Keeping the British Liberal Party flag flying high

[stevep]

Originally Posted by pipisme

On 26 May 1936 Haile Selassie boarded a train from Addis Ababa to Djibouti. From there he went into exile in Britain. Three days later Italian troops marched into Addis Ababa. Though there was no formal surrender the war was now over.

On 2 June the British government announced that it was lifting all sanctions against Italy on the grounds that as the war was over they were now irrelevant. This decision was supported by Sir Austen Chamberlain and Anthony Eden who had previously argued strongly for sanctions.

It was passionately denounced by liberal/left opinion as being a betrayal of Abyssinia. Though there was some disquiet in the Conservative Party Harold Macmillan was the only Conservative MP who resigned from the party in opposition to the lifting of sanctions. He joined the Liberal Party and announced that he would resign as an MP and fight a by-election in his seat of Hertfordshire, Hitchin, which he had held since the October 1932 general election.

Macmillan's switch from Conservative to Liberal was not unexpected. He was on the far liberal wing of the Conservative Party.

pipisme

Interesting. I can see a steady trickle of support from both Conservatives and probably more moderate Labour as well as the Liberals secure their position as the overwhelming opposition and also disquiet over the weak government reaction to growing fascist expansion and aggression grows.

What is the situation on re-armament? Traditionally the Liberal Party favoured lower and the Conservatives higher military spending. However with concern about the growth of fascism on the continent and the Conservative leadership tied to appeasement that could get very fuzzy. The economy is a bit stronger so hopefully re-armament will be a bit faster.

Steve

[pipisme]

Originally posted by stevep

What is the situation on re-armament?

At the Disarmament Conference in Geneva on 10 February 1932 Italy proposed the abolition of all bomber planes. This was supported by Germany, the Soviet Union and other states. President Hoover also came out in favour. The British government under Prime Minister Sir Richard Acland strongly supported the proposal. (1) However the Conservative Party opposed it and promised that if they came into power they would reverse it. This they did four years later.

The Conservative government increased spending on air and naval armaments, but regarded it as very unlikely that Britain would fight a major land war on the continent of Europe within the foreseeable future. The government wanted to mend relations with Italy and enter into an anti-German alliance with her.

In a speech in the House of Commons in late March 1936 Sir Archibald Sinclair, the shadow Foreign Secretary, proposed that Britain should organise a World Conference to reach a new settlement on economic and colonial issues, and provide the basis for a policy of military and economic disarmament and collective security. (2)

Harold Macmillan held Hitchin for the Conservative Party by a majority of only 12.0% in the general election on 16 January, (Conservative 49.3%, Liberal 37.3%, Labour 13.4%) so the by-election was hard-fought. Leading members of the government and of the Liberal Party campaigned in the constituency. Lord Robert Cecil, an Independent senator, spoke on behalf of Macmillan. The Labour Party put up a candidate but with little expectation of significantly increasing their vote.

Macmillan was re-elected for the constituency as a Liberal in the by-election on 16 July 1936. The figures were:

Liberal: 48.9%
Conservative: 39.6%
Labour: 11.5%
-----------------
Liberal majority: 9.3%
----------------------

The swing from Conservative to Liberal was 10.65%.

When Harold Macmillan took his seat in the House of Commons on 20 July he was greeted with loud cheering from the Liberal benches.

(1) This happened in OTL except that the British government resisted and obstructed the Italian proposal.

(2) As leader of the Liberal Party Sinclair proposed such a World Conference in a speech in the House of Commons on 26 March 1936.

[actaeon]

Hi pipisme, been lurking on ah.com for some months now, and I've recently caught up with this TL.

Just wanted to say how much I'm enjoying it (but then, as a card-carrying and active LibDem, what would you expect!) and how impressive the level of research is: I've learned a lot about my party's history both by reading your thread and following up on leads generated from it. I'm looking forward to seeing how this impacts on upcoming events.

Are you politically active IRL? The detail of the TL says you probably are...

[pipisme]

Originally posted by actaeon

Are you politically active IRL?

I am not. I studied Politics as my Minor (with Linguistics as my Major) at university in the early 1990s. I am very interested in politics and political history, particularly of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Liberal Democrats are my second choice after the Green party.

I am glad that you are enjoying this TL and have learnt about the Liberal party's history from reading it.

[pipisme]

On 5 June 1936 Jawarharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of the Indian Federation (IF), announced the withdrawal of India from the British Empire, or Commonwealth as it was increasingly called, in opposition to the British government's policy on Abyssinia, which he condemned as a surrender to Italian imperialism.

