The promise of a socialist dawn in Britain
- Thread starter pipisme
- Start date
In OTL, a backbench Liberal MP introduced a bill whereby elections to the House of Commons would be by the single transferable vote. It was defeated because Ramsay MacDonald's minority Labour government did not give it any support.
In the spring of 1931 Ramsay MacDonald's second minority Labour government introduced a bill to provide for elections to the House of Commons by the alternative vote. This passed the House of Commons. In the summer of 1931 an amendment passed in the House of Lords limited the alternative vote to cities with a population of more than 100,000. Because of the fall of the Labour government and its replacement
by a National government in August 1931, the bill was not proceeded with.
I have not seen the relevant Wikipedia entries.
On 18 January 1924, George Buchanan and a group of other Scottish Labour MPs presented a Government of Scotland Bill in the House of Commons. This set up a Scottish Parliament. The second reading was designated to take place on 9 May 1924. (1)
In the intervening months Buchanan and other Labour supporters of the bill tried to persuade the government to make it an official government bill. In late April Arthur Henderson, the Prime Minister, agreed to do so. As 9 May was a Friday, it was agreed after negotiations with the Conservative and Liberal Parties that the second reading debate would take place over two days on 7 and 8 May.
Meanwhile the Secretaries of State Act 1924 upgraded the post of Secretary for Scotland to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
On 7 May William Adamson, the Secretary of State for Scotland, moved the second reading of the Government of Scotland Bill. This set up a Scottish Parliament which would have responsibility over all matters affecting Scotland except defence, foreign affairs, the Post Office, and customs and excise. There would be no reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster: 71 from territorial constituencies plus three elected by the Combined Scottish Universities. Adamson said that the second reading vote would be on the framework of the bill, the details would be discussed and voted on by a Committee of the Whole House.
The bill was supported by the Liberals and opposed by the Conservatives. At the end of the debate on 8 May it was given a second reading by a sizeable majority.
(1) This happened in OTL. However the second reading debate was talked out and no vote was taken. In the debate Adamson said that the bill had the government's support.
William Hutchinson, the Conservative MP for Glasgow, Kelvingrove died on 1 May 1924. In the previous general election Aiken Ferguson, the Labour candidate was a Communist. The result in that election was as follows, in this TL and OTL:
William Hutchinson (Conservative): 11,025 - 42.9%
Aiken Ferguson (Labour/Communist) 10,021 - 39.0% (He is described as Labour or Communist in different sources).
A.J. Grieve (Liberal) 4,662 - 18.1%.
Turnout 68.2%.
The Labour leadership were convinced that Labour lost because a Communist stood for Labour. They were determined that the Labour candidate in the by-election would be in the mainstream of the party.
However on 4 May the local constituency Labour party adopted Ferguson as its candidate for the by-election by a narrow majority.
The Labour leadership refused to accept his candidature and imposed Rosslyn Mitchell, a Glasgow solicitor, as the Labour candidate. Mitchell had contested Glasgow, Central in the 1922 general election and had drastically reduced Bonar Law's majority. He was widely tipped as a law officer in a Labour government.
The Kelvingrove constituency Labour party was split over accepting Mitchell's candidature. In the end they voted by a very slim majority to accept it. Most of the minority chose Ferguson as their candidate. He stood as a Communist. The constituency party was split between a Labour majority and a Communist minority.
The Conservative candidate was Walter Elliott, as in OTL. Elliott had lost his Lanark seat in the general election. He was rising figure in the Conservative Party and had been the junior minister at the Scottish Office in the Baldwin government.
The Liberal candidate was Sir John Pratt. He was a junior Health minister from August 1919 to October 1922. He was Liberal MP for Linlithgowshire from November 1913 to December 1918, and for Glasgow, Cathcart from December 1918 to November 1922.
It was widely expected that the Liberal vote would be squeezed. The question was by how much and which of the two main parties would benefit more. In Glasgow the Liberals were significantly more inclined to the Conservatives than to Labour.
The Conservatives and Labour campaigned strongly in the by-election with leading members of both parties speaking in the campaign. In order to secure the left-wing Labour vote, John Wheatley, the Minister of Health, and James Maxton, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, spoke several times in support of Mitchell. They were both Glasgow MPs.
The Liberal campaign was desultory and practically non-existent.
