THE LIBERAL PREDICAMENT, 1945 – 64

For most of the twenty years from 1945 to 1964, it looked as if the Liberals were finished. They were reduced to a handful of MPs, most of whom held their seats precariously,. They were desperately short of money and organisation, and were confronted by two great parties, both seeking to look as ‘liberal’ as possible. For the ambitious would- be Liberal politician, there was practically no prospect of a seat in Parliament, or even on the local council. Roy Douglas examines why, despite the desperate state of their party, many Liberals kept the faith going, and not only carried on campaigning, but also laid the foundations for long-term revival. Liberal election poster, 1964

12 Journal of Liberal History 50 Spring 2006 THE LIBERAL PREDICAMENT, 1945 – 64

he great Liberal vic- It wasn’t at all like 1874, when a failed. At the general election of tory of 1906 had been Liberal government had more or that year, the Liberal Party won won, more than any- less worked itself out of a job, or a little under 5.3 million votes, thing else, by the party’s 1886, when a Liberal government against well over 8 million each devotion to free trade was divided on a major issue of for the other two parties; but Tand its resistance both to the policy, or 1895, when a Liberal they only obtained fifty-nine protectionist campaign of ren- government collapsed in chaos. MPs, one of whom promptly egade Joseph Chamberlain and Wisely or (to the author’s mind) defected to Labour. Liberals to the temporising of Tory Prime unwisely, the controversial ele- were conscious that they had Minister Arthur Balfour. In that ments in the immediate Liberal scraped the bottom of the barrel election the Labour Representa- programme were thrust aside in By the of their resources, and there was tion Committee (the incipient the interests of ‘national unity’. no prospect of them mounting Labour Party) showed as much Irish home rule was put in cold end of the a comparable campaign in the concern for free trade as did the storage, while the land valuation war, Liber- foreseeable future. Liberals themselves. This was not which was to be the foundation So what were Liberals to do? surprising. In the great battles of of land value taxation was sus- als were In the 1920s and 1930s, many the nineteenth century, free trade pended and other social reforms decided that the logic of the had been perceived to be at least were set aside. profoundly situation prescribed that they as much in the interest of work- By the end of the war, Liberals should shift either to Labour or ing people as of any other class were profoundly split by issues split by to the Conservatives, perhaps via in society – more so, perhaps, which had little to do either issues the ‘Liberal Nationals’. Others because the poorer people were with the radical programme on refused to do so. They continued the more important it was that which they had been engaged which had to preach pre-1914 Liberalism, they should be able to buy things in 1914 or with the long-term with adjustments for changed as cheaply as possible. aims of liberalism. Most crucial little to do conditions. These included some The new government which of those issues was whether Lib- significant additions wholly con- was triumphantly confirmed in eral aims could best be attained either with sistent with the pre-1914 tradi- office in1906 set a pattern which through complete independence the radi- tion, notably an active programme would dominate Liberal thinking or by cooperation with others, to conquer unemployment, poli- for a great many years to come, and specifically the Conserva- cal pro- cies designed to spread the own- and is not without influence to tives, in a coalition. This dispute ership of property much more this day. In the next few years it among Liberals opened up a gramme on widely, and support for electoral was proved that a free trade econ- great opportunity for the Labour reform through proportional rep- omy was wholly consistent with Party to seize leadership of the which they resentation. In the closing years of a vigorous programme of social forces of reform. After the gen- had been the 1930s, however, international reform which laid the founda- eral election of 1924 there was questions subsumed all others. tions of the welfare state, with little doubt in most people’s engaged major constitutional changes in minds that the immediate future the direction of democracy and lay between the Conservative in 1914 or 1945 and after with radical economic reform and Labour Parties. There fol- When the Second World War pivoting on the taxation of land lowed a serious, but foredoomed, with the came to an end in 1945, the values. attempt by Liberals to recapture long-term familiar inter-war policies When war was declared in their party’s historic role as the remained the objective of active 1914, there was a universal senti- mainspring of political change, aims of lib- Liberals, with important wartime ment among Liberals that the gov- but by the middle of 1929 it additions bearing the stamp of ernment’s work was unfinished. was plain that the attempt had eralism. Sir – notably

