I’ve never joined a political party: but a long time ago I did run as a political party candidate. For the space of two weeks, in a school mock-election, I tried to get the votes of my fellow-pupils for the British Liberal Party.

Gordon Brown in front of an advertising hoarding for the leaders' debate with Nick Clegg and David Cameron. Photo: AP

It was 1966 – the year England won the World Cup, the first year of Swinging London, the year of “Good Vibrations”, “Nowhere Man” and “Paint It Black”. Prime Minister Harold Wilson was running for re-election against the new Conservative leader Ted Heath, but I couldn’t have cared less.

I was a spotty fourteen-year-old, at school in central London. There were plenty in my class itching to stand for Labour or the Tories, but no-one wanted to be the Liberal, so I was “volunteered” to stand for the one party that was certain to lose.

The Liberals were the perennial also-rans. They never won more than a couple of handfuls of seats in Parliament, even though their vote had climbed a little from its mid-Fifties nadir of just over two-and-a-half percent.

I went to the Party’s national offices, where they gave me some stickers, posters and campaign literature.

I made a speech or two in class, and received, after a fortnight’s campaign, the magnificent total of two votes.

In the real world, the Liberal Party led by Jo Grimond won 12 seats at the 1966 election.

12, out of 629.

That’s pretty much the story of British Liberalism for exactly a century.

Until a hundred years ago, Liberalism had been the dominant cast of mind in Britain for a long time.

The writer George Dangerfield put it like this: “Whatever his political convictions may have been, the Englishman ...  was something of a Liberal at heart. He believed in freedom, free trade, progress, and the Seventh Commandment. He also believed in reform. He was strongly in favour of peace – that is to say, he liked his wars to be fought at a distance and, if possible, in the name of God. In fact, he bore his Liberalism with that air or respectable and passionate idiosyncracy which is said to be typical of his nation”.

That’s a passage from “The Strange Death Of Liberal England”, a book I like so much that my own copy has finally fallen to pieces from overuse.

One reason it’s so compelling – aside from the elegance of the writing, and the way it often reads more like satire than dusty history – is that Dangerfield saw something that others had never really noticed or understood: that events beginning on May 6, 1910 changed Britain for ever.

That was the date of the death of King Edward VII, and thus the official end of the Edwardian era.

The first cause of the Liberals’ problem, says Dangerfield, was a confrontation between the elected government of Herbert Henry Asquith and the unelected House of Lords – a conflict in some ways not unlike the fight between Gough Whitlam and the Senate, known as the Supply crisis, in 1975.

In Dangerfield’s account, “In its political aspect, the House of Lords was extremely conservative, quite stupid, immensely powerful, and a determined enemy of the Liberal Party. It was also an essential enemy. If anything went wrong, if one’s radical supporters became too insistent, if one’s inability to advance became too noticeable, one could always blame the Lords. It was therefore a melancholy fate which decreed that the Liberals should turn upon their hereditary foe; that they should spend their last energies on beating it to its knees; and should thereupon themselves – expire”.

Unlike Gough Whitlam, Asquith won his Supply crisis, and in doing so deprived the Lords for ever of their power to block money Bills.

Dangerfield anatomises these events, and three other factors whose novelty overwhelmed the comfortable certainties of Edwardian Liberalism: the threat of civil war in Northern Ireland; the rise of the Suffragette movement; and the rapidly increasing power of “syndicalism” – in other words, the trade unions.

Historians have argued with aspects of Dangerfield’s thesis, but there’s no denying his central insights: that there are moments when political certainties can turn on their axis, and that sometimes, the greatest victories presage the greatest defeats.

The Liberals had won the 1906 election by a landslide – a majority of 129 seats.

The two elections of 1910 reduced their share of seats from almost 60% to just over 40%, and led to hung parliaments.

Looking back at the voting trend lines, it’s clear that over the next few decades, Liberal support declined disastrously, while Labour’s correspondingly rose.

By the Thirties, Labour was the dominant left-of centre force.

I imagine that Britain’s current Prime Minister Gordon Brown is either unaware of the significance of that spring of 1910, or he doesn’t believe in omens, for May 6 2010 is the date he picked to go the polls; and he now appears to be staring down defeat.

Poll after poll is showing that the Lab/Tory political duopoly that marked most of the 20th century is no more, and that this is – for the first time in a very long time – a genuine three-horse race.

Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, as the Liberals are known now, performed so well in two debates that he’s said to have transformed the political landscape.