The by-election was held on 23 May. The percentage vote gained by each candidate was as follows:
Walter Elliott (Conservative) 50.4%
Rosslyn Mitchell (Labour) 43.3%
Sir John Pratt (Liberal) 4.5%
Aiken Ferguson (Communist) 1.8%
Turnout was 73.6%.
Swing from Labour to Conservative was 1.6%. (1)
The Conservative and Labour vote increased in both numerical and percentage terms. The Liberal vote collapsed both numerically and in percentage terms.
The Conservatives were pleased that they had won with an increased majority. Labour were disappointed that they had not won the seat, but pleased that they had increased their vote. The Liberals consoled themselves that it was an unwinnable constituency for them and that they were bound to be squeezed.
(1) In OTL the result of the by-election was as follows:
Elliott (Conservative): 15,488 - 55.3%
Ferguson (Labour): 11,167 - 39.8%
Pratt (Liberal): 1,372 - 4.9%
A Labour victory in this TL would have required a swing of 7.75% from Conservative compared to OTL.
William Hutchinson (Conservative): 11,025 - 42.9%
Aiken Ferguson (Labour/Communist) 10,021 - 39.0% (He is described as Labour or Communist in different sources).
A.J. Grieve (Liberal) 4,662 - 18.1%.
Turnout 68.2%.
The Labour leadership were convinced that Labour lost because a Communist stood for Labour. They were determined that the Labour candidate in the by-election would be in the mainstream of the party.
However on 4 May the local constituency Labour party adopted Ferguson as its candidate for the by-election by a narrow majority.
The Labour leadership refused to accept his candidature and imposed Rosslyn Mitchell, a Glasgow solicitor, as the Labour candidate. Mitchell had contested Glasgow, Central in the 1922 general election and had drastically reduced Bonar Law's majority. He was widely tipped as a law officer in a Labour government.
The Kelvingrove constituency Labour party was split over accepting Mitchell's candidature. In the end they voted by a very slim majority to accept it. Most of the minority chose Ferguson as their candidate. He stood as a Communist. The constituency party was split between a Labour majority and a Communist minority.
The Conservative candidate was Walter Elliott, as in OTL. Elliott had lost his Lanark seat in the general election. He was rising figure in the Conservative Party and had been the junior minister at the Scottish Office in the Baldwin government.
The Liberal candidate was Sir John Pratt. He was a junior Health minister from August 1919 to October 1922. He was Liberal MP for Linlithgowshire from November 1913 to December 1918, and for Glasgow, Cathcart from December 1918 to November 1922.
It was widely expected that the Liberal vote would be squeezed. The question was by how much and which of the two main parties would benefit more. In Glasgow the Liberals were significantly more inclined to the Conservatives than to Labour.
The Conservatives and Labour campaigned strongly in the by-election with leading members of both parties speaking in the campaign. In order to secure the left-wing Labour vote, John Wheatley, the Minister of Health, and James Maxton, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, spoke several times in support of Mitchell. They were both Glasgow MPs.
The Liberal campaign was desultory and practically non-existent.
The by-election was held on 23 May. The percentage vote gained by each candidate was as follows:
Walter Elliott (Conservative) 50.4%
Rosslyn Mitchell (Labour) 43.3%
Sir John Pratt (Liberal) 4.5%
Aiken Ferguson (Communist) 1.8%
Turnout was 73.6%.
Swing from Labour to Conservative was 1.6%. (1)
The Conservative and Labour vote increased in both numerical and percentage terms. The Liberal vote collapsed both numerically and in percentage terms.
The Conservatives were pleased that they had won with an increased majority. Labour were disappointed that they had not won the seat, but pleased that they had increased their vote. The Liberals consoled themselves that it was an unwinnable constituency for them and that they were bound to be squeezed.
(1) In OTL the result of the by-election was as follows:
Elliott (Conservative): 15,488 - 55.3%
Ferguson (Labour): 11,167 - 39.8%
Pratt (Liberal): 1,372 - 4.9%
A Labour victory in this TL would have required a swing of 7.75% from Conservative compared to OTL.
On 29 February 1924 the House of Commons gave a second reading by 288 votes to 72 to the Representation of the People Act (1918) Amendment Bill which was introduced by a Labour backbencher. It provided for the equalisation of the franchise for men and women and the abolition of the business premises vote. Ramsay MacDonald, the Lord Privy Seal, said that the government was sympathetic to the bill, but could not promise it any facilities if it emerged from the committee stage.
On 19 June the Bill passed through its committee stage unchanged, John Clynes, the Home Secretary, having promised that the government would provide facilities for its later stages.