Journal of Liberal History 50 Spring 2006 13 the liberal predicament, 1945–64 ­further policies to eradicate The Lib- won a great majority, while Lib- By 1950, however, this pros- unemployment and a greatly eral representation in the House pect seemed excessively unlikely extended programme of social eral pro- of Commons crashed to twelve, to most objective observers, but welfare. No important Liberal the lowest figure ever. The the leadership could not be seen saw any inconsistency between gramme, major Liberal personalities were to resile from its optimism. Cer- these various policies. The Lib- defeated: the leader Sir Archibald tainly there were shades of opin- eral programme, as presented to as pre- Sinclair, the chief whip and sole ion visible in the Liberal Party at the electorate in anticipation of sented London MP Sir , this time, as in any other demo- the 1945 general election, looks even Sir William Beveridge. So cratic party, but the whole raison like a document which would to the were long-serving MPs like Gra- d’etre of the party was to present a have received the eager approval ham White, Sir Geoffrey Mander distinctively Liberal point of view, of Campbell-Bannerman, electorate and Dingle Foot. Not a single and most of the Liberal notables Asquith and Lloyd George in the Liberal seat was held in or near avoided meticulously any sign early years of the twentieth cen- in antici- any large town. The Liberal MPs of leaning towards one or other tury.1 Liberals believed that this pation of who had somehow survived the of their opponents. This impar- programme also corresponded maelstrom were largely unknown, tiality did not satisfy all Liberals, much more closely with the the 1945 even to each other, and the choice not even the MPs. Long before needs and wishes of the British of as their chair- 1950 Tom Horabin (who had people than did the programme general man in the aftermath of the elec- briefly been chief whip) defected of any other party, and they were tion was by no means a foregone to Labour, and Gwilym Lloyd- probably right. election, conclusion.4 George was regularly voting with The Liberal election manifesto looks like For Liberals, the natural the Conservatives. The general of 1945 was designed for a Lib- response was to reform the party election manifesto of 1950 nev- eral government. Unfortunately, a docu- machinery. In the later 1940s, ertheless began with the words, a Liberal government was not a under the inspiration of very ‘The Liberal Party offers the serious possibility at that election. ment which active, relatively young and hith- electorate the opportunity of The party still had an impressive erto unknown men like Frank returning a Liberal Government list of leaders. Lord Samuel and Sir would have Byers, Philip Fothergill and to office’.6 Like that of 1945, it Archibald Sinclair had served in received Edward Martell, they devised a was a programme designed for a cabinets – Sinclair very recently as programme for improving the Liberal government to follow, and Secretary of State for Air. Sir Wil- the eager organisation and finances of the traditional policies like free trade liam Beveridge was universally party at all levels. Martell’s later featured prominently. known as the author of famous approval peregrinations should not blind But the Liberal organisation of and popular reports on social pol- Liberals to the immensely valu- 1950, though considerably better icy. Dingle Foot, Graham White of Camp- able services he rendered to the than in 1945, was vastly inferior and Gwilym Lloyd-George had bell-Ban- party at this stage. To a consid- to that of the other two parties held ministerial office. It is likely erable extent they succeeded. in nearly all constituencies, and that Clement Davies had been of nerman, Liberal Associations were set up hardly anybody took the prospect crucial importance in the chain almost everywhere, and most of an immediate Liberal govern- of events which led to Win- Asquith of them acquired some idea of ment seriously. At the same time, ston Churchill becoming Prime the sort of organisation that was most people, however they voted, Minister in 1940.2 Lady Violet and Lloyd necessary to get their message perceived the gap between the Bonham Carter was undeniably George in over to the electorate. When the two larger parties to be enor- of ministerial calibre, and was a general election of 1950 came, mous. Many Conservative voters well-known public figure. the early 475 candidates were fielded, a far feared that the return of another The Liberal Party had recently greater number than at any time Labour government would received a large influx of eager years of since 1929. During the heady result in wholesale nationalisa- and able young supporters. Yet period around 1946, when the tion; many Labour voters feared its organisation and financial the twen- Tories had not yet recovered that return of the Conservatives underpinning were vastly infe- tieth cen- from the blow they had sustained would restore the massive unem- rior to those of the other parties. in 1945, the Liberals appeared ployment and social deprivation Liberals took the field in rather tury. to be making a real revival. In which had blighted the inter-war less than half the constituencies, London the Liberal Nationals period. Thus perceptions were not because suitable candidates rejoined the Liberal Party and such that every Liberal supporter were unavailable, but because there was, briefly, some sign that who could possibly be bumped the organisation did not exist the same thing might happen into voting for one of the other to support them.3 A great many on a national scale.5 The party parties probably would be. Lib- constituencies had no Liberal rank and file was encouraged eral canvassers were constantly Association at all, and in most of to believe in the possibility of a reporting large numbers of vot- the others it was little more than Liberal government in the near ers who declared that their sym- nominal. In the event, Labour future. pathies lay with the Liberals, but

