reviews love. Keynes dismissed both liberal small green pieces of paper that attitude which, much more than his and Marxist economists for hav- were unhappy.’ Keynes knew that political decisions, would alienate ing overvalued the economic fac- money doesn’t make people happy, the Labour Party, with fatal conse- tor in social life. He dreamed of a but, as this book also reminds us, quences. He was not the only lead- world to come in which the econ- his awareness of its capacity to ing Liberal who patronised Labour omy would play a secondary role. make them miserable – through the MPs in parliament and it is interest- (p. 259.) lack of it – was an important driv- ing to note Prime Minister Ram- Economic growth, therefore, ing force behind his humane ver- say Macdonald’s comments in his was a means to an end, not an end sion of political economy. diary that he found the Conserva- in itself. Keynes would thus have tive leaders more sympathetic than appreciated Douglas Adams’s ironi- Richard Toye is Professor of Modern the Liberals. cal observation that most of the History at the University of Exeter. His The book brings out the active proposed solutions to unhappiness most recent books are Lloyd George Politically role King George V played in the on earth ‘were largely concerned and Churchill: Rivals for Great- they could formation of the new government with the movements of small ness (2007) and Churchill’s Empire: and, later, in its dissolution. It was green pieces of paper, which is odd The World That Made Him and the not put the king who advised Baldwin to because on the whole it wasn’t the World He Made (2010). remain in office and to seek a vote forward on his King’s Speech. Then, follow- ing the Commons defeat of Bald- a formal win, the king invited Macdonald, as leader of the next largest party Labour and the Liberal decline arrangement to form a government. This he suc- ceeded in doing, though not with- John Shepherd and Keith Laybourn, Britain’s First Labour but speech out numerous vicissitudes en route, Government (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) and, rather than seek any formal after Lib- arrangement with the Liberals, pro- Reviewed by Michael Meadowcroft ceeded deliberately to stick largely eral speech to a moderate programme which it he 1924 Labour govern- forty-three seats over and above would be difficult for Liberal MPs ment played a highly sig- their divided strength in the previ- expresses to oppose.4 He also accepted that Tnificant role in the decline ous parliament. frustration at the government would be defeated of the Liberal Party, and a new his- Asquith recognised that it fell to on minor issues which would not tory of its brief life is certainly to the Liberals to determine the nature provoke the government’s resig- be welcomed. John Shepherd and of the government. As a mirror the govern- nation. There were, in fact, eleven Keith Laybourn’s Britain’s First image of the 2010 situation, it was ment’s casual government defeats before the final Labour Government is the first such not politically feasible to put the issues designated by Ramsay Mac- work for over fifty years1 and ben- Conservatives back in office, hav- reliance on donald as votes of confidence. efits from the availability of much ing lost the election, particularly as The final collapse of the gov- new material. The fact that both the party had gone into the election the Liberals ernment, after only nine months authors are Labour historians has espousing protection, an anathema and a mere 129 sitting days, was not affected their impartiality and to the free trade Liberals. Typically, maintain- brilliantly contrived by Bald- this volume provides an excellent there was no immediate forthright win. The debate was on the ini- account of a short but important initiative from Asquith and, in fact, ing fifty or tial prosecution and subsequent period in British political history. when he first met with his new par- withdrawal of the summons of a It has a few minor but irritat- liamentary party on 18 December so MPs in Communist journalist for sedition ing typos, an occasional error – it it was a full twelve days after poll- for calling on the armed forces to was, for instance, Robert Smillie ing day. He stated categorically that the House to refuse to fight against the work- who chaired the Leeds Peace Con- there had been no approaches to ing-class comrades. It was botched vention of 3 June 1917,2 not Philip him by the other parties and that he ensure the by the government and the Con- Snowden – and a surprising omis- had made no approaches to them. servatives put down a motion of sion from the bibliography: Vivian Rather different to the ‘Five Days passage of censure. The Liberals, anxious to Phillipps’ memoirs3 which, given in May’ last year! avoid an election for which they that he was the Liberal chief whip At this meeting Asquith claimed procedural had neither enough candidates nor throughout the 1924 parliament, that it would be the Liberals who cash, tabled an amendment call- are important. would ‘control’ affairs in the new motions and ing for a Royal Commission to The basic facts are well known parliament and, without any men- other very look into the whole issue. Mac- and are well documented here. tion of the possibility of the Liberal donald, believing that his hon- The December 1923 general elec- Party forming a government, even basic par- our was being impugned, made tion, produced a hung parliament: though the subject had come up and the fatal error of stating that the Conservative 258 seats, Labour 191 been rejected at an earlier meet- liamentary government would resign were and Liberal 159. Stanley Baldwin, ing of his close allies, he made his either the Conservative motion or as the new prime minister, had famous comment that ‘if a Labour processes, the Liberal amendment to be car- called an early general election and government [were] ever to be tried ried. Baldwin, hearing this, spot- got clobbered, losing almost 100 … it would hardly be … under without any ted the opportunity to bring down seats. Labour had gained forty-nine safer conditions.’ These two com- the government, and announced and the united Liberals had gained ments typified Asquith’s patrician quid pro quo. that his party would support the