And in the last day or so, some polls even suggest that the Labour Party may come in third. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/26/labour-support-fall-icm

It’s a mighty fall from the huge majorities gained by Tony Blair from 1997 onwards.

It’s also a reprieve for the Conservatives: only five years ago, the writer Geoffrey Wheatcroft penned a book in homage to Dangerfield, ‘The Strange Death of Tory England’, in which he predicted that the once-triumphant party of Mrs Thatcher could easily go the way of the Asquith Liberals.

Britain has seen massive changes in the last two decades. The huge shifts in its economy, away from manufacturing, engineering, coal-mining, towards financial services and consumerism, have hugely undermined the union foundations of the Labour Party.

As in Australia, membership of all parties has dwindled, especially as the women who were often parties’ administrative backbone have gone into the workforce.

Politics has become professionalised, with image at the forefront, so that a single performance in a televised debate can galvanise a significant proportion of the electorate.

So it’s not necessarily fanciful to think that, in just over a week’s time, the British political landscape will change again, in ways which will shape the next hundred years.

The Strange Death of Labour England, anyone?

Most commented

22 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Hedda Clark says:

      08:03am | 28/04/10

      Mark, Mark, Mark, Its Labour Britain not Labour England

    • Hart of the heath says:

      01:08pm | 28/04/10

      Englishmen all think England = Britain. Their Scottish born, German extracted Queen and Scottish cyclopian Prime Minister should give them a clue as to the fallacy of such an assumption. They’re ruled by the scots at present.

    • Josef says:

      04:57pm | 28/04/10

      Hart of the heath, do you not realise that all ‘Anglo-Saxons’ are of German extraction? There is no ethnic difference between an Anglo Saxon Englishman and a Teutonic German. They were part of the same tribes just over 1000 years ago, until one lot decided to go west in search of new territory. Germans, English, Dutch, Danes etc…..all the same ‘race’ of people, all spoke the same language not that long ago.

    • Shane Stone says:

      08:32am | 28/04/10

      A very good article and a timely reminder about the ebbing fortunes of political parties that dont read the tea leaves - both sides. All that saves Labour from political oblivion in the UK is the gerrymander and a voting system that works for them. It wil be an interesting outcome but I suspect notwithstanding the Clegg surge Cameron should fall over the line based on an effective marginal seats campaign run by the Conservatives.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:12am | 28/04/10

      Mark,

      Talks of “the strange death of Labor”.  I’d suggest the Labor Party I knew died years ago, both in Britain and here.

      Politics has changed, but the names have stayed the same, added to this the public interest in any thing other than money has deadened the senses.

      Labor, the party of the workers, but how do you define a worker today?
      Liberal, the small business party, so why do multinationals rule the roost?
      National Party, there to look after the rural sector, so why are farmers leaving the land and why are rural towns dying?

      The fact is no longer do the names mean anything and no longer do these parties address the needs of those they claim to represent.

      Politics = The art of misleading the masses.

    • Castro says:

      10:15am | 28/04/10

      Very interesting article Mark

      John A., I agree with you. 

      The Labor party in particular is a disgrace.  As I’ve written before true Labor figures such as Chifley and Curtin put the current pack of career bureaucrats and union hacks to shame. 

      The current Labor Party should be sued for false advertising and forced to change their name. We need the bloke who sued John Farnham after his ‘last tour’.

      The only people I know who vote Labor are inner city office dwellers.  Why would they vote Labor?  All the tradies I know vote Liberal, but I agree with you that the Libs have been the party of big business in the past.

      Interestingly, Abbot’s recent proposals hint at a control of corporate Australia that is more consistent with a traditional ‘Labour’ frame of mind.  It could be argued that the parties are in the process of essentially rotating their politics position 180 degrees.  But then how do you explain traditional safe seats?

    • Sean Hambrook says:

      11:40am | 28/04/10

      Hooray John A.  I completely agree.  There is an element of naivety within those whose extoll the virtues of one party over another without actually understanding either the history or actual policies each purport to represent.  Effectively we are witnessing the death, not of a political party, but of the broader concepts of “left” and ‘right”.  Castro “How do you explain traditional safe seats?” laziness or is it an unwillingness to engage in any sort of critical thought?  I really don’t know.

    • The Centre Punch. says:

      02:57pm | 28/04/10

      @ John A Neve, agreed, in the 80’s when i was active in the Australian Democrats i found the membership to be 40% Small & Medium business people who were tired of being stabbed in the back by the Liberals, 40% Workers who were tired of being stabbed in the back by Labour, 20% Farmers who were tired of being stabbed in the back by the Nationals.