On the same day Nehru declared the IF a republic. The President would be elected by an electoral college consisting of members of the Lower and Upper Houses of the federal Parliament, and members of the state legislatures. On 19 June Abul Kalam Azad, was elected President. Though he was a Muslim he was a member of the Congress Party. V. S. S. Sastri resigned as Governor-General.

Though Winston Churchill and other hard-liners on India denounced the severing of ties with Britain as the inevitable result of giving India its independence, otherwise it attracted little attention.

On 5 June Nehru also appointed Subhas Chandra Bose as his Foreign Minister.

[Alratan]

Originally Posted by pipisme

Though Winston Churchill and other hard-liners on India denounced the severing of ties with Britain as the inevitable result of giving India its independence, otherwise it attracted little attention.

This strikes me as very unlikely. I would honestly imagine that the literal end of the Empire would bring down the government.

[pipisme]

Even excluding the self-governing Dominions there was still a good deal left of the British Empire after the departure of the Indian Federation. The battle in the Conservative Party over India in the early 1930s had been over giving it self-government within the British Empire. The hardliners had lost that battle.

In mid June 1936 the Indian government imposed tariffs on all imports from Britain. The British government retailated by imposing tariffs on imports from India.

Because the Indian Federation was not a member of the British Empire/British Commonwealth it was not a participant at the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa in September 1936. This decided on a system of imperial preference similar to that established by the Ottawa Conference in 1932 in OTL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...mic_Conference .

The Spanish Civil War ignited on 17 July 1936 as in OTL. Like the Baldwin government in OTL, the Hoare government pursued a policy of non-intervention in Spain and an arms embargo.

[stevep]

pipisme

This is going to cause big problems for Britain. For all the difficulties and costs from the later stage of the Raj it supplies a lot of resources and especially troops in WWII. Presuming similar conflicts this time around the ME and FE theatres are going to be even thinner stretched. Not to mention a distinctly unfriendly Indian government. [Could be very bad for everybody with someone like Bose in such a position of influence. Hope Nehru keeps a close watch on him.]

While a Muslim has been chosen as President that doesn't necessarily mean relations are rosy. What are the status of Ceylon and Burma? Especially given the strategic value of the former and economic importance of the latter.

Steve

[Alratan]

Well, I actually mean literally as well. The King of the United Kingdom only has the Imperial dignity Only thanks to being Emperor of India.

[Julius Vogel]

One question

When India withdrew from the Commonwealth & Federation, it appeared rather fast, almost along the lines of a declaration. Now I guess the constitution maybe didn't contemplate this happening and it has been done wrt a specific foreign policy issue, but can you answer whether or not it was constitutionally possible for the Indian PM to do this without reference to either House, or to the Westminster Parliament?

It would seem to excede the normal or extraordinary powers of a Westminster style / 1930s PM at least in our timeline

Also - wow India leaving prior to WW2 is huge! This leaves the Imperial defence planning in the East totally up in the air. Is a Singapore based defence viable anymore, without India? I don't think Australia/NZ or the income generated from the SE Asia/E Asia area would be enough to sustain an OTL defence plan

[pipisme]

Originally posted by stevep
What are the status of Ceylon and Burma

They are still British colonies.

In reply to Julius Vogel, the Indian Federation withdrew from the British Empire/Commonwealth. The Indian Federation which comprises the provinces of India such as Bengal and Punjab was still in existence. It was constitutionally possible in this TL for a self-governing dominion to withdraw from the Empire/Commonwealth without the approval of the Westminster parliament.

I don't know if a Singapore based defence would be viable without India.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by pipisme

They are still British colonies.

In reply to Julius Vogel, the Indian Federation withdrew from the British Empire/Commonwealth. The Indian Federation which comprises the provinces of India such as Bengal and Punjab was still in existence. It was constitutionally possible in this TL for a self-governing dominion to withdraw from the Empire/Commonwealth without the approval of the Westminster parliament.

I don't know if a Singapore based defence would be viable without India.

pipisme

Thanks for the info.

On the last point a defence of Malaya would be prefectly viable presuming a few divisions, and some air and light naval units. It was just that OTL, with so much sucked into the European conflict that there wasn't the equipment for the necessary defence. Much of the manpower came from India OTL but depends on the situation elsewhere. [Also while India has formally withdrawn from the Commonwealth it might not necessarily mean that it has withdrawn from common defence agreements with Britain, especially if Japan is looking threatening].

I highlighted Malaya for two reasons. a) While Singapore has commercial value and controlling the straits are strategically important the tin and rubber of Malaya is much more valuable economically. b) In terms of modern warfare, if an enemy gains control of Malaya Singapore is almost certain to fall. Even ignoring the large civilian population and reliance on external water enemy a/c based in Malaya would make the supply and reinforcement of the garrison very difficult if not impossible.

Steve

[Julius Vogel]

Originally Posted by pipisme

They are still British colonies.

In reply to Julius Vogel, the Indian Federation withdrew from the British Empire/Commonwealth. The Indian Federation which comprises the provinces of India such as Bengal and Punjab was still in existence. It was constitutionally possible in this TL for a self-governing dominion to withdraw from the Empire/Commonwealth without the approval of the Westminster parliament.

I don't know if a Singapore based defence would be viable without India.

I guess the question is more along the lines of whether or not a declaration as such by the Indian PM is ultra vires but without any deeper understanding of how things work there it probably is sort of irrelevant. I would have thought it would be pretty easy to overstep the mark in that respect in a constitutional state

[pipisme]

Harold Nicolson, the writer and former diplomat, was elected Liberal MP for the London constituency of Shoreditch in the general election on 16 January 1936 (1). With his diplomatic background, within three months he was promoted to a place on the Liberal foreign affairs team in the House of Commons. Nicolson's diaries provide a unique insight into the politics of the time.

By September 1936 an anti-appeasement alliance of dissident Tories, Liberals and Labour, which warned against the dangers of Fascism and Naziism, had become established. Among the Tories were Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Duff Cooper, Vyvyan Adams (MP for Leeds, Central), Paul Emrys Evans (Derbyshire, South) and Ronald Tree (Harborough). The Liberals included Isaac Foot, the party leader; Sir Archibald Sinclair, Leslie Hore-Belisha, Major-General Edward Spears, Harold Macmillan and Nigel Nicolson. Among those from the Labour Party were Hugh Dalton, the party leader; Clement Attlee, Arthur Greenwood, and Albert Victor Alexander.

(1) In OTL Nicholson was elected as National Labour MP for Leicester, West in the general election of November 1935: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Nicolson. As he was never a Conservative, and in this TL the Labour Party is the third party I have him as a Liberal. I made him MP for Shoreditch because that was probably the most middle class/least working class Liberal held constituency in London which was vacant at the January 1936 general election.

[pipisme]

While some Conservatives expressed support for the Nationalists in the civil war in Spain, they did not want a change in the British government's policy of non-intervention. Vyvyan Adams was the only Conservative MP, and the Duchess of Atholl was the only Conservative Senator, who supported the Spanish Republican government.

The Liberal Party policy was support for the policy of non-intervention in Spain and for the British government to mediate in the conflict.

The Labour Party was divided. At its annual conference in early October 1936 a resolution by the National Executive Committee which supported by non-intervention was passed by a majority of about three to one after a bitter debate. One argument against giving aid to the Spanish government was that it might provoke civil war in France and the collapse of the Popular Front government.

The Independent Labour Party (ILP) was strongly committed to the cause of the Republicans in Spain. An ILP contingent of volunteers went to fight on the Republican side. In January 1937 James Maxton, the ILP leader, savagely attacked the government, accusing them of tacitly supporting the Fascists. The Tories class prejudices were with Franco.

After thirty years in control of the London County Council (LCC) by the Municipal Reform Movement (Conservatives), the council elections on 4 March 1937 resulted in the Progressives (Liberals) gaining control. Sir Edgar Bonham Carter became Leader of the LCC. The results were as follows, with the 1934 results in brackets:

Progressives: 68 (36)
Municipal Reform Movement: 34 (63)
Labour: 17 (22)
ILP: 5 (3).

[stevep]

Originally Posted by pipisme

While some Conservatives expressed support for the Nationalists in the civil war in Spain, they did not want a change in the British government's policy of non-intervention. Vyvyan Adams was the only Conservative MP, and the Duchess of Atholl was the only Conservative Senator, who supported the Spanish Republican government.

The Liberal Party policy was support for the policy of non-intervention in Spain and for the British government to mediate in the conflict.

The Labour Party was divided. At its annual conference in early October 1936 a resolution by the National Executive Committee which supported by non-intervention was passed by a majority of about three to one after a bitter debate. One argument against giving aid to the Spanish government was that it might provoke civil war in France and the collapse of the Popular Front government.

The Independent Labour Party (ILP) was strongly committed to the cause of the Republicans in Spain. An ILP contingent of volunteers went to fight on the Republican side. In January 1937 James Maxton, the ILP leader, savagely attacked the government, accusing them of tacitly supporting the Fascists. The Tories class prejudices were with Franco.

After thirty years in control of the London County Council (LCC) by the Municipal Reform Movement (Conservatives), the council elections on 4 March 1937 resulted in the Progressives (Liberals) gaining control. Sir Edgar Bonham Carter became Leader of the LCC. The results were as follows, with the 1934 results in brackets:

Progressives: 68 (36)
Municipal Reform Movement: 34 (63)
Labour: 17 (22)
ILP: 5 (3).

pipisme

Interesting. That's quite a swing for the Liberals and they seem to be gaining support from the other parties as well, Presumably there's a fair bit of debate over what's motivating those boosts in voter support.

Steve

[pipisme]

The Social Insurance Act 1933 enacted by the Liberal/Labour coalition. provided for a flat rate of benefit paid to all unemployed adult men with allowances for his wife and any children. Unemployed adult women received 85% of the adult male benefit, whether or not she was married. The age of adulthood was 21. Unemployed young men and women below the age of 21 received 75% of the adult men's and women's benefit respectively, whether or not they were living at home with their parents. The full rate of unemployment benefits for gender and age were paid only to those who had paid at least six months contributions to the social insurance fund. Those who had paid less than six months received 10% less benefit for each month short of the six months. So five months would be 90% of the full rate down to 50% for one month, and 40% for less than one month, or none at all. Payment of the benefits was not dependent on the claimant having to prove that they were actively seeking work to the local welfare benefit officers, however they had to be available for work. Savings and other income in the same household (e.g. a mother-in-law receiving a war widow's pension) did not affect the level of unemployment benefit.

These comparatively generous conditions for qualification where denounced by the Tories as encouraging scroungers to live off taxpayers money.

The Unemployment Insurance Reform Bill introduced by the Hoare government into the House of Commons in early May 1936 had the following provisions:

The minimum number of qualifying contributions was increased from six months to twelve months. But the 10 percent taper would end at seven months, so that those who had six months or less would receive only 40% of the full rate.

A married woman would receive unemployment benefit only if she had paid contributions since marriage, and if she was able to prove that was normally employed.

All claimants had to prove that they were actively seeking work.

Young people below the age of 21 would not receive unemployment benefit if they were living at home with their parents.

Payment of benefit would be disallowed if there were any savings or any other income in a household, or any saleable household possessions. Investigating officers would have the right to enter into a claimant's dwelling to see if they had any saleable items.

The Bill was passionately denounced by all to the left of the Tories. However it received its second reading in the House of Commons on 6 May 1936 by a majority of 15.

It passed through all its stages in the Commons by the end of June with all the opposition amendments defeated, although two Tory women members (Nancy Astor and Thelma Keir) voted in favour of abolishing the provisions which specifically affected married women.

It now went to the Senate which had the power to veto it.

[pipisme]

Under the Unemployment Insurance Reform Bill, unemployment benefit would not be totally disallowed if family allowance was being paid for the children in a household, but the benefit would be reduced by the amount of the family allowance.

The debate in the Senate on the second reading took place on 9 July 1936. It was refused a second reading by 229 votes to 143 votes.

The Parliament Act 1935 provided for the option of settling disagreements between Commons and Lords by a joint committee of both houses with representation of each party and independents in accordance with their representation in each house. However as this would have meant an anti-Conservative majority the government decided against that option. It did not reintroduce the bill in the House of Commons.

[perfectgeneral]

So the Conservatives have made sure they won't get any votes from the unemployed or those in insecure employment. All that political capital (maybe not so much given they are Conservatives) has been spent for nothing. The bill has died in the Senate.

I really like the combination of Commons and Senate to resolve disputes, but won't this lead to a merger of the two?

[pipisme]

Originally posted by perfectgeneral
I really like the combination of Commons and Senate to resolve disputes, but won't this lead to a merger of the two?

It would not because there is only the option of a government referring legislation to a joint committee of both houses. However with say a small Conservative majority in the Commons and a substantial anti-Conservative majority in the Senate, any joint committee would have a medium-size anti-Conservative majority. There is some resemblance to conference committees of the US House of Representatives and Senate appointed to resolve disputes on bills.

Because the Senate had a democratic legitimacy which the House of Lords never had, it was a credible rival to the House of Commons. Tories complained about the partially elected Senate overriding the decision of the wholly elected Commons. Though it was pointed out by their opponents that hereditary composition of the House of Lords didn't stop the Tories from using their inbuilt majority to veto Liberal legislation before its veto was abolished by the Parliament Act 1911. The majority of the Senate was elected (285 out of 418 members), by the Single Transferable Vote, a method of election claimed by some as more democratic than first past the post.

The Senate had the powers of the pre 1911 House of Lords, except that it could not delay or veto money bills. The government was still formed from the party or parties which had a majority in the Commons.