50 Journal of Liberal History 75 Summer 2012 reviews

Lib–Lab discussion group, the purpose was to destroy the Liberal Rainbow Circle which he even Party. addressed after he had become One person who spent a great prime minister.6 deal of time trying ensure the suc- Though the authors bring out cess of the Labour government was the naivety of Asquith faced with C. P. Scott, the editor of the Man- the low cunning of Macdonald chester Guardian. Scott had access and Baldwin, there is much more to the leadership of both parties to add. The history of Labour in and his diaries reek of frustration.7 parliament in the early days was What is clear to me, as a natural of MPs who were not seen by Lib- whip, is the failure of the two chief erals as extreme but rather as just whips and of the whip system itself. rather more ‘advanced’ than main- Scott acknowledges the poor qual- stream Liberals and, therefore, were ity of both men but did not address allies not opponents. Concomitant the crucial issue of replacing them. with this was considerable flex- In a hung parliament the whips ibility between the two parties: are vital in enabling survival and five members of Macdonald’s gov- for doing the necessary deals. For ernment were former Liberal MPs Liberals, Vivian Phillipps presents and eleven Liberal MPs in the 1924 himself well in his own memoirs parliament later joined the Labour but was, from all accounts, aloof Party. and part of the Asquith style. For Such working men MPs as the Labour, Ben Spoor was an accel- Liberals had were rather tokenistic erating disaster. He was a rather and the general attitude towards middle-class MP from Durham Labour was paternalistic, which who started out as a Methodist lay was deeply resented by Labour MPs preacher but ended up dying aged who were understandably proud fifty in 1928 whilst still an MP, of forming a government and were from chronic alcoholism. Before his determined to prove they were death, in a London hotel room, he capable of being in office. Certainly had been certified insane. From all there were Liberal MPs, such as indications he was ill through much Liberal amendment. The Liber- John Kenworthy, Ernest Simon and of the 1924 parliament. It was not als could hardly not support their William Wedgwood Benn – all of a good prescription for making a own amendment, and were there- whom eventually joined the Labour hung parliament work. fore forced to troop through the Party – who went out of their way Shepherd and Laybourn bring lobbies towards their own elec- to work with Labour and to sus- out the continued tensions between toral destruction. It would take tain the government, but they were Asquith and Lloyd George. Osten- forty years before the Liberals not the mainstream. Other Liberal sibly they had buried their previous again secured more than fifty MPs. MPs more accustomed to academe, differences and were committed to Given that Shepherd and Lay- including, alas, Ramsay Muir, had presenting a united leadership from bourn provide a balanced general difficulty in coming to terms with mid-1923. This had produced the account, a Liberal perspective of the rough and tumble of the Com- good performance at the general this period needs to go beyond the mons chamber. election, but the problems contin- strict confines of a book review. It is clear that throughout the ued to simmer below the surface There was, for instance, Baldwin’s nine months’ life of the govern- and, occasionally, came to the fore prophetic statement in the open- ment, the Liberals wanted to work as is chronicled in the book. With ing debate which despatched his with Labour. Politically they could his recent record of coalition with party from office: ‘The future lies not put forward a formal arrange- the Conservatives, Lloyd George between honourable members ment but speech after Liberal was not trusted by Labour and was opposite and ourselves.’ Also, as speech expresses frustration at the a malign influence on relations the authors state, when consider- government’s casual reliance on between the parties. ing why Macdonald did not want a the Liberals maintaining fifty or The authors rather skate past a Lib–Lab deal, ‘[he] had a different so MPs in the House to ensure the further important point for Lib- project in mind – the destruction of passage of procedural motions and erals. When Macdonald went to the Liberal Party.’5 Clearly, Baldwin other very basic parliamentary pro- Buckingham Palace to ask the king had the same project in mind. cesses, without any quid pro quo. for a dissolution it was immediately Whether Macdonald was play- There was a growing awareness, granted, without any suggestion ing a double game or was simply shown by the evidence of Labour of calling on Asquith to attempt to socially convivial is difficult to candidates being adopted in Lib- form a government as might have determine but it is curious that eral-held constituencies, in con- been expected. The book states, early on he fostered relations with trast with Liberal candidates being ‘there was no other course of action Liberals. He was a member of the withdrawn – such as in the Burnley [for the king] as he already knew for a time by-election, which enabled Arthur that neither Baldwin nor Asquith from 1890, and was a founder mem- Henderson to have an easy return would take office or form a coali- ber, and the first secretary, of the to parliament – that Labour’s main tion government.’ This suggests

