chief Whip, declared nant figures in the party. In ies in 1945 air travel, caused difficulties for that Labour were doing a first- October 1947 he was asking Lady the party. G. R. Strauss, the min- class job and it was the Liberals’ Violet Bonham Carter whether of providing ister in charge of the bill, quoted duty to back the government. Clement Davies should be con- a wartime Liberal Party pamphlet Davies said that all Labour lacked firmed as official leader of the backbone which advocated nationalisation was a progressive plan of action party, ‘on the ground that he to a Labour of the railways, long-distance and a ‘war cabinet’ style organisa- [Frank] cld control him better’.16 road haulage and the passenger tion which would improve their Left-wing Liberals were later government transport industry. ‘Well, our policy delivery.9 in no doubt that Byers had moved bill fully endorses those general Horabin’s biographers, Jaime the party to the right, well away which might principles,’ teased Strauss.19 Dav- Reynolds and Ian Hunter, have from the role set out by Davies in ies had already spoken to oppose attributed Horabin’s resignation 1945 of providing backbone to a prove too the creation of a ‘vast all-embrac- to disenchantment with ‘what he Labour government which might ing monopoly’ and to say that his perceived as the party’s rightward prove too timid. Lancelot Spicer, timid. party would go no further than

40 Journal of Liberal History 67 Summer 2010 a retreat from the left? the nationalisation of the railways As Clem- One final example of the Liber- to become a Liberal MP, dined and the canal network.20 ‘Is this als’ swing to the right during this with the , Her- an indication of the retreat of the ent Davies period will suffice. G. R. Strauss bert Morrison, to discuss the Liberal Party from the policy on led for the government on the bill possibility of Labour and radical which it fought the last general moved to the to nationalise the steel industry in Liberals entering into a ‘contract’ election?’ thundered a Radical 1948 and again made hay with a or ‘bargain’.27 No clear statement Action letter to The Guardian.21 right, and statement of Liberal policy from was given of what that contract The party’s attitude to the before 1945. On this occasion he might involve, but it is reasonable government had hardened con- the influence cited a pamphlet entitled A Radi- to assume that Radical Action siderably by the time of the 1947 cal Economic Policy for Progressive hoped to secure a free run against King’s Speech. Davies said the of Thomas Liberalism which bore Davies’s the Tories for some of their candi- government had ‘done more than Horabin signature and which argued that dates. No agreement was reached, any other Government of this ‘steel, coal, transport and power with Morrison taking the ortho- country in time of peace to limit waned, are examples of industries which dox Labour line that all progres- the freedom of the individual’ it is vital should be owned by the sives ought to join the Labour and accused Labour of ‘threaten- some on the community’.24 Davies called for Party. He was assured that none ing’ the ‘spiritual liberty’ of the an inquiry, arguing that nation- of those present had any attention people.22 He went on to argue Liberal left alisation was not necessarily best of defecting as this would ‘not that: for the industry at that time and forwards the cause they were pro- again looked claiming that his stance was con- moting.’ This approach to Morri- No Government ever started sistent with his earlier views.25 He son was made behind the back of on their career with greater to reach an was undermined by his former the Liberal leadership; a suggested good will than His Majesty’s colleague Horabin, however, second meeting appears not to Government. They had the agreement making his first speech in parlia- have taken place. support of all the workers, and ment since he was injured in an At the same time, the Labour the full support of the trade with Labour. aeroplane crash in January 1947. ‘I Party chairman, Harold Laski, unions. They had the realisa- really cannot understand why my approached Honor Balfour, who tion among the people that the right hon. and learned Friend is was then intending to contest tasks confronting them were not supporting the Second Read- Darwen for the second time fol- enormous. I wished them well ing of this Bill’ began Horabin: lowing her near miss as an inde- on behalf of my colleagues pendent Liberal in the 1944 in my speech on the Address Throughout the war years we by-election. Balfour was offered a in reply to the first Gracious worked