British Scholar: Dangerfield - "Strange Death of Liberal England"

The Strange Death of Liberal England
George Dangerfield (Stanford, CA: Stanford, 1997 (first published 1935)), 364 pages

The death of Liberal England occurred very rapidly. Between 1910 and 1914 the Liberal Party saw its
political power effectively evaporate in the wake of four rebellions. These four domestic issues included
the battle between the Liberal Party and the House of Lords over the latter’s veto power, the
Conservatives fighting to keep Ireland as an integral component of the United Kingdom, the Suffragette
Movement, and the struggle for workers’ rights via syndicalism and, later, collective bargaining.
For Dangerfield the beginning of the end for Liberal England occurred when the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Lloyd George, brought forth the 1909 Budget. This piece of politically manipulative
craftsmanship imposed heavy taxes upon the one thing the House of Lords cherished above all else:
land. Lloyd George effectively set this trap knowing that if the Lords vetoed the budget a constitutional
crisis would ensue. After all, the budget remained the one area where the Lords never dared to invoke
their right to veto Commons legislation. The budget went to the Lords and the Liberal Government
called for an election and secured parity with the Conservatives in Commons representation. In order
for Prime Minister Asquith to undermine the veto power of the Conservative-dominated Lords he made a
deal with the Irish: vote the budget through and Home Rule would become a reality. Little did Asquith
suspect that the Conservatives would turn their attention to destabilizing the Liberals by pushing Ireland
to the brink of civil war through the elite manipulations of silver-tongued politicians like Sir Edward
Carson. In addition, this period also witnessed the sometimes violent but always driven Suffragette
Movement and the increasingly obstructionist labor organizations, who effectively used the strike to
bring the owners of industry to the bargaining table. In all, these issues proved too much for the Liberal
Party to endure.

Wading through vast historical detail, Dangerfield impresses the drab landscape with a lively wit that
makes this historical work read more like a novel. In the end, Dangerfield argues that this four-year
period merely faded into World War I, rather than disappearing from sight, and gave rise to the
excessive behavior of the 1920s. In his words, “the War hastened everything – in politics, in economics,
in behaviour – but it started nothing.” Dangerfield makes the entire era come into focus by looking to
the past. And this he does masterfully.