      @ castro, and now you know the “real reason” for all the stimulus spending. They were trying to buy back, all the votes of trades"men”. Nothing to do with staving off a non existent “recession” at all, just attempted vote buying.

      Actually it is the red/greens who should be sued for false advertising, more than any of them. They are Communists, Socialists of the fifth column kind. They feign concern for the environment as an excuse to oppose capitalism totally.

      Traditional safe seats are just modern day, “ghettos” where either the very rich &/or wannabe, social climbers live or the very poor live, both sides vote accordingly, blindly for what they have been conned by professional spin doctors, like “persephone” into believing.

      @ Sean Hambrook, Actually, what we were lead to believe was the “left right out” thing, always was a lie. Fascism for example is Communism by another name, as is American style “Extreme Capitalism” as Kruddy called it.

      Hitler for example started out in the Socialist, Workers, Labour, party, later merging with a Nationalist party to become Nationalist, Socialist, party.

      There was almost no difference between the 1930’s ALP & the Nazi’s policy/principle wise, other than “Jew Hating”. They both were very concerned about Jewish international banksters & both considered Nationalising banks because of that concern. Rather interesting when you consider America now owns a heap of bailed out banks.

      Australia’s only hope is if enough voters are willing to support real minor parties & preference the least worst, of the 2 Major Mistakes.

      http://australianpolitics.com/parties/list.shtml

      Some others not listed.

      http://www.familyfirst.org.au/

      http://www.australiafirstparty.com.au/cms/

      Hopefully we can look forward to 2010, never again.

      Regards formersnag & swinging voter.

    • Julie McNeill says:

      09:13am | 28/04/10

      Once in Power leaders get frightened, like the more money you make the more you are afraid of losing it. If Asquith had been insightful he could have given men and women the vote. The working man couldn’t vote but he could withdraw his labour - everywhere ordinary people were becoming empowered and enjoying solidarity.
      Between 1910 and 1914 trade union membership rose from 2.1 million to 4.1 million. This was about survival, food on the table. The Common good.
      My dad, a Conservative voter, a self-made Builder loved Thatcher, but she went too far so he saw Blair as the compromise, his middle way.
      And thats what the new face of Liberalism has with Clegg - a man who is not from industrial Britain of yesteryear, understands the current economies and environment, but not as born to rule Conservatism. Malcolm McLaren is dead - long live Clegg?
      Your article has me thinking…...and if the volcano stays calm I’ll be over at Westminister for the Summer to get a feel for my old ancestral home.

    • Hector says:

      10:09am | 28/04/10

      Mark, you point out that Labour might come third, but what you’ve missed is that under the bizarre nature of Britain’s first past the pole electoral system, Labour could in fact come third in the overall share of the vote yet still end up with most seats in a hung parliament. Surely if that happens, the Lib Dems will finally win their arguement for electoral reform. Unfortunately the sell interest of the Tories and Labour will kill that off.

      Having said that, I think it would be genuinely refreshing - both for a domestic British politics and the UK’s international relations - to have a coalition government in Westminster.

      The winds of change? Maybe, but don’t hold your breath.

    • Tom says:

      12:15pm | 28/04/10

      Good point Hector, I was wondering who was going to point this out. It’s hardly the death of Labour if they have the greatest representation in the parliament is it?

      However Labor is the party whose reelection platform is to replace first past the post with preferrential voting. No surprise that on these figures the two left of centre parties would easily control Parliament and on 30% with no preferences the Tories would be all but wiped out.

    • Justin says:

      11:49am | 28/04/10

      If you can get your hands on it, Andrew Marr’s The Making Of Modern Britain is a great 6 part BBC series exploring much of the period of British politics that Mark refers to. Thoroughly recommended.

    • Hector says:

      11:54am | 28/04/10

      Forgive the couple of shocking typos in my earlier post, I was in a rush!

      Anyway, I’ve just been reading that Nick Clegg has ambitions to be Prime Minister and has been derided for it. Is this not just the arrogance of the 2 main parties and their supporters who can’t face the fact a large number of people want change? Or is it just their fear that their time is up?

    • Rich says:

      12:28pm | 28/04/10

      Anyone living in a Lib Dem Council knows the yellow rosette doesn’t represent a utopia of “new politics”. The Lib Dems have raised council rates, lowered services and torn themselves to bits in internicine battles that put the big two parties to shame. The media’s love in with Clegg will end very quickly once he holds an position of authority and they realise he’s just another politician, minus the political compass.