14 Journal of Liberal History 50 Spring 2006 the liberal predicament, 1945–64 proposed to vote for somebody exhausted their financial resources towards Labour, Lady Megan else. The Conservatives in par- and in most places could not Lloyd-George, Edgar Granville ticular argued strenuously that afford to guarantee a candidate’s and , were all a Liberal vote was ‘wasted’, and very vulnerable deposit, still less defeated. At this level the Liberals urged Liberals to believe that the to mount a serious campaign. stuck for most of the remainder Conservative Party had been ‘lib- Around eighteen months were of the decade, dropping to five eralised’. In the upshot, Liberal allowed for the Liberals to lick when they lost Carmarthen in representation was reduced to their wounds, and when a new 1957, but recovering to six after nine seats, and a large majority of general election was called only their Torrington victory in the Liberal candidates forfeited their 109 candidates took the field. In following year. deposits. This was not quite as bad the election manifesto of 1951, Siren voices were heard. as it sounds, for the threshold for Liberals did not even pretend that Asquith’s daughter Lady Violet keeping the deposit was then 12½ a Liberal government was a possi- Bonham Carter, who had played per cent of the votes cast, not 5 bility, and the thrust of their argu- a large part in keeping the party per cent as at present, but it was ment turned on the more modest together in the wartime period, bad enough. The Labour govern- and realistic contention that a received the active support of ment was returned, but with only substantial contingent of Liberal Churchill in her 1951 campaign a tiny majority, and it was evident MPs could exert a significant and in Colne Valley, and later made it that a new general election was beneficial influence on a govern- plain that if she had been elected, likely in the near future. ment of a different political col- and had been offered a place our.7 Liberal policies which were in Churchill’s government, she sure to be unacceptable to both would have accepted.9 Clem- Adjusting to disaster of the other parties were soft- ent Davies was offered the post After this ghastly result, there was pedalled in the official manifesto, of Minister of Education, with a no more talk of a Liberal gov- even though some individual seat in the cabinet, but rejected ernment coming to office in the Liberal candidates continued to it on the advice of colleagues.10 foreseeable future. Most of the emphasise them. Thus, free trade, Gwilym Lloyd-George, who rank-and-file activists remained which had been an important had been moving in the Con- in the party, but there were huge feature in the 1950 manifesto, servative direction for several tensions among the parliamentar- was not mentioned explicitly years, did accept a job in the ians. What was tearing them apart in 1951, though 35 per cent of new cabinet. Others looked in was not disagreement about what Liberal candidates referred to it a different direction. In the late a Liberal government should in their addresses.8 This was not 1940s and the 1950s, a number do, but whether they preferred because either the writers of the of recent Liberal MPs joined Labour or the Conservatives. To manifesto or the party as a whole the Labour Party. In addition to give but one example, in a critical had changed their minds on the Tom Horabin, they included Sir division on housing in Novem- subject, but because there was no Geoffrey Mander, Dingle Foot, ber 1950, three Liberal MPs sup- immediate prospect of bringing Edgar Granville, Wilfrid Roberts ported the government, four that policy into effect. and Gwilym’s sister Lady Megan voted with the opposition and Results were even worse than Lloyd George. two did not vote. in 1950. This time it was the The various defectors to These arguments over which Conservatives and not Labour Labour contended that the Lib- other party they preferred were who won a tiny majority. Only eral Party as a whole was mov- not the only difficulties Liber- six Liberal MPs were elected. ing strongly in the direction of als faced. They had more or less The three who had been leaning the Conservatives in the 1950s.