Journal of Liberal History 75 Summer 2012 51 A Liberal Democrat History Group evening meeting ownership for all The , co-ownership and industrial relations

In 1928 the Liberal Party published the ‘Yellow Book’, Britain’s Industrial Future. While the report is best known for the compelling case it made for state intervention in the economy, planning and programmes of public works, it also contained detailed proposals for profit-sharing and co- partnership.

Unlike socialists, Liberals did not seek the abolition of private ownership. Unlike Conservatives, Liberals were not ideologically hostile to public control of natural monopolies or the great national industries. Liberals favoured diffused popular ownership in industry, everyone having some stake in their industrial future, and looked to profit-sharing, collaboration and co-ownership as a means to that end.

This meeting will revisit the Liberal Party’s commitment to co-ownership, with Dr Tudor Jones, author of the recently published The Revival of British Liberalism, and Professor Andrew Gamble, Head of Politics & International Studies at Cambridge and author of the chapter on ‘Liberals and the Economy’ in Vernon Bogdanor’s book Liberal Party Politics. Chair: Chris Nicholson, Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Davey MP.

7.00pm, Monday 9 July 2012 Lady Violet Room, National Liberal Club, 1 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2HE

that Asquith – and Baldwin election and elected only forty- The Leeds Convention – a report which each party withdrew – had intimated this, which two MPs. from the Daily Herald (Spokesman candidates in around fifty seats would be surprising, but other Ernest Simon, MP for Man- Books, 1974). and which gave Labour a bloc authorities put the onus on to chester Withington, summed 3 Vivian Phillipps, My Days and of thirty MPs independent of the king who stated that ‘no up the party’s situation on Ways (privately printed, 1946). the Liberal whip. In retrospect other Party could form a gov- the eve of the 1924 election: It is a difficult book to find – it Herbert Gladstone was ernment that could last.’8 ‘What a party! No leaders, no took me around thirty years! alarmingly naive at the time. Thus the Liberals moved organisation, no policy! Only 4 Ironically, given Macdonald’s 6 See Michael Freeden (ed.), reluctantly but inexorably a summer school! But it is still determination to pursue as Minutes of the Rainbow Circle, towards an election which was worth the effort.’9 He joined the consensual an approach as 1894–1924 (Royal Historical bound to be disastrous. Lloyd Labour Party in 1946. possible, the most successful Society, 1989). George, who still maintained minister turned out to be John 7 Trevor Wilson (ed.), The Political sole control of his large fund, Michael Meadowcroft was Liberal Wheatley, one of the ‘Red diaries of C. P. Scott 1911–1928 much of which had come from MP, Leeds West, 1983–87. Clydesiders’, whose Housing Act (Collins, 1970). the sale of honours, showed his was the main legacy of the first 8 David Marquand, Ramsay malignity by refusing to pro- 1 Since Richard W. Lyman, The Labour administration. Macdonald (Jonathan Cape, vide the cash to enable the party First Labour Government 1924 5 Arguably Macdonald also had 1977). to field a broad front of candi- (Chapman & Hall, 1957). this specific aim in mind when 9 Mary Stocks, Ernest Simon dates. The party had 111 fewer 2 See Ken Coates (ed.), British he concluded the Macdonald/ of Manchester (Manchester candidates than at the previous Labour and the Russian Revolution: Gladstone pact of 1903 under University Press, 1963).