very closely together. choice of eight safe Labour seats if Speech from the Throne in He was my leader in those days she were to join the Labour Party. this Parliament. We wished even before he was Leader Balfour described the offer as them well, not so much for of the Liberal Party, and he ‘tempting’ but loyalty to her con- their success, but because we taught me quite a lot about stituency workers, and her rejec- realised that upon them would the economics we should need tion of Clause IV of the Labour depend the fate of the coun- to adopt when peace came. Party’s constitution, kept her in try, and the responsibility to It was he who, to a very large the Liberal fold.28 Immediately bring it through its difficul- extent, converted me to the after the election, Laski repeated ties back to normal. They had nationalisation of steel, to the his offer, ‘we want progressive greater powers over finance nationalisation of land and so Liberals in the Labour Party … and materials, together with on, but unfortunately I could anyone with your gifts would be controls of all kinds, than any not change my point of view. welcome.’29 Government has ever had; and I fought the General Election As Clement Davies moved to what has obviously happened, on this issue, and so did my the right, and the influence of from the words used this week right hon. and learned Friend Thomas Horabin waned, some by the Prime Minister, and I believe – perhaps not on the on the Liberal left again looked to emphasised by the Minister nationalisation of steel, but cer- reach an agreement with Labour. for Economic Affairs, is that tainly on the question of the Lancelot Spicer wrote to Richard there has been a lack of vision, nationalisation of the land.26 Crossman MP in November 1946 foresight and realisation of the on behalf of the remaining mem- effect of many of their actions Horabin’s peroration fell on deaf bers of Radical Action stating ‘as – a real lack of vision as to what ears and the Liberals united to a group trying to work out a posi- might happen as a result of the oppose the bill. tive set of aims, we are anxious failure to exercise the control to find out how far we can agree over finance which was in the with existing political groups.’30 hands of the Chancellor of the Talking to Labour The ‘dogmatic and doctrinaire’ Exchequer. Obviously, they There had been sporadic con- discipline of the Labour whips did not realise the immensity tacts between left-wing Liberals was given as one reason why Rad- of the problems, still less the and the Labour Party before the ical Action could not yet endorse danger. Still less did they give 1945 election, but these had come the Labour Party, but the initial that proper guidance which to nothing. In June 1944 vari- post-war contact had been made. the country was entitled to ous members of Radical Action, A serious approach to Labour expect.23 including , soon was delayed until 1948. Spicer

Journal of Liberal History 67 Summer 2010 41 a retreat from the left? floated the idea of a radical/ constituency Labour parties; Megan Lloyd carry the parliamentary Labour Labour coalition operating in and Party with him.37 seats where the Liberal vote • did not accept Labour’s stance George, in In March 1951 a notice was remained strong.31 The election on private enterprise. circulated by ‘The Pilgrim’ of a strong radical group to the However, in the redrafted second alliance addressed to ‘all intelligent Labour House of Commons, to supple- memorandum, written in May MPs’.38 The Pilgrim argued that a ment Lady 1948, the last reason was omit- with Emrys Lib–Lab deal, in which both par- and both Emrys and Wilfrid Rob- ted. Marshall wrote to Phillips to ties withdrew from certain seats, erts, would save Labour from the say that, ‘we found our talk with Roberts and would gain Labour seventy seats electoral defeat Spicer predicted at you extremely helpful in clarify- and the Liberals thirty. ‘Get down the forthcoming general election. ing certain points.’33 The second Edgar Gran- now to the job of working out In the same year, A. P. Mar- memorandum may have appealed ville, wrote an electoral arrangement with shall, a prominent member of to the right wing of the Labour the Liberals,’ the Pilgrim urged. Radical Action, sent two memo- Party, in that it called for ‘radical to The Times Whereas such a notice could nor- randa to Morgan Phillips, the reforms to achieve Social Democ- mally be dismissed as a historical Secretary of the Labour Party, racy.’ Marshall continued to offer to argue for curiosity, at the same time Tom written in the name of ‘a number an electoral deal to the Labour Reid, the Labour MP for Swin- of Liberals who have for some Party, claiming that a radical/ ‘cooperation don, wrote to Morgan Phillips to years been members of the Radi- Labour coalition would command reveal that Lib–Lab negotiations cal wing of the Liberal forces’ and the support of at least two-thirds with Labour had been ongoing during the who were struggling to adapt of the Liberal Party and would Parliament. Reid’s letter deserves to ‘a desperately difficult situa- drive away the Communist Party on honour- quoting in full: tion.’32 Marshall argued that the as well as ensure victory at the Liberal Party was suffering from next general election. The offer able terms For months here individual an ‘advanced state of political Par- was ignored. Phillips would settle MPs – Labour and Liberal – kinson’s disease’ and would need for nothing less than the defec- to make an have been talking of uniting to die in order for a vibrant radi- tion of Radical Action members ... A few weeks ago a Liberal cal party to be born. Marshall set into the Labour Party. This left effective MP approached me about it … out a number of conditions which Radical Action ‘standing very I then saw Herbert [Morrison] a government had to satisfy in much alone’ and Spicer suggested majority for and asked him if I should butt order to win the support of radi- that the group admit failure and in. He was dubious about the cals. The crucial condition was disband its political activities.34 reform’. feasibility of the plan; he had that the government had to enjoy This is what happened after the made approaches himself. But the overwhelming support of the 1948 memoranda. Spicer refused he told me to go ahead as an working class. Marshall argued to stand for the Liberal Party in individual representing myself that this ruled out radical sup- the 1950 general election, despite only. I did so and saw Megan port for a Conservative govern- being offered the candidacy in [Lloyd George]. We covered ment, as well as any cooperation Loughborough. the whole subject. I found with the Tories on the basis of the But that was by no means the that here had been all sorts of ‘Design for Freedom’ plan drawn end of contact between Labour suggestions but no compre- up by an unofficial group of Lib- and individual radical Liberals. hensive understanding cover- erals and Conservatives. That The results of the 1950 general ing all the big issues. Then I left the Labour Party as the only election left Labour in need of had several talks with 5 of the viable home for radicals. ‘All of allies, especially as it was widely Liberal MPs. My first object us in private conversations have anticipated that the swing to the was to prevent them bringing found a great measure of agree- right would continue at the next down the government. In this ment with many Labour men and election. Megan Lloyd George, they have been co-operative women on immediate and short- in alliance with Emrys Roberts … We hammered out a policy run problems. We often find them and Edgar Granville, wrote to for the period till the next elec- kindred spirits seeing similar ends The Times to argue for ‘coopera- tion, not one item, I think, in human life. We like their deep tion with Labour on honourable contrary to Labour policy. I and genuine human impulses.’ terms to make an effective major- handed it to Herbert suggest- The first memorandum, writ- ity for reform’.35 Lloyd George ing that he should sound the ten in February 1948, listed five engaged in a running battle with Executive. The difficulties of reasons why radical Liberals the right wing of the Liberal Party getting joint action at elections, would not join the Labour Party. during the 1950–52 period, accus- constituencies etc was fully These were that they: ing them of undertaking a ‘drift realised. Meantime, the Liber- • did not accept clause IV of the away from the old Radical tra- als sounded some of their lead- Labour Party constitution; dition’.36 In 1950 she, Spicer and ing people outside Parliament • did not accept Labour’s rigid Emrys Roberts met with Morri- and added a few things to their disciplinary system; son to discuss the possibility of an policy outlined. I showed the • did not like the close associa- arrangement which could prevent note to Herbert … I told him tion between Labour and the the Tories from winning the next I would give it to Chuter Ede trades unions; election. Morrison commented who, I knew, saw possibilities • were unimpressed with the that although he favoured such in the plan. That was last night. standard of officials in the a deal, he did not think he could I asked Chuter to show it to the