The Committee Stage of the Government of Scotland Bill was considered by the House of Commons acting as a Committee of the Whole House. The clause in the Bill which provided for the equal franchise at age 21 for men and women for elections to the Scottish Parliament was debated on 4 June 1924.
On 19 June the Bill passed through its committee stage unchanged, John Clynes, the Home Secretary, having promised that the government would provide facilities for its later stages.
The Committee Stage of the Government of Scotland Bill was considered by the House of Commons acting as a Committee of the Whole House. The clause in the Bill which provided for the equal franchise at age 21 for men and women for elections to the Scottish Parliament was debated on 4 June 1924.
The Conservatives were in a difficult position regarding the extension of the franchise to women age 21 and over for elections to the Scottish Parliament as proposed in the Government of Scotland Bill. As in a similar extension of the franchise for UK elections, mostly they did not oppose it in principle but on the following grounds: The supposed agreement made by the Speaker's Conference in 1917 of a binding moratorium on a change in the franchise for ten years, and of the necessity for an inter-party conference before making such a change.
Having now returned to the House of Commons, Walter Elliott, the lead Tory spokesman on the Government of Scotland Bill, moved the rejection of the clause which gave women on the same terms as men. He rehearsed the arguments set out in the previous paragraph but it was obvious that his heart was not in the case he was making.
The most spirited speech in favour of the Conservative amendment was made by the Duchess of Atholl. (1) She argued that woman did not want the franchise extended, and that to have more woman than men on the electoral register would be to take advantage of the 740,000 men killed in the Great War. Lady Nancy Astor, was one of two Tories to speak in favour of the clause.
The clause passed easily with Labour and Liberal votes, and nine Conservatives including Lady Astor.
Another Conservative, Lord Eustace Percy, moved that the voting age for both men and women should be fixed at twenty-five on the grounds that the electorate was growing too large and that twenty-one was too young to make a balanced judgement. His amendment was rejected by Elliott on the grounds that it would disenfranchise tens of thousands of men, and would deprive them of a right they had possessed for 650 years. It was decisively defeated, but 39 Tories supported it.
(1) She was not a member of the House of Lords because no women were allowed to be.
Having now returned to the House of Commons, Walter Elliott, the lead Tory spokesman on the Government of Scotland Bill, moved the rejection of the clause which gave women on the same terms as men. He rehearsed the arguments set out in the previous paragraph but it was obvious that his heart was not in the case he was making.
The most spirited speech in favour of the Conservative amendment was made by the Duchess of Atholl. (1) She argued that woman did not want the franchise extended, and that to have more woman than men on the electoral register would be to take advantage of the 740,000 men killed in the Great War. Lady Nancy Astor, was one of two Tories to speak in favour of the clause.
The clause passed easily with Labour and Liberal votes, and nine Conservatives including Lady Astor.
Another Conservative, Lord Eustace Percy, moved that the voting age for both men and women should be fixed at twenty-five on the grounds that the electorate was growing too large and that twenty-one was too young to make a balanced judgement. His amendment was rejected by Elliott on the grounds that it would disenfranchise tens of thousands of men, and would deprive them of a right they had possessed for 650 years. It was decisively defeated, but 39 Tories supported it.
(1) She was not a member of the House of Lords because no women were allowed to be.
Last edited:
The Government of Scotland Bill provided for the abolition of the business premises vote. A Conservative amendment to keep it was defeated by a large majority with all except a few Liberal MPs voting with Labour. Only in the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow was this vote of any significance.
An amendment by a Labour MP to abolish the representation of the Universities of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and St. Andrews in the Scottish Parliament was defeated by 17 votes. But a majority of Labour backbenchers voted for the amendment.
An amendment to substitute the single transferable vote for the alternative vote, except in six constituencies in the highlands and islands, for elections to the Scottish Parliament was passed by a substantial majority, with Conservatives, Liberals and some Labour voting in favour.
When the House of Commons rose for the summer recess on 7 August 1924, the Government of Scotland Bill and the Representation of the People Act (1918) Amendment Bill had passed through all their stages in that House.
The events in this TL in connection with the Campbell case are as in OTL up to the cabinet meeting on 6 October 1924. (1) At that meeting the cabinet decided, with Ramsay Macdonald the only dissenter, to agree to the Liberal amendment to the Conservative motion of censure on the government for its handling of the case. The Liberal amendment called for the establishment of a Select Committe of the House of Commons to inquire into the matter. In OTL the cabinet decided to treat the Conservative motion and the Liberal amendment as motions of censure, and that if either were carried, Macdonald would dissolve Parliament and call a general election.
