How successful was the conservative party from 1918-1928?

As a party the Conservatives can be seen to have achieved considerable success between the years 1918-28. Before the war the party had lost 3 consecutive elections, whereas during the period 1918-28 they were in power for all but 10 months of those 10 years (First Labour Government January- October 1924). It can then be seen through their domination of power that they were very successful. However during the first 4 of those years, whilst in power, they shared it with the Liberal Party, as their chances of winning as an individual party were near non-existent and so this limits the extent of their success. Their failings can also be seen through Stanley Baldwin, whose misjudged decision to hold a general election led the party to disaster in 1924 and lost them their position in government. I will argue that the Conservatives were very successful during those years, and that whilst such success was lessened by these two factors, the period 1918-28 was a largely prosperous time for the party. Doubtful of their abilities to win the pre was election as a single party the conservatives decided to continue with the war time coalition with the Liberals.

This thwarts their success as a party as the aim is to achieve power as a single group rather than one which is merged with another. However through their alliance with Lloyd George they were able to win support from Liberal and non-committed voters. By attacking the Liberal Party they were able to persuade Liberal voters and politicians to turn to Conservatism. This strengthened the party and ensured their later success. The Conservatives strength was clearly demonstrated in the general election held directly after the war in 1918. They held 382 of 523 coalition MP’s elected and so held a clear majority. They can be seen as very successful in the achievement of completely dwarfing the other two parties whose votes accounted to a mere 28 Liberals and 63 Labour MPs. At the time both the Labour and Liberal parties were both split which further highlighted the Conservatives unity. The Conservatives after winning the election of 1922, although successful in holding a majority in government, were split, as many of those who had remained faithful to the former coalition to the end had refused to take office in Law’s cabinet. As they had been in 1918 the Liberal party was also still split, resulting in disaster for them at the election, winning only 116 seats between those loyal to LG and Asquith.

However for the Conservative party the split did not have as major implications as it did for the other two parties. Whereas the Liberal and Labour split was reflected negatively in election results the Conservative split was not and they still won the campaign that year by a considerable majority. The resultant implication however of the absence of loyal coalitionists led to the largely unknown Stanley Baldwin being appointed as their leader, barely two years after first even being assigned a major ministerial post. Although whilst he brought much in the name of success to the party later on, his beginnings in office did not initially lead to favourable outcomes for the party. The most unsuccessful moment for conservatives came during the 1923 election. During the campaign Baldwin had announced that he was considering the introduction of tariffs to protect British industry and jobs. Because Bonar Law said he wouldn’t not do this, Baldwin felt obliged to call a general election on 6th December.

This proved to be a miscalculation that briefly reunited the ailing Liberal Party and gave an opportunity for a minority Labour Party government. It can be seen as the most unsuccessful point of the time period 1918-28 and was the only time in which they were completely out of power. The loss of these elections proved that the Conservatives were not invulnerable. However the Conservatives remained the largest single party and were able to regain power the following year and so was not a particularly disastrous event for them as its effects were only short-term. The party saw considerable success under the direction of Baldwin’s leadership. His mixture of strong social reforms and steady government proved a powerful in winning elections, with the result that the Conservatives dominated the government extensively during the period. Whereas the Labour Party operated under a minority government and was reliant on Liberal support, the Conservatives could function as an independent body and was not as restrained as Labour had been. Such was only possible because of their election success.

Compared to other parties they were also able to benefit from experience in government which gave them the ability to function effectively, one of the many factors which contributed to Labours downfall in 1924. Their premiership in their capabilities to govern demonstrate the extent of their success as in order to gain experience they had to win elections which they did and in order to form an independent government, they had to win by a majority which they also were able to achieve. Further success can be seen in Baldwin’s organisational skill and ability to supress the general strike in 1926. Baldwin’s government had spent time preparing for the strike months in advance and their efforts can be seen as a testament to their efficient and effective management. However, during the strike there was a split between moderates (Baldwin) who wanted to break the strike but who did not want to be vindictive to the strikers and those like Churchill who wanted to completely eliminate the power of the unions and so they were not completely unified during the strike.

However this did not lead to any long term effects and the Conservatives none the less were successful in supressing the strike and ensuring that law and order was generally maintained. During Baldwin’s second government he was not able to do much as he had hoped and was constrained by the economic situation at the time to achieve any considerable success in reform. Neville chamberlain did introduce housing act and had attempted to reduce war debts to be paid back to the USA but was altogether unsuccessful however between 1924-29 he was the most active minister in the government introducing 21 pieces of legislation, including the Widows, orphans and old age pensions Act 1925 and The rating and valuation Act 1925. Reforms were also successfully through the establishment of the BBC, the CEB (central electricity board) in 1926 and the passing of the equal franchise act in 1928 which extended the voting age to all women aged 21-30. This heavily benefited the Conservatives and strengthened their popularity as many women who were newly able to vote, voted for the Conservative Party. As a whole their reforms were successful for several reasons.

The formation of the BBC marked the beginning of a British organisation which would become renowned for its quality, independence and trust worldwide. The Electricity supply was standardised and supplied fairly by the national grid, Franchise Act made the elections more fair and democratic, National insurance still in force today and a total of 800,000 homes were built under the two housing acts. Although their achievements can be accused of being limited in their effects, as they didn’t really help the unemployed they can be seen to have achieved a considerable amount in the difficult economic circumstances of the time and can ultimately be seen to have been far more effective than the labour party had been in 1923. One of the most damaging decisions of the Conservatives during1918-28 came from Winston Churchill. His overvaluation of the pound reduced the chance of any economic recovery in the UK and caused unemployment rise to 11% by summer 1925 where it would stay above 9% until 1929. An estimated that around 730,000 jobs which could have been created were not because of the strong pound and so the decision resulted very negatively for the country and did nothing to improve the unemployment situation, serving if anything to only make it worse. However whilst in power in 1924, Labour had not fared much better and had offered no action beyond the uncontroversial funding of public works schemes.