REVIEWS outside politics as directors of office at the Ministry of Muni- early as 1954’ in Liberal fortunes. manpower, shipping, food dis- tions in spite of Tory front- and The revival was more than that. tribution, agriculture and other back-bench opposition. By the local elections of May areas of the war effort. This was Grigg’s final volume provides 1956, many more Liberal can- almost unheard of at the time a fresh store of ammunition for didates were standing and the but usually proved to be highly anyone energised to argue that party’s vote was moving sharply successful. The personal relation- Lloyd George was one of the upwards. In the four by-elec- ship that Lloyd George forged twentieth century’s most remark- tions during the twelve months with leading Conservatives such able British prime ministers, before Grimond became leader as Bonar Law and Lord Derby along with , in November 1956, Liberal partly compensated for his politi- H. H. Asquith and, possibly, candidates took nearly a quarter cal weaknesses. It enabled him Margaret Thatcher. All were of the vote and even in the no- to dismiss Sir John Jellicoe from exceptional in that they had the hoper of West Walthamstow they the Admiralty on Christmas Eve capacity to make things happen took 14.7%. What legacy did he 1917 and to force the adoption that would not have happened leave that was so different? In the of the convoy system on the otherwise. Grigg’s work provides nine by-elections in the year fol- Navy – a key factor in the defeat the case material for the advocate lowing his resignation in January of the growing German subma- who would argue that Lloyd 1967, the Liberal vote averaged rine menace, which threatened George was the greatest prime just 13.6%. to starve Britain into submission. minister of his century. His impact on Liberal par- His hold on the Tory high com- liamentary success was just as mand psyche also helped him to Ian Hunter is completing a part-time limited. In 1955 there were restore Churchill from his Dar- doctorate on the Liberal Party and six Liberal MPs, three of them danelles-induced banishment to the Churchill Coalition. dependent on local Conservative support, and an average general election vote of 15%. In 1970, the election following his depar- What difference did he make? ture, again just six Liberal MPs Many of were elected (three with tiny majorities, all fewer than 700) Michael McManus: Jo Grimond: Towards the Sound of those who and the average vote was 13.5%. Gunfire (: Birlinn Ltd., 2001) Obviously this reflected rose in both the increasing number of Reviewed by Michael Steed candidates in weaker areas and the Lib- three years of ’s leadership. Yet it is difficult to his is an overdue and com- ideas. Generally, too, they have eral Party conclude that Jo’s leadership prehensive biography, but echoed McManus’s view that itself produced an electoral one that I found rather the Liberal Party which Jo took in the T revival or left the party stronger oddly focused. I had enjoyed over was a party nearly defunct, decades in popular support. The inter- reading the book, been impressed desperately close to annihilation esting pattern of the 1950s, by the research behind it, irri- in the House of Commons, and following 1960s, and 1970s is that there tated by the easily avoidable one which he duly rescued from were three distinct revivals, one errors (as was in his oblivion. A similar consensus Grimond’s starting under laudatory review Grimond: The about Jo Grimond was evident (continuing under early Gri- Great Gadfly),1 but had wondered at the Liberal Democrat History leader- mond), one under Jo Grimond, why it failed to tackle some Group meeting in Brighton in ship, and and one under Jeremy Thorpe. obvious historical questions, all September 2002.2 But as each revival ebbed it left before I was asked to review it But let us apply the sharp who did so the party a little stronger than for this Journal. So I read several edge of Grimond’s own before. Leadership seems almost other reviews before composing renowned iconoclasm to the much to irrelevant. this one. significance of Grimond’s career. And if the party was certainly Generally Michael McManus Do the facts and figures sup- improve its stronger organisationally when Jo is seen to have served a use- port the view that Grimond fortunes, Grimond left than when he took ful purpose. Reviewers of my averted what Steel called the over, this could only be indirectly generation have welcomed ‘near complete extinction’ of were his due to his leadership. The great the much-needed, thorough the Liberal Party? They cer- gadfly was not an organisation account of Jo Grimond’s life, and tainly do not. McManus himself bequest man. The improvement in party have remembered how inspired acknowledges – but only briefly organisation in fact owed most they were by him – recalling a towards the end of the book to British to a man who could have so radical iconoclast and a man of (p. 375) – a ‘modest recovery as politics.