The Conservative motion was debated on 8 October. During the debate the Prime Minister, Arthur Henderson, announced that the government accepted the Liberal amendment. He said that Ian Macpherson, the Liberal MP for Ross and Cromarty who was Chief Secretary for Ireland from 1919-1920 and Minister of Pensions from 1920-1922, and a barrister, had agreed to be Chairman of the Select Committee.
At the end of the debate Baldwin anounced that the Conservatives would withdraw their motion. As the Liberals had withdrawn their amendment there was no vote at the end of the debate.
This is a major POD. There is no general election in 1924 with a Conservative landslide, and the Labour government continues in office.
(1) Here is an excellent article on the Campbell case in the Journal of Contemporary History, April 1974: http://www.jstor.org/stable/260051 .
An amendment by a Labour MP to abolish the representation of the Universities of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and St. Andrews in the Scottish Parliament was defeated by 17 votes. But a majority of Labour backbenchers voted for the amendment.
An amendment to substitute the single transferable vote for the alternative vote, except in six constituencies in the highlands and islands, for elections to the Scottish Parliament was passed by a substantial majority, with Conservatives, Liberals and some Labour voting in favour.
When the House of Commons rose for the summer recess on 7 August 1924, the Government of Scotland Bill and the Representation of the People Act (1918) Amendment Bill had passed through all their stages in that House.
The events in this TL in connection with the Campbell case are as in OTL up to the cabinet meeting on 6 October 1924. (1) At that meeting the cabinet decided, with Ramsay Macdonald the only dissenter, to agree to the Liberal amendment to the Conservative motion of censure on the government for its handling of the case. The Liberal amendment called for the establishment of a Select Committe of the House of Commons to inquire into the matter. In OTL the cabinet decided to treat the Conservative motion and the Liberal amendment as motions of censure, and that if either were carried, Macdonald would dissolve Parliament and call a general election.
The Conservative motion was debated on 8 October. During the debate the Prime Minister, Arthur Henderson, announced that the government accepted the Liberal amendment. He said that Ian Macpherson, the Liberal MP for Ross and Cromarty who was Chief Secretary for Ireland from 1919-1920 and Minister of Pensions from 1920-1922, and a barrister, had agreed to be Chairman of the Select Committee.
At the end of the debate Baldwin anounced that the Conservatives would withdraw their motion. As the Liberals had withdrawn their amendment there was no vote at the end of the debate.
This is a major POD. There is no general election in 1924 with a Conservative landslide, and the Labour government continues in office.
(1) Here is an excellent article on the Campbell case in the Journal of Contemporary History, April 1974: http://www.jstor.org/stable/260051 .
On 19 November 1924, the House of Lords gave an unopposed second reading to the Representation of the People (1918) Amendment Bill. However in the Committee stage it passed amendments to keep the voting age for woman at 30, and to keep the business premises vote.
When the bill returned to the Commons in the new parliamentary session in February 1925, the Lords amendments were considered. In the debate to reverse the Lords' amendment on the voting age for women, John Clynes, the Home Secretary, said that if the Lords insisted on that amendment, and on its amendment to keep the business premises vote, the government would use the provisions of the Parliament Act to ensure that the bill became law in accordance with the wishes of the House of Commons. The Commons reversed the Lords' amendments on the voting age for women and the business premises vote.
The bill returned to the Lords in March 1925 the Conservative Party leadership decided that it would be electorally advantageous not to insist on their amendments. Although backbench Tory Peers voted to restore their amendments they were defeated, and the bill became law on 31st March in accordance with the wishes of the Commons.
The Representation of the People Act 1925, as it was called, provided that the voting age for both men and women would be 21, and for the abolition of the business premises vote. However these provisions would not not take effect until the next general election. There was no change to the franchise for university graduates and in the university constituencies.
When the bill returned to the Commons in the new parliamentary session in February 1925, the Lords amendments were considered. In the debate to reverse the Lords' amendment on the voting age for women, John Clynes, the Home Secretary, said that if the Lords insisted on that amendment, and on its amendment to keep the business premises vote, the government would use the provisions of the Parliament Act to ensure that the bill became law in accordance with the wishes of the House of Commons. The Commons reversed the Lords' amendments on the voting age for women and the business premises vote.
