Posted by Will Patrick
5 January 2023By Will Patrick
University of Exeter
The National Government of 1931-1940 was formed in response to an escalating financial crisis. It consisted of the leaders of the three main parties and most of their respective supporters, with the exception of Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald who carried with him only a handful of his as âNational Labourâ MPs. Thomas departs from the conventional views of the National Government both as a top-down imposition of Conservative party strategy, and as part of an explanation of their dominance during the inter-war period (2, 3). Instead, his central question is why, after rejecting the Lloyd George coalition in 1922, local Conservatives were not merely content, but actively keen, to sacrifice the benefits of single party government in favour of maintaining the national character of the government (4, 258). Thomasâs primary argument throughout is that the governmentâs ânationalâ label, and the presence within it of figures such as MacDonald and Sir John Simon, gave activists on the ground an opportunity to engage both Labour and Liberal voters in a way that would have been difficult had there only been a solely Conservative government, an argument he makes very effectively (68).
Whilst not wholly divorced from the realm of high politics, Thomas adopts a fascinating and novel approach to the study of the National Government. This is reflected in the structure he uses to approach the subject, through which the book is divided into three parts. With Chapter 2 looking at the national appeals made by the Conservative party management prior to 1931, and Chapter 3 at the key developments over the course of the National Government, this first part of the book serves to contextualise the local appeals that Thomas explores in the second part. Studying twelve constituencies as his primary case studies, the following chapters look, in turn, at Conservative grassroots activities in industrial, suburban and rural constituencies, before discussing, together, Wales and Scotland. The final part looks at the period following the resignation of Baldwin in 1937 and the anticipated general election in 1940.
As Thomas accepts, the twelve primary constituency case studies cannot be wholly representative of the over six-hundred constituencies, but he argues that through these twelve we are able to gain insights into the political cultures of their neighbours (7-8). One such insight, a valuable corrective to the anachronistic view of the period as one of Conservative dominance, is the fear among contemporary Conservatives of the continuing threat of Labour after 1931 (83). The crisis of that year provided local Conservatives with a unique opportunity to compete with Labour in terms of offering effective government (67). Rejecting the Thatcherite view of it as being dogmatically laissez faire, Thomas argues that it was the National Government, and not the theorising of Keynes, that set the precedent for the post-war consensus, and that this progressive narrative was something local Conservatives were largely pleased to use (5, 265, 267).
Something Thomas establishes through his extensive exploration of local archives is the vibrancy of the political cultures at a constituency level. Shown throughout the book is the Conservativesâ ability, under the aegis of National Government, to embrace – at the very least ostensibly – apolitical activities to engage non-party constituents, through club life or events such as âsmoking concertsâ that fostered a sense of community, as occurred in suburban estates (122-123, 146). Given, as Thomas asserts, the continuing local prominence of Liberals, regardless of their strictly electoral power, the âNationalâ label was seen as vital for