42 Journal of Liberal History 67 Summer 2010 a retreat from the left?

Prime Minister, and then pass high-level discussion. However, to Labour. During the 1945–55 it on to some leading members his desk diaries from the period period a number of Liberal MPs of the Executive. Meantime I reveal nothing and he never men- and former MPs drifted into the had seen Alice Bacon and dis- tioned any such discussions in his Labour Party in an uncoordi- cussed the whole thing … If memoirs. Evidence of Davies’s nated fashion. Balfour felt that deemed promising the execu- involvement comes from Labour a well-organised, high-profile tives of the two parties must MP Philip Noel-Baker, who defection of several prominent discuss the policies suggested recorded Davies commenting in radicals might achieve the sort and if agreed, their implemen- March 1951 that ‘somehow the of realignment of British poli- tation if deemed feasible.39 two progressive parties must get tics which Jo Grimond was to It is com- together to save the world.’41 Was advocate several years later. Vital In 1951 more than half of the par- this a signal of practical political to this plan was Lloyd George, liamentary Liberal Party, and sev- monly stated intent, a pipedream, or a mistake who was the most prominent eral prominent Liberals outside by Noel-Baker? Whatever the member of this radical group. If of parliament, agreed to a policy that Clem- answer, it is clear that some of the she could lead a mass defection, statement which was designed to ent Davies Liberal Party’s most senior figures then the balance of power within ensure that the Labour govern- were involved in detailed nego- the Labour Party might tilt to ment stayed in power for as long as saved the tiations with a Labour MP, with a the right, and a radical social possible. Furthermore, the possi- view to establishing a far-reaching democratic Labour Party could bility of a more far-reaching deal, Liberal Party agreement with the Labour Party emerge, attracting widespread encapsulating electoral arrange- both in Parliament and in the support from across the political ments and future government by rejecting constituencies. spectrum. However, no coordi- policy was mooted. This agree- It is commonly stated that nated activity took place. Lloyd ment was known to Attlee and Churchill’s Clement Davies saved the Lib- George announced her defection to senior members of the Labour eral Party by rejecting Churchill’s in 1955 independently. Foot fol- administration as well as to many offer of the offer of the Ministry of Education. lowed her shortly afterwards. No senior Liberals. What happened It appears that another decision in mass defection took place. The to the agreement? It is likely that Ministry of 1951, of both the Labour and Lib- moment was lost.44 both party executives looked eral Party executives to dismiss unfavourably on the deal: the Lib- Education. It a negotiated parliamentary deal erals’ because of the number of between the parties, also helped Conclusion executive members who leaned appears that sustain the Liberal Party’s survival The Liberal Party’s relationship towards the Tories not Labour, as an independent organisation. with Labour after 1945 was more and Labour’s because the Liber- another deci- Again, this was not the end of complex than has previously been als were not trusted to stick to any the issue. Megan Lloyd George suggested. The unlikely leader- deal. Phillips regarded Clement sion in 1951, lost her seat, Anglesey, in 1951 ship pairing of Clement Davies Davies as ‘extremely ineffective’ of both the and there was widespread specu- and Thomas Horabin began the and it is likely that he felt that lation that she would defect to 1945 parliament as critical friends Davies had no power or ability Labour and the Labour Party. In February of the Labour government, wor- to carry his party, assuming he 1952, her lover, Philip Noel- rying not that it would prove backed the arrangement.40 Liberal Party Baker wrote, ‘Archie [Sinclair] too left-wing but that it would Who were the five Liberal has been seeing be too cautious. By the winter of MPs, with whom Reid discussed executives and is still asking for pacts; Her- 1945, however, Davies was begin- the deal? Megan Lloyd