The bill returned to the Lords in March 1925 the Conservative Party leadership decided that it would be electorally advantageous not to insist on their amendments. Although backbench Tory Peers voted to restore their amendments they were defeated, and the bill became law on 31st March in accordance with the wishes of the Commons.
The Representation of the People Act 1925, as it was called, provided that the voting age for both men and women would be 21, and for the abolition of the business premises vote. However these provisions would not not take effect until the next general election. There was no change to the franchise for university graduates and in the university constituencies.
In the United States the Democratic National Convention assembled in New York City on 24 June 1924 to choose the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The Convention lasted until 7 July because it took 83 ballots to nominate William Gibbs McAdoo as candidate for President. Charles W. Bryan received the vice-presidential nomination.
The nomination of the conservative McAdoo caused many liberal and progressive Democrats to support the Progressive Party ticket of Robert La Follette and Burton K. Wheeler, which was also backed by Republican senator Hiram Johnson of California. La Follette campaigned strongly on a left of centre platform and as the only real alternative to Coolidge and McAdoo.
As was widely expected the Republican ticket of Calvin Coolidge/Charles Dawes won by a landslide on 4 November. But the Progressive ticket of La Follette/Wheeler did surprisingly well in much of the mid-west and west. The breakdown of electoral votes was as follows:
Coolidge/Dawes (Republican): 343
McAdoo/Bryan (Democrat): 126
LaFollette/Wheeler (Progressive): 62
----------------------
Total: 531
---------------------
The following states voted for LaFollette/Wheeler: Arizona, California, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin.
It was the best third party showing since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
The nomination of the conservative McAdoo caused many liberal and progressive Democrats to support the Progressive Party ticket of Robert La Follette and Burton K. Wheeler, which was also backed by Republican senator Hiram Johnson of California. La Follette campaigned strongly on a left of centre platform and as the only real alternative to Coolidge and McAdoo.
As was widely expected the Republican ticket of Calvin Coolidge/Charles Dawes won by a landslide on 4 November. But the Progressive ticket of La Follette/Wheeler did surprisingly well in much of the mid-west and west. The breakdown of electoral votes was as follows:
Coolidge/Dawes (Republican): 343
McAdoo/Bryan (Democrat): 126
LaFollette/Wheeler (Progressive): 62
----------------------
Total: 531
---------------------
The following states voted for LaFollette/Wheeler: Arizona, California, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin.
It was the best third party showing since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
Back to British politics.
The House of Lords debated the second reading of the Government of Scotland Bill on 27 November 1924. The Conservative Party was divided on the issue. The position of the leadership was abstention on second reading, but to destroy it with wrecking amendments in the committee stage. But significant minorities on the Conservative benches defied the party leadership and voted in support or opposition to the bill. The bill received a second reading but 29 Conservative Peers voted for and 43 voted against.
The bill now went into its committee stage where it was examined in detail by a Committee of the Whole House.
The House of Lords debated the second reading of the Government of Scotland Bill on 27 November 1924. The Conservative Party was divided on the issue. The position of the leadership was abstention on second reading, but to destroy it with wrecking amendments in the committee stage. But significant minorities on the Conservative benches defied the party leadership and voted in support or opposition to the bill. The bill received a second reading but 29 Conservative Peers voted for and 43 voted against.
The bill now went into its committee stage where it was examined in detail by a Committee of the Whole House.
In February and March 1925 the House of Lords considered the Government of Scotland Bill clause by clause in its committee stage.
Conservative Peers used their majority to pass an amendment which called for the bill to be submitted to a referendum in Scotland before it became law. The Liberal Party was split three ways between support for the amendment, opposition and deliberate abstention.
The Lords also passed four other amendments as follows:
1) If a Scottish Parliament is established the number of MPs elected by Scottish constituencies to the Westminster Parliament would be reduced from 74 to 50. Made up of 47 from territorial constituencies and three from the Combined Scottish Universities.
2) Under the terms of the bill the Scottish Parliament would be a unicameral chamber. The Conservative amendment provided that Scottish peers would be eligible to sit in a Scottish House of Lords which would have the same powers then enjoyed by the House of Lords at Westminster. Scottish Peers could choose in which House of Lords they sat.
3) This stipulated that Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament would not be able to vote on matters which were the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. This included education and health.
