The 1920s are often thought of historically as the calm between two storms; the jazz era that was a brief flicker of stability between the First World War and the Great Depression. However, in Britain it was a very politically turbulent time, with three general elections being called in the space of two years.
The Conservatives came into the 1922 general election with a small majority, but facing a fractured opposition made up of split parties, nationalists, and emerging third entities. The election was fought under new boundaries which reduced the number of MPs from 707 at the 1918 election to 615. As a result, the Tories lost seats but retained their majority. Labour gained 85 seats to become the second party (it has never since been lower than second in national vote share at a general election), while the split Liberals became the third and fourth parties respectfully. Less than a year after the election, Bonar Law, the Tory prime minister, fell ill and resigned. The new Conservative leader, Stanley Baldwin, felt he needed a mandate of his own and called an election. It was a mistake: the Tories remained the largest party but lost their majority, with both Labour and the newly united (for now) Liberals picking up enough seats to form enough seats to form a government, albeit not a formal coalition.
This minority Labour government under MacDonald wasn’t stable and so came the 1924 election. This one crushed the Liberals, this time for good, and the Tories reaped the rewards, ending up with over 400 seats and a massive majority.
There wasn’t another general election until 1929, which resulted in another hung parliament. Cue another minority Labour government led by Ramsay MacDonald, again with the Liberals in support. Once more, this wasn’t to last and another general election was called in 1931: resulting in, you guessed it, a massive Tory majority (in fact, a much larger one than in 1923).
I suppose the parallels I’m drawing between then and now is that we could be in for a topsy turvy political ride over the next decade or so as the bugs shake out of the system. Huge Tory majorities (like the one we’re inevitably heading for) followed by hung parliaments when things don’t go quite as planned. New parties emerging and then dying; splits followed by reformations; Tory governments facing a heavy fractured opposition on the benches opposite; at the end of it, a new, hopefully stable order. In other words, whatever is coming our way, I think it might be a little messy.
Periods of high political polarisation (which is both driven by and drives high wealth inequality) are also typified in the US by 50/50 elections. Interesting if with a more complex system of representation you get the oscillations you describe. But I think the libdems may win as many seats as labour lose.
Nick
I think you a right to draw some parallels between the politics of today and the electoral changes of the 1920s and 1930s. The Liberal party declined through the 1920s because it didn’t adjust successfully or quickly enough to the mass politics of the post-1918 period, being too split over personalities and uncertain over its direction. Consequently it was ground down between the two millstones of a strong and stable and fairly united option of the Conservative party and the rising, risky option of an untried and untested socialist Labour party. Initially the Labour party was a largely unknown quantity and it appeared a bit threatening. But its two short periods of minority government, while proving politically moderate, were fairly unsuccessful. The Labour party suffered serious internal problems after the second minority government collapsed in 1931 in an atmosphere of financial crisis.
The Conservative party was undoubtedly the dominant political force in the inter-war period. The party overcame its own post-1918 personality problems and made the transition to mass politics that the Liberals failed to do. Under the leadership of the outstanding political figure of the era, Stanley Baldwin, a modernising industrialist, the Conservative party called the political shots. Of course, during his long leadership he made mistakes and enemies. He lost an ‘unnecessary’ general election in 1923 to get a mandate for tariff reform. He also lost narrowly the 1929 election, (albeit the Conservative party polled most votes), becoming very unpopular with the press barons and the imperial-minded wing of the Conservative party in the early 1930s. And, with hindsight, he was too cautious on the issue of rearmament in the mid 1930s. But this reflected the genuine and widespread desire to avoid another war.
Baldwin himself was very much a conciliator and consensus politician. He wanted to bring the ordinary working man and woman, as represented by the Labour party, fully into the political system, while uniting the non-socialist vote under his moderate Conservative party banner by squeezing out the declining Liberal party. Unlike his Labour and Liberal opponents, he mastered the art of the radio fireside chat, conveying an aura of English common sense, dependability, fair play and moderation directly into the homes of his listeners. The much misunderstood National government from 1931 onwards, although numerically dominated by Conservatives, was in part the product of the desire for national consensus, stability and measured progress epitomised by Stanley Baldwin (and for which he served as prime minister for a short time). It is no coincidence that many of Britain’s cinemas and much of its suburban housing stock date from this period.
Whether we are going though an extended period of political realignment will become clearer in the aftermath of the June 8th election. I think it is safe to say, Nick, that it is not the survival of the Conservative party that is in doubt at this election. But whether Theresa May is a new Stanley Baldwin remains to be seen.