A new party could learn trick or two from Labour’s rise in the Twenties

Anyone hoping to start a new centrist party might ask themselves how Labour eclipsed the Liberals in the Twenties, and if they can repeat the trick.

The collapse of the old Liberal Party was extraordinary. In 1906 they won one of the largest landslides in history: 397 seats. Labour had just 29 seats. But by 1929, Labour had won a parliamentary majority and the Liberals were in stuck in a perpetual third place. What happened?

In the late 19th century, the Liberals stood for the expansion of democracy, industrialisation, free trade, home rule for Ireland and, increasingly, the creation of a limited welfare state. In a sense, they were consumed by the world they helped create: the rich were getting rich, the poor were losing ground, and the Liberal Party contained too many wealthy people and too many free market ideologues to meet the aspirations of the emerging working-class.

They were confronted with questions they lacked a consensus to answer. Should women get the vote? Was Ireland ready for independence? More importantly, how should the state deal with wave after wave of strikes, motivated by appalling social conditions? Herbert Asquith and Lloyd George introduced limited benefits financed by what today looks like very modest increases in tax. The Lords fought back; the Liberals tiptoed down the path of constitutional reform. They went too far for the philosophical conservatives, who rallied back to the Tories, but not far enough for a working-class that was radicalised and organised. In 1918, Parliament voted through the Fourth Reform Act and the electorate tripled overnight. Labour was the chief beneficiary.

That said, its eventual victory was still a long, hard crawl. Labour was founded in 1900 and took until 1924 to form a minority administration. It lasted a year. It was only in 1929 that Ramsay Macdonald won enough seats to form a stable government. What did Labour have going for it? Superb organisation, for a start. Luck, too: the Tories and Liberals made strategic mistakes. A coherent platform: the promise to take control of the means of production represented a real break with the economic consensus. A sense of constituency: apart from the poor, Labour targeted young women known as flappers. And, crucially, it cultivated an appearance of moderation. Labour owed a lot to Marxist theory, but it distanced itself from communism, drew support from religious nonconformists and, thanks to its spell of government in 1924, had set a precedent for being in charge.

A new party today would have to ask itself, like Labour in the Twenties, who it is precisely aimed at. Paradoxically, it would also need to broaden its support as widely and as soon as possible, if it is to reach beyond a limited base and become the party of opposition in the Commons.

It certainly could not rely solely upon the unpopularity of the old parties to win. Labour emerged as a winner because it had a positive programme for government – it was not some flash-in-the-pan protest vote.