4) This restored the business premises vote for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
When the amended bill returned to the House of Commons in late March 1925, Arthur Henderson, the Prime Minister, said that the House would have the opportunity to debate the amendments in early May, after the Easter recess. The government wished to reverse all the amendments.
Conservative Peers used their majority to pass an amendment which called for the bill to be submitted to a referendum in Scotland before it became law. The Liberal Party was split three ways between support for the amendment, opposition and deliberate abstention.
The Lords also passed four other amendments as follows:
1) If a Scottish Parliament is established the number of MPs elected by Scottish constituencies to the Westminster Parliament would be reduced from 74 to 50. Made up of 47 from territorial constituencies and three from the Combined Scottish Universities.
2) Under the terms of the bill the Scottish Parliament would be a unicameral chamber. The Conservative amendment provided that Scottish peers would be eligible to sit in a Scottish House of Lords which would have the same powers then enjoyed by the House of Lords at Westminster. Scottish Peers could choose in which House of Lords they sat.
3) This stipulated that Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament would not be able to vote on matters which were the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. This included education and health.
4) This restored the business premises vote for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
When the amended bill returned to the House of Commons in late March 1925, Arthur Henderson, the Prime Minister, said that the House would have the opportunity to debate the amendments in early May, after the Easter recess. The government wished to reverse all the amendments.
The debate in the House of Commons on the Lords' amendment to the Government of Scotland Bill, which provided that it be submitted to a referendum in Scotland, was timetabled for 12 May 1925. Its success or failure would depend on how Liberal members voted. The Liberal shadow cabinet met the previous day to decide the party's position. The following members were present: Asquith (leader), Sir John Simon (deputy leader), Lloyd George, Vivian Phillips (chief whip), Charles Masterman, Sir Alfred Mond, William Wedgwood Benn, William Pringle, Sir Godfrey Collins, Francis Acland, Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Marquess of Crewe, Earl Beauchamp, Viscount Grey.
Asquith, Simon, Collins, Grey and Crewe argued strongly for overturning the amendment on the grounds that it was a Tory idea and contrary to constitutional practice. Lloyd George argued passionately that they should trust the people of Scotland and vote to keep the amendment in the bill. He was strongly supported by Masterman, Wedgwood Benn, Pringle, Acland, Sinclair and Beauchamp. Mond was undecided but in the end came down on Lloyd George's side. Phillips said that the party should present a united front on the issue, so with the vote 8 to 5 for keeping the amendment, he voted with the majority. He said there would be a three line whip on Liberal MPs for the vote.
Asquith, Simon, Collins, Grey and Crewe argued strongly for overturning the amendment on the grounds that it was a Tory idea and contrary to constitutional practice. Lloyd George argued passionately that they should trust the people of Scotland and vote to keep the amendment in the bill. He was strongly supported by Masterman, Wedgwood Benn, Pringle, Acland, Sinclair and Beauchamp. Mond was undecided but in the end came down on Lloyd George's side. Phillips said that the party should present a united front on the issue, so with the vote 8 to 5 for keeping the amendment, he voted with the majority. He said there would be a three line whip on Liberal MPs for the vote.
Last edited:
In the evening of 11 May 1925 C.P. Scott (the editor of the Manchester Guardian in this TL and OTL) met Lloyd George (LG) for dinner at the Reform Club. LG told Scott about the meeting of the Liberal shadow cabinet earlier that day and the split on the issue of a Scottish referendum. He also denounced Asquith (the leader of the Liberal Party) as being too old to give effective leadership (he was 72 years old), and for a policy of indecision and drift. He said that the party needed a younger man of dynamism and energy with new and bold ideas, and that these views were widespread in the party. Scott knew that LG was speaking about himself. LG gave Scott permission to report their talk in his newspaper on a non-attributable basis.
The next morning headline on the front news page of the Manchester Guardian was (1):
Liberal shadow cabinet split over Scottish referendum vote
The news story said that according to a very well-informed source Asquith and the shadow cabinet members opposed to a referendum were in a minority, and a clear majority had supported voting for the referendum in the House of Commons vote. It also said that there was widespread dissatisfaction in the Liberal party with Asquith's weak and indecisive leadership, and that the party needed bold, dynamic and decisive leadership which would restore its fighting spirit.
Of course this story very soon became the talk of Westminster, and was in all the evening newspapers and the following morning's newspapers. There was widespread speculation as to who leaked the shadow cabinet meeting - the names most frequently mentioned were LG, Sir Alfred Mond and William Pringle.
Meanwhile the Labour government's amendment to overturn the Conservative amendment to the Government of Scotland Bill, which provided that the bill be submitted to a referendum of the Scottish people before it came into effect, was defeated by a large majority. All the Liberal shadow cabinet voted with the Conservative and Liberal majority, but 16 Liberals voted with Labour and 21 deliberately abstained.
The same evening Asquith called a meeting of the Liberal shadow cabinet. He demanded to know who was responsible for the leak to the Manchester Guardian. He asked LG directly if he was. LG said that he strongly objected to his integrity being called into question. The meeting soon developed into a shouting match between LG and Asquith in which to use a euphemism "very strong language" was used - mostly by LG. It ended by Asquith dismissing LG from the shadow cabinet. Collins, Mond and Sir Archibald Sinclair resigned in protest at LG's dismissal.
The next morning's newspapers (13 May) prominently reported the departures from the Liberal shadow cabinet. Asquith was beseiged by reporters asking him if he had lost the support of the Liberal Party. He said that he had strong reasons to believe that he had been betrayed by LG and had no option but to dismiss him from the shadow cabinet. He firmly believed that he had the full support of the party.
The same day Asquith called a meeting of his closest allies in the Liberal Parliamentary Party, including Sir John Simon, William Wedgwood Benn, William Pringle, Richard Acland and Vivian Phillips. He asked them if he should resign as leader. They said he should not, but Simon said that Asquith should ask for the support of the Parliamentary Liberal Party (PLP). Asquith agreed to meet the PLP the following day (14 May).
(1) I don't know if in OTL advertisements were printed on the front page or if news was. There was no change from the practice in OTL in this TL.
The next morning headline on the front news page of the Manchester Guardian was (1):
Liberal shadow cabinet split over Scottish referendum vote
The news story said that according to a very well-informed source Asquith and the shadow cabinet members opposed to a referendum were in a minority, and a clear majority had supported voting for the referendum in the House of Commons vote. It also said that there was widespread dissatisfaction in the Liberal party with Asquith's weak and indecisive leadership, and that the party needed bold, dynamic and decisive leadership which would restore its fighting spirit.
Of course this story very soon became the talk of Westminster, and was in all the evening newspapers and the following morning's newspapers. There was widespread speculation as to who leaked the shadow cabinet meeting - the names most frequently mentioned were LG, Sir Alfred Mond and William Pringle.
Meanwhile the Labour government's amendment to overturn the Conservative amendment to the Government of Scotland Bill, which provided that the bill be submitted to a referendum of the Scottish people before it came into effect, was defeated by a large majority. All the Liberal shadow cabinet voted with the Conservative and Liberal majority, but 16 Liberals voted with Labour and 21 deliberately abstained.
The same evening Asquith called a meeting of the Liberal shadow cabinet. He demanded to know who was responsible for the leak to the Manchester Guardian. He asked LG directly if he was. LG said that he strongly objected to his integrity being called into question. The meeting soon developed into a shouting match between LG and Asquith in which to use a euphemism "very strong language" was used - mostly by LG. It ended by Asquith dismissing LG from the shadow cabinet. Collins, Mond and Sir Archibald Sinclair resigned in protest at LG's dismissal.
The next morning's newspapers (13 May) prominently reported the departures from the Liberal shadow cabinet. Asquith was beseiged by reporters asking him if he had lost the support of the Liberal Party. He said that he had strong reasons to believe that he had been betrayed by LG and had no option but to dismiss him from the shadow cabinet. He firmly believed that he had the full support of the party.
The same day Asquith called a meeting of his closest allies in the Liberal Parliamentary Party, including Sir John Simon, William Wedgwood Benn, William Pringle, Richard Acland and Vivian Phillips. He asked them if he should resign as leader. They said he should not, but Simon said that Asquith should ask for the support of the Parliamentary Liberal Party (PLP). Asquith agreed to meet the PLP the following day (14 May).
(1) I don't know if in OTL advertisements were printed on the front page or if news was. There was no change from the practice in OTL in this TL.
At the meeting of the Parliamentary Liberal Party (that is the Liberal Party in the House of Commons) on 14 May, Sir John Simon unexpectedly said that it would be in the best interests of the party if it was given the opportunity to elect a new leader. In the face of this perceived betrayal Asquith announced that he would resign when the party elected a new leader. A cartoon in the Liberal supporting Daily News showed Asquith as Julius Caesar, with Simon as Brutus, Lloyd George as Cassius and other prominent Liberal MPs sticking daggers into a dying Asquith. The caption read "Et tu, Simon".