Party performance 1945–66

Year Liberal Cons.* Labour Others Total LIBERALS No. of Votes Lost % poll candidates (1000s) deposits

1945 12 210 393 25 640 306 2252 9.0 76 1950 9 295 315 3 625 475 2621 9.1 319 1951 6 321 295 3 625 109 731 2.6 66 1955 6 345 277 2 630 110 722 2.7 60 1959 6 365 258 1 630 216 1641 5.9 55 1964 9 304 317 0 630 365 3099 11.2 52 1966 12 253 364 1 630 311 2327 8.6 104

* Including Liberal Nationals and others taking the same whip as Conservatives.

Journal of Liberal History 50 Spring 2006 15 the liberal predicament, 1945–64

This view was wrong, but there sition to lean towards the Con- 1956 and was succeeded by Jo was some superficial evidence for servatives than towards Labour. A Grimond, there was a change in it. The cabinet offer to Clement glance at the resolutions carried personality and emphasis but no Davies, and the likelihood that at Liberal Assemblies suggests that immediate change in policy. As in Lady Violet would have received the rank and file of the party still the past, different Liberals laid dif- ministerial office if she had been believed in more or less the same ferent stress on the policies which elected, provide support for the things that they had supported for seemed important to them. Some argument, and there is other evi- many years. argued that a combination of free dence pointing in the same direc- The ‘Radical Programme’ trade, the taxation of land values tion. Five of the six Liberal MPs adopted at Hastings in 1952 and related economic policies returned in 1951 had no Con- declared for free trade in terms would strike at the roots of pov- servative opponents. In Hudders- which would have warmed the erty and social injustice, while field there was a nod-and-a-wink heart of Cobden, supported the others were disposed to favour understanding as early as 1950, by essentially twentieth-century a mixture of more or less inter- which the Conservative had no policies of ‘ownership for all’ and ventionist policies. Many Liber- Liberal opponent in the East seat, social welfare, and rounded off by als, probably the large majority, while the Liberal had no Con- calling for constitutional changes would have seen no incompatibil- servative against him in the West. such as a Liberty of the Subject ity between these approaches. The In Bolton there was a formal pact Bill, reform of the electoral sys- dichotomy, insofar as it existed at in 1951 to a similar effect. Many tem and devolution for Scotland all, did not exhibit any percepti- Liberals, including the present and Wales. There was not much ble correlation with age; some of author, were shocked by this, fear- in all that which would have the most enthusiastic advocates ing that the Liberalism of the two disturbed Asquith, and a lot of of the traditional free trade–land MPs would be compromised. We it would have been welcomed taxing view were in their twen- were wrong: both Donald Wade by Gladstone. As the decade ties or early thirties. and Arthur Holt were absolutely advanced, subsequent Assemblies Towards the end of the decade, staunch in their devotion to Lib- continued to pronounce in simi- some difficulty arose in connec- eralism, as were all their parlia- lar terms. tion with agriculture. Most of the mentary colleagues. Meanwhile, election manifes- existing Liberal seats, and a sub- There is even something to be tos continued to be pitched at stantial proportion of those which said for the view that Churchill’s immediate problems on which appeared winnable, were largely cabinet offer, and the Conserva- they might reasonably hope rural. Farmers were receiving tive abstention in a few Liberal to exert influence, although in large government subsidies, which constituencies, were prompted 1959 there was a glimmer of the were anathema to staunch free not only by the Prime Minister’s old optimism, and the hope was traders, and some candidates were wish to win Liberal support for expressed that Liberals would be worried about the likely effect a Conservative government, but able ‘to consolidate and improve which declaring against those also because he hoped to ‘liber- (their) position as a first step to the subsidies would have on their alise’ that government. Gwilym eventual formation of a Liberal own electoral chances. Liberals Lloyd-George once told the government.11 Worryingly, a Gal- who understood the free-trade author that, when Churchill lup poll of March 1959 disclosed case were able to point out that offered him a job in the govern- that 59 per cent of the voters did subsidies were just one side of the ment, he replied that he could not know what Liberals stood coin, for the price of goods which only join as a Liberal. ‘And what for, and almost half of those who the farmer needed were forced the hell else can you be?’ was the proposed to vote Liberal came in up by import duties which would robust reply. It may also be sig- the same category.12 Despite this, also abate under free trade, and nificant that a number of leading there were also some signs of a the farmer would benefit on bal- Liberals had a personal regard for slight improvement in the Lib- ance by losing that burden, even Churchill which they would not erals’ position. In 1951 their 109 if he lost his crutch as well. There transfer to any other Conserva- candidates secured 2.5 per cent was a confused discussion on the tive. Sinclair and Lady Violet were of the total vote; in 1955 they put subject at the Torquay Assembly his personal friends, and Clement up 110 candidates and secured 2.7 in 1958. Proceedings on this and Davies had played a major part in per cent; in 1959 they stood 216 (Opposite page) other matters appear to have been bringing him to power in 1940. In and won 5.9 per cent. This could Clement Davies, chaotic, with little or no guid- Leader of the Churchill’s Tory moments there not be called rapid progress, but at Liberal Party ance from the platform, but, in was always a streak of Liberalism, least it confuted the view, wide- 1945–56; Jo the upshot, the more staunch free just as there was always a streak of spread at the beginning of the Grimond, Leader traders appear to have been satis- Toryism in his Liberal moments. decade, that the Liberal Party was of the Liberal fied with the substantive policies What ideas kept the remaining about to disappear altogether. Party 1956–67; decided.13 Orpington by- Liberals faithful to the party in the When Clement Davies retired election, March 1950s? There was no more dispo- from the Liberal leadership in 1962.

16 Journal of Liberal History 50 Spring 2006 the liberal predicament, 1945–64

Europe The proposed of 1959 was cancelled because of the general election, and by the time a new Assembly could be held in 1960, attitudes to policy questions had been transformed radically. This change is partly attributable to a general feeling that the shambles of 1958 must not be repeated, but it is due even more to changing views of ‘Europe’. The root of this matter calls for consideration, because it is highly relevant to Liberal poli- cies both in the period covered in the present study and for long afterwards. As far back as 1950, Liberal election manifestos made ref- erence to the need for Britain to participate actively in Euro- pean affairs,14 and that view was repeatedly reaffirmed in Liberal literature thereafter. This in no way implied a weakening of sup- port for free trade in relation to non-European nations, any more than Cobden’s commercial treaty with France in 1860 impeded Britain in pursuing a free-trade policy towards other countries. Unfortunately neither Labour nor Conservative governments in the 1940s and 1950s showed a similar interest in Europe, and when the negotiations were inaugurated which eventually led to the establishment of the European Economic Commu- nity – the ‘Common Market’ – in 1957–58, Britain played no active part. She did, however, take the lead in the establish- ment of the European Free Trade Area, EFTA. The EEC – ‘the six’ – included France, West Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries, and was roughly coterminous with Charlemagne’s empire at the time of his death in 814. EFTA – ‘the outer seven’ – comprised Britain, Austria, Denmark, Nor- way, Sweden, Switzerland and Portugal. Both European bodies sought the establishment of free trade between their own mem- bers. The essential difference was that the EEC required common trading policies towards outsiders, while EFTA allowed members to

Journal of Liberal History 50 Spring 2006 17 the liberal predicament, 1945–64

By-elections affecting Liberal representation

Constituency Date Result Liberal MP

(caused by death of Sir Carmarthen 28 February 1957 Labour gain from Liberal Rhys Hopkin Morris) Liberal gain from NL + Torrington 27 March 1958 Mark Bonham Carter Con.

Orpington 14 March 1962 Liberal gain from Con. Eric Lubbock

(caused by death of Montgomery 15 May 1962 Liberal held Emlyn Hooson Clement Davies) Roxburgh, Selkirk & 24 March 1965 Liberal gain from Con. David Steel Peebles pursue what trading policies they to change people’s minds? This is People who recall the atmos- wished towards outsiders. The by no means clear, but a possible phere of Liberal Assemblies of initial Liberal response to these answer is that Britain was at the the period (the position is prob- developments was declared in an time in the economic doldrums, ably not wildly different in party article published in Liberal News while early reports suggested that conferences today) will prob- on 1 February 1957, stated to have the EEC was surging ahead. Not ably agree that when a contro- been ‘prepared after discussion surprisingly, one might say – the versial question arises, there are among those chiefly responsible EEC countries were knocking usually relatively small groups for guiding Party opinion and … down trade barriers against each of informed enthusiasts on both with the endorsement of … Mr other, while they had not greatly sides, while most delegates swing ’. It declared that: altered barriers against outsiders. to the view which is entertained At the Eastbourne Liberal by the recognised leadership. Liberals support the propos- Assembly in the early autumn of Exactly that happened in 1960, als that the United King- 1960, the party upheld the view and the Assembly gave a large dom should join THE FREE already expressed by its nota- majority to those who sought TRADE AREA – NOT THE bles. The case for approaching EEC membership negotiations. CUSTOMS UNION. The more the EEC was presented by Mark There is little reason to doubt that countries are committed to low- Bonham Carter, son of Lady if the leadership had stuck with ering tariffs while still free to fix Violet, who had been victori- the view expressed in 1957, most the level of their tariffs against ous at the 1958 by-election in of the delegates at Eastbourne countries outside the Common Torrington (though he lost the would have given them similar Market, the more likely it is that seat at the general election of the support. tariffs all round will be low, so following year).16 His argument What were critics to do? Some, that trade will be increased. for membership was expressed like Oliver Smedley, a Vice-Presi- in terms designed to win sup- dent of the Party, dropped out of This, of course, was wholly con- port from convinced free trad- party politics entirely. As far as the sistent with traditional Liberal ers: ‘the whole point of Britain author is aware, not one of the free trade policy. Neither Liber- going into a wider free trade area free traders joined any other party. als nor any other party appear to in Europe was that she would As Smedley put it in a somewhat have said much about future Brit- be better able to persuade other different context: ‘Where else can ish relations with the Common nations on greater free trade lib- we go?’ Other free traders, like the Market, one way or the other, in eralisation for the benefit of all present author, remained in place. the 1959 general election.15 countries.’ A few critics – old I vividly recall what happened in But in July 1960, profoundly newspaper files remind me that Gainsborough, where I was can- different signals were sent to the I was one of them – pointed out didate. Some of the active Liber- Liberal Party. An all-party group that while membership of the als agreed with me. Others were of MPs, including Jo Grimond, EEC would mean free trade with rather shocked: not because they Clement Davies, Arthur Holt and six countries of western Europe considered my view wrong, but Jeremy Thorpe, signed a state- it would also imply the obliga- because I was disagreeing with ment in favour of Britain initiat- tion to impose tariffs against the the ‘official’ view of the party. If ing negotiations to join the EEC. rest of the world. What worried the 1960 Assembly had voted the On the same day a pamphlet free traders about the EEC was other way, they would have been entitled New Directions was issued not the barriers it would knock perfectly happy to go with my by a committee working under down, but the new barriers it anti-EEC opinions. A carload of Jo Grimond, and expressed the would erect. Gainsbronians went over to York- same view. What had happened shire to meet Donald Wade, who

18 Journal of Liberal History 50 Spring 2006 the liberal predicament, 1945–64 was then chief whip. He person- looked very much like a personal a close call. The pay-off began to ally supported the ‘official’ view, seat. Emlyn Hooson (who was a appear in the late 1950s and early but he saw no reason why my Euro-sceptic) held Montgomery- 1960s. It had little or nothing to different view should disentitle shire with an overall majority in a do with the new policies which me to continue as a Liberal can- four-cornered contest. appeared in that period, but eve- didate. So l stayed put, and even- My judgement in such mat- rything to do with the courage, tually contested the 1964 general ters may be biased, but my rec- tenacity and sheer obstinacy of a election. In my election address ollection is that official Liberal small group of people who stuck I stated my own views, but also The pay- support for entry to the EEC to the Liberal Party in its darkest pointed out that the Liberal Party, off … had appeared to play little, if any, part days because they felt that there like all others, was not unanimous in producing these spectacular was nothing else they could hon- on the subject. I don’t think that little or advances. What appears to have ourably do. the stand I took significantly happened was that the Conserv- affected the votes I received one nothing to ative government was rapidly Roy Douglas was a Liberal parlia- way or the other. losing popularity, for a variety mentary candidate five times. Long To return to the general story, do with the of reasons. Until not long before ago, he was Chairman of the National the following year, 1961, saw new poli- the next general election Labour League of Young Liberals, of which his the first British application to was experiencing troubles of its wife Jean was Hon. Secretary. He is join the EEC, at the instance of cies which own, and the Liberals were the the author of History of the Liberal Harold Macmillan’s Conserva- natural beneficiaries. When a Party 1895–1970 (1971), Liberals: tive government. After more appeared general election came in Octo- The History of the Liberal and than a year of negotiations the ber 1964 the Liberals boosted Liberal Democrat Parties (2005) attempt failed, because President … but eve- their representation to nine – no (reviewed in this issue of the Jour- de Gaulle of France interposed rything to great advance, indeed, but some- nal), Land, People and Politics his country’s veto. There was an thing. A year and a half later they (1976), plus several books on politi- atmosphere of anticlimax. Both do with the reached twelve. At last they were cal cartoons and on aspects of political pro- and anti-Marketeers had to back in double figures! and diplomatic history. He is active in think of something else, at least courage, the land value taxation movement. for the time being. tenacity Conclusions 1 See lain Dale (ed.), Liberal Party So what conclusions may be General Election Manifestos 1900–1997 and sheer (London, 2000), pp. 61–68. Signs of recovery drawn from Liberal experiences 2 Lord Boothby, Boothby: Recollections While all this was happening, obstinacy in the two decades after 1945? of a Rebel (London, 1978), pp. 136, there was a succession of by- In the first half of the period the 142–45. elections which showed the tide of a small Liberal Party sank to such a low 3 Sir Percy Harris, Forty Years in and out running strongly in the Liberals’ position that it was touch and go of Parliament (London, 1949), p. 184. group of 4 Hopkin Morris once told the present favour. For many years, Liber- whether it would survive at all. author that the MPs met together to als had regarded a saved deposit people who This was not the result of what consider the matter. Each one left the as something of a victory, but Liberals did, or failed to do, after room while the others discussed his between the 1959 general elec- stuck to 1945, but the legacy of many years suitability. Hopkin, whose claims on tion and the late winter of 1962 of factions and folly, and an almost the Chairmanship were better than the Liberal most, refused to let his name be con- they did much better than that, complete neglect of organisation. sidered. and climbed to second position After 1945 they made a serious 5 See discussion in Roy Douglas, Liber- in eight places. Then, in March Party in attempt to rebuild organisation als (London, 2005), p. 253. 1962, came three astonishing its dark- and to provide an extensive list of 6 Dale (ed.), op. cit., p. 71. results. At Blackpool North the candidates. Many people consider 7 Ibid., pp. 81–85. 8 D. E. Butler, British General Election of Liberal came within a thousand est days that the broad front of 1950 was 1951 (London, 1952), p. 58. votes of victory, and at Middles- a mistake. I don’t agree. With- 9 Violet Bonham Carter to Gilbert brough East there was another because out the post-war reorganisation, Murray 20 December 1951, cited commendable second place, with and the promise of a broad front in Mark Pottle (ed.), Daring to Hope: the Conservative barely saving they felt which was a necessary corollary, The diaries and letters of Violet Bonham Carter 1946–1969 (London, 2000), his deposit. Most impressive was the party would have disinte- that there p.105. Orpington, a seat which seemed grated. 10 Douglas, op. cit., p. 259. about as rock-solid Conservative was noth- After the 1950 general elec- 11 Dale (ed.), op. cit., p. 97. as any in the country. Eric Lub- tion, the tensions between two 12 D. E. Butler and Richard Rose, Brit- bock, the Liberal, won the seat ing else closely matched great parties ish General Election of 1959 (London, 1960), p. 33. with a convincing majority, and could easily have torn the Liber- they could 13 The Times, 20 September 1958. Labour lost its deposit. Less than als to pieces. By refusing to jump 14 Dale (ed.), op. cit., p. 77. a fortnight later Clement Davies honourably to one side or the other, Clement 15 Butler and Rose, op. cit., p. 72. died, and Liberals were required Davies and his colleagues again 16 The Guardian, 30 September 1960; to defend what at one time had do. averted destruction, though it was The Times, 30 September 1960.

Journal of Liberal History 50 Spring 2006 19