34 Journal of Liberal History 40 Autumn 2003 REVIEWS

Grimond was never as good forty years ago, got nowhere. either in the House of Com- But I still agree with William mons or on radio.3 Wallace in stressing the ‘huge But I cannot conceive that difference’ that Jo made to the Colonel Byers, as he was then party.5 Because he had the ideas, significantly often called, would personality and skills that he did, have matched Grimond on and because the party was reviv- the emerging televisual plat- ing electorally, he drew a whole form. This is where Grimond’s generation of new, young people warmth, self-deprecating wit into Liberal activism. Many of and willingness to engage in real them might well have voted debate came over so well, just as Liberal without him, but on the it did in person on a traditional other hand many of those would election platform, or – for me never have given so much of as a student – chatting around a their time and energy to politics dining table. There is no one like without him. that among the trained politi- Jo Grimond did not save the cians who appear on television Liberal Party. It would have sur- today. McManus is not unaware vived and probably prospered of Jo’s personal qualities but he without him. But I believe that does not convey his engaging he did have a profound effect on personality and oratorical skills its character. McManus records anything like so well as Tony (p. 373) that, towards the end Greaves at Brighton in 2002.4 of his life, Grimond felt that his Greaves was right to empha- political career had ended in sise Jo’s charisma: he was more failure. I think that Jo judged easily have become leader. If, in prophet than politician. But his his own achievements harshly. the February 1950 election, just combination of the skills of a Many of those who rose in the 0.2% of voters nationwide had nineteenth-century radical ora- Liberal Party in the decades fol- voted against the Conservatives tor with those of a late-twenti- lowing his leadership, and who instead of for them, the Liber- eth-century television performer did so much to improve its for- als would have won the North made him a remarkable politician tunes, were his bequest to Brit- Dorset seat where nonetheless. ish politics. lost by a mere 97 votes, creat- McManus is more interested ing the Chief Whip vacancy that in Jo Grimond the political Michael Steed now lives in retire- Grimond stepped into. And Atlee thinker and writer. He devotes ment in Canterbury where he is would have won a comfortable much more space to Grimond an honorary lecturer in politics and working majority – larger than the journalist-MP and roving international relations at the Univer- the actual majority Churchill was elder statesman (1967–83) than sity of Kent. He was President of the to win in 1951. Byers, the obvi- to his formative years as a ris- Liberal Party, 1978–79. ous successor to Clement Davies, ing star of the party (1950–56). would probably then have taken He concludes the book with 1 The Scotsman (2 November over as leader during this likely two lengthy appendices on Gri- 2001). McManus’s mistakes are typically confusion of names full-term Parliament. mond’s attitudes to European and One way of posing the (e.g. Peter Jay for Douglas Jay, p. constitutional questions and on 257) or electoral details (e.g. p. question of what difference his philosophy. He finishes claim- 86 – the Conservatives did fight Grimond’s leadership made to ing Grimond for ‘One Nation’ Clement Davies in Montgomery in the Liberal Party is to ask what values (p. 422), or – in other 1950). 2 Journal of Liberal History, 38, would have happened if the words – for McManus’s own 1950 election outcome had Spring 2003, pp. 32–36. Disraelian Tory tradition. Hence 3 Frank Byers, incidentally, makes been only slightly different and the focus of this biography is on too few appearances in this book. Frank Byers had led the party a writer and his place in the his- But there is a poignant photo- into a 1954/55 general elec- tory of political ideas. It is not graph, weirdly entitled Much Ado about Nothing (the meeting of 3 tion. When I started canvassing about a party leader – about the in the early Grimond years, I March 1974) which sums up the ‘Life and Times’ of someone who party’s succession of leadership found Byers still better known sought to change political history. over time, showing Byers, Gri- among Liberal-inclined vot- Maybe this rescues Jo from mond, Thorpe and Steel standing ers than Grimond. He was a the failure of his political strategy. together. 4 Journal of Liberal History, 38, star on the (then) BBC Home Certainly the strategy of realign- Service, especially Any Questions Spring 2003, p. 35. ment of the left, for all that it 5 Ibid., pp. 33–34. in the days when that mattered. appealed to me immensely over

Journal of Liberal History 40 Autumn 2003 35