The election by Liberal members of parliament for the leader of the Liberal Party would be held on 21 May 1925. David Lloyd George and Sir John Simon announced on 15 May that they would be contesting the leadership election. Charles Masterman, after persuasion from his friends and supporters, declared his candidature on 16 May.
There were 154 Liberal MPs. To gain a majority in the first round the winning candidate would need an overall majority of the votes. That was 78 if all the MPs voted. If no candidate secured an overall majority the lowest placed candidate would drop out and a second round would be held on 27 May.
There were 154 Liberal MPs. To gain a majority in the first round the winning candidate would need an overall majority of the votes. That was 78 if all the MPs voted. If no candidate secured an overall majority the lowest placed candidate would drop out and a second round would be held on 27 May.
Last edited:
I would certainly like to see Mastermann in action. Apparently he was head of British propoganda during WW1
From Wiki it seems like he had rather a bad time after 1924, losing his seat then dying (suicide maybe) in 1927, due to substance abuse
From Wiki it seems like he had rather a bad time after 1924, losing his seat then dying (suicide maybe) in 1927, due to substance abuse
In August 1914 Masterman was made head of Wellington House, as the British propaganda department was called. A description of his period of office is in the entry for him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34927 .
In this TL there was no general election in 1924. In November 1924 Asquith appointed Masterman to his shadow cabinet. In those days shadow ministers did not have specific portfolios, but specialised in their areas of interest and expertise. Masterman tended to concentrate on social welfare, labour and industrial issues, though he did speak on other subjects including foreign policy.
He didn't take up drugs and his wife, Lucy, had him promise her that he would keep his drinking under control. With STV in cities for the next general election the Liberals would keep at least one seat in Manchester and probably two. So as the most senior Liberal MP for Manchester, Masterman is guaranteed re-election, unless the Liberal vote totally collapses.
In the Liberal leadership election the campaign teams for each candidate were headed by the following men:
David Lloyd George: Herbert Fisher. He was the Liberal MP for the Combined English Universities. He had been President of the Board of Education in Lloyd George's coalition from December 1916 to October 1922. He was moderately socially progressive and had raised the school leaving age.
Charles Masterman: William Wedgwood Benn. The Liberal MP for Edinburgh, Leith, he was on the radical wing of the party. He had been a junior government whip from 1912-1915. He was passionately opposed to Lloyd George.
Sir John Simon: Leslie Hore-Belisha. Elected in the general election of December 1923 as member for Plymouth, Devonport, he was regarded as a rising star in the Liberal Party. He had been President of the Oxford Union.
The consensus of political opinion, both inside and outside the Liberal Party, is that probably no candidate would win an overall majority in the first round. So the campaign tactics for each candidate were to maximise their first round vote.
Lloyd George's position was the weakest. Almost all of Simon's votes, if he came third, would transfer to Masterman in the second round, and vice-versa in respect of the majority of Masterman's votes. Lloyd George would need to win first place in the first round with around 65 votes, and in the second round gain 15 or so votes from Masterman, who would have to come in third place in the first round and therefore be eliminated for the second round.
David Lloyd George: Herbert Fisher. He was the Liberal MP for the Combined English Universities. He had been President of the Board of Education in Lloyd George's coalition from December 1916 to October 1922. He was moderately socially progressive and had raised the school leaving age.
Charles Masterman: William Wedgwood Benn. The Liberal MP for Edinburgh, Leith, he was on the radical wing of the party. He had been a junior government whip from 1912-1915. He was passionately opposed to Lloyd George.
Sir John Simon: Leslie Hore-Belisha. Elected in the general election of December 1923 as member for Plymouth, Devonport, he was regarded as a rising star in the Liberal Party. He had been President of the Oxford Union.
The consensus of political opinion, both inside and outside the Liberal Party, is that probably no candidate would win an overall majority in the first round. So the campaign tactics for each candidate were to maximise their first round vote.
Lloyd George's position was the weakest. Almost all of Simon's votes, if he came third, would transfer to Masterman in the second round, and vice-versa in respect of the majority of Masterman's votes. Lloyd George would need to win first place in the first round with around 65 votes, and in the second round gain 15 or so votes from Masterman, who would have to come in third place in the first round and therefore be eliminated for the second round.