George, bert [Morrison] is still stalling ning to have his doubts about the Emrys Roberts and Edgar Gran- to dismiss a as hard as ever. I think they may impact of Labour’s economic pre- ville, all former Radical Action try to get you to take Anglesey scriptions on what would now be members, would certainly have negotiated for us [i.e. Labour] ... I think called human rights and the Lib- been approached. Archibald Mac- you ought to see Clem [Davies] erals’ drift to the right began. donald, later to help form the parliamen- at once and say so right away.’42 With hindsight, the Liberals’ , may also Noel-Baker is not the most reli- strategy was naïve and doomed to have been involved. The identity tary deal able source of information on this failure. Had the party continued of the fifth, assuming that Reid matter. Sinclair was by this time to argue that Labour needed to be is not mistaken, is something of between the ill and in the . more radical it would have found a mystery. Rhys Hopkin Mor- Only the year before, Church- itself allied in the Commons to a ris and Roderic Bowen would, parties, also ill had offered him a place in the ragbag of Communists and inde- by inclination, have had noth- cabinet.43 However, the sugges- pendent left-wingers who openly ing to do with the Labour Party. helped sus- tion that Lloyd George should rejected liberalism. The initial Donald Wade was elected only as tain the Lib- return to parliament as a Welsh course set by Davies and Horabin a result of an arrangement with Labour MP had been made. Her would have left the mainstream his local Conservative association eral Party’s Liberal colleagues, who had sup- Liberal Party far behind. In drop- and would be unlikely to have ported her ‘radical group’ in Par- ping Horabin, Davies helped unite assented to a deal with Labour. survival as an liament, had other ideas. Honor the party – no easy task given that That leaves Clement Davies Balfour, and, to a it contained such disparate ele- and Jo Grimond. Grimond, as independent lesser extent, ments as Megan Lloyd George and Chief Whip, would almost cer- were still excited by the possi- . It proved tainly have been involved in any organisation. bility of a mass radical defection impossible, however, for Davies

Journal of Liberal History 67 Summer 2010 43 a retreat from the left? to argue convincingly that Lib- Labour’s frailties became evident 20 HC Deb, 16 December 1945, cc. eral policy on economic matters during the 1950s was it possible 1655–64. had been consistent throughout to develop a coherent narrative to 21 The Guardian, 3 December 1946. the decade and that his own views explain why the Liberal Party still 22 HC Deb, 24 October 1947, c. 385. were soundly based. As the 1940s mattered and to use this to cam- 23 HC Deb, 24 October 1947, cc. progressed, Labour was increas- paign for votes. 387–88. ingly able to portray Davies and 24 HC Deb, 15 November 1948, cc. his supporters as ideological right- Robert Ingham is Biographies Editor 55–56. wingers who had disowned the of the Journal of Liberal History 25 HC Deb, 16 November 1948, cc. radical liberalism of the past. and has written extensively on Liberal 251–62, The failure of a group of left- history in the Journal and elsewhere. 26 HC Deb, 16 November 1948, c. 263. wing Liberals to break from the 27 Balfour Papers, ‘Notes on dinner party en masse to join Labour 1 For example see R. Ingham, ‘Battle with ’, 22 June was principally due to the Labour of Ideas of Absence of Leadership’, 1944. Party’s refusal to compromise on Journal of Liberal History, 47, Summer 28 Private interview. fundamental issues such as Clause 2005, pp. 36–44. 29 Balfour Papers, letter H. Laski to IV of its constitution. An organ- 2 See M. Egan, ‘Radical Action and Balfour, 4 August 1945. ised defection would undoubtedly the Liberal Party during the Second 30 Balfour Papers, letter L. Spicer to have weakened the Liberal Party World War’, Journal of Liberal His- R. Crossman, 21 November 1946. further but probably would not tory, 63, Summer 2009, pp. 4–17. 31 Balfour Papers, ‘A Radical–Labour have proved fatal. An electoral 3 M. Pottle (ed.), Champion Redoubt- Coalition?’, April 1948. arrangement with Labour was able: the diaries and letters of Violet 32 General Secretary’s Papers, Box 4, seriously considered after 1950 and Bonham Carter 1914–45 (Weidenfeld GS/Lib/4ii–v, Memorandum by again seems to have foundered & Nicolson, 1998), p. 294 (entry for Arthur Marshall, February 1948. because Labour had no wish to 15 February 1944). This was redrafted and can be found compromise. It is a striking meas- The party 4 HC Deb, 16 August 1945, cc. at GS/Lib/6 and also as part of Spic- ure of the Liberal Party’s weakness 117–18. er’s Papers, ‘Memorandum by A. P. at this time that it was in negotia- never 5 HC Deb, 29 October 1945, cc. Marshall’, May 1948. These papers tions with both major parties that 71–74 for Davies’ speech and c. 140 can be consulted at the National could have put an end to the par- wanted for for criticism from Oliver Stanley. Museum of Labour History. ty’s independence. The 1950–51 6 HC Deb, 10 October 1945, cc. 33 General Secretary’s Papers, Box 4, period was thus a crucial turning policies: 296–300. GS/Lib/5i–vi, letter A. P. Marshall point in the history of the party: 7 See J. G. Jones, ‘Grimond’s Rival’, to Morgan Phillips, 14 May 1948. despite the Liberals’ popular sup- what the Journal of Liberal History, 34/35, 34 Balfour Papers, memorandum July port reaching an all-time low, the electorate Spring/Summer 2002, pp. 26–34. 1948. This appears to be the last of party leadership turned its back on 8 HC Deb, 8 November 1945, cc. Spicer’s discussion papers. national electoral arrangements needed 1477–80. 35 M. Jones, A Radical Life: The Biogra- with the other parties and pledged 9 Balfour Papers, ‘Minutes, Radi- phy of Megan Lloyd George, 1902–66 to soldier on alone. was a clear cal Action weekend conference at (Hutchinson, 1991), p. 212. This period also showed how Brackley’, 7 April 1946. This col- 36 Ibid., p. 213. important it was for the Liberal explanation lection can be consulted at the Bod- 37 Ibid., p. 214. leadership to decide on the atti- leian Library, Oxford. 38 General Secretary’s Papers, Box 4, tude the party should take to of where 10 J. Reynolds and I. Hunter, ‘Liberal GS/Lib/18ii. both of its major rivals, each of Class Warrior’, Journal of Liberal His- 39 General Secretary’s Papers, Box 4, which had a strong incentive to the Liber- tory, 28, Autumn 2000, p. 20. GS/Lib/20i. James Chuter Ede was emphasise their liberal credentials 11 HC Deb, 12 November 1945, cc. Labour MP for South Shields and and attract Liberal voters. Lib- als stood on 1795–99. the Leader of the House of Com- eral grandees often argued that 12 HC Deb, 5 December 1945, cc. mons. Alice Bacon was Labour MP the party needed to make a clear the political 2352–60. for Leeds North East and Chairman statement of its policy in order to 13 Reynolds and Hunter, op. cit., p. of the Party. regain its strength. But the party spectrum 20. 40 General Secretary’s Papers, Box never wanted for policies: what 14 Ibid. 4, GS/Lib/20, correspondence the electorate needed was a clear (however 15 D. Brack et al. (eds.), Dictionary of between M. Phillips and M. Starr, explanation of where the Liber- Liberal Biography (Politicos, 1998), p. 11 June 1952 and 24 June 1952. als stood on the political spectrum much Liber- 64. 41 Jones, op. cit., p. 215. Philip Noel- (however much Liberals disliked als disliked 16 M. Pottle (ed.), Daring to Hope: Baker was Labour MP for Derby the concept) and why the party the diaries and letters of Violet Bon- South and was engaged in an remained relevant. This was to the concept) ham Carter 1946–69 (Weidenfeld & affair with Megan Lloyd George come later in the 1950s, when Jo Nicolson, 2000), p. 36 (entry for 13 throughout this period. Grimond positioned the Liberals and why October 1947). 42 Ibid., pp. 236–37. firmly on the left of British poli- 17 Balfour Papers, ‘A Radical-Labour 43 G. de Groot, Liberal Crusader: the tics and appealed for support from the party Coalition?’, April 1948. Life of Sir Archibald Sinclair (Hurst & progressives in all parties alienated 18 HC Deb, 13 November 1946, cc. Co., 1993), p. 235. by the extremists in both. This remained 214–15. 44 Private interview. was where most Liberals thought 19 HC Deb, 18 December 1945, c. they stood in 1945, but only after relevant. 1990.

44 Journal of Liberal History 67 Summer 2010