    • Terry Wright says:

      01:06pm | 28/04/10

      I hope this is a warning for politicians to wake up. Blair’s/Brown’s Britain is so completely different to what was promised when Labour first took office. It might as well be the Torys who are in power. Like Australia, both major parties are led by “modern conservatives” leaving a huge void for real progressives. And I don’t mean economically but social policies.

      I think most western countries are sick of being told what to do and the influence of moral crusaders dressed up as politicians. The “modern conservative” is about pushing ideology on the public and that usually involves contempt for science and evidence. All the once looney left ideas are now mainstream issues which makes someone like Nick Clegg a real breath of fresh air. Abortion, Drug policy, Climate change, Immigration, Mental health, Gay rights, Justice etc. are all best dealt with via a scientific/evidence based approach. The problem being that each issue was dealt with purely by politics and failed each time. Now someone who is popular is championing real solutions to these issues.

      I especially notice that he wants the drug scheduling system to reflect what was originally suggested by the AMCD before the home secretary sacked the AMCD head, David Nutt. I also notice that both Cameron and Brown suddenly support many of the AMCD recommendations as well which might seem radical but proven by research many times over.

      It will be interesting to see how this will effect policies in Australia. The major change being prescription heroin that John Howard vetoed 11 years ago and drug decriminalisation that has been rejected by both Labor and Libs here.

      Although several countries are reforming drug laws with massive changes about to take place, I still can’t see Australia doing the same. Britain will have free heroin and cocaine for long term addicts, cannabis, ecstasy and LSD lowered to class C and all drugs decriminalised(not legalised) for personal amounts. Canada will do the same and the Zero Tolerance US will legalise cannabis completely in some states. Harm Minimisation will finally be introduced into prisons worldwide and only drug dealers, not users will go to jail. Europe and Latin America will go much further.

      Why do I see Australia being the odd country out? I just can’t get my head around Rudd or Abbott following the trend of evidence based policies. Maybe we need a Nick Clegg here?

    • The Centre Punch. says:

      03:10pm | 29/04/10

      @ Terry Wright, Haven’t you worked out yet how, “overseas junkets” work for Australian Politicians & Bureaucrats. They travel the world seeking here, there, everywhere, products, services, policies, laws, which were proven 10 to 20 years ago to be a complete, total, utter, failure.

      So that they can get the minimum possible, “bang for our buck”. Collect more taxes, waste more money, create more bureaucracy.

      Regards the formersnag & swinging voter.

    • Brad Coward says:

      05:29pm | 28/04/10

      I would much prefer to contemplate the death of the Labor Party than the Labour Party !

      It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen !

    • jim says:

      12:06am | 29/04/10

      Mark .. right now I’m wishing that I could make the same claim as the one you made in your first sentence.

    • Eric says:

      08:48am | 29/04/10

      Credit Mark Colvin with prescience for this story.

      “Labour was already in big trouble in the upcoming British elections but Gordon Brown just sunk his party.

      “Apparently he was doing a bit of campaigning while wearing a mic for a TV reporter. He seemed to have forgotten that he was miced up and while talking to an aide he was caught calling a lifelong Labour voter “a bigot”.

      “Watch her reaction as she is told this and hears the Prime Minister say it.”

      http://ace.mu.nu/archives/301042.php

    • acker says:

      01:47pm | 29/04/10

      I would be surprised if he makes it to the debate in about 15 hours time as leader of his party after that stuff up…And to say don’t change horses mid stream doesnt really hold up in the face of these gaffes..Homer Simpson would improve labours hopes.

    • Daryl says:

      10:56am | 29/04/10

      I’ve been following the election campaign with interest too.  I think we should shake up the system here.

    • King says:

      10:29am | 14/06/11

      Haha. I woke up down today. You?ve crheeed me up!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Amen, Senator... John McCain To Tim Cook: ‘Why The Hell Do I Have To Keep Updating Apps On My iPhone?’http://t.co/V9XIbzw752

Malcolm Farr

@nigelmcbain I don't see the nexus between gay marriage and gay sex education in schools. ACL does. Health issues should be taught whatever

Daniel Piotrowski

@jennijenni a few companies are known to do that - ask for story ideas from job applicants so they can steal them later

Malcolm Farr

: Bruce Springsteen: "I get roughed up crowdsurfing… people try to pull chunks out of me" http://t.co/jiHqt8agt9” it was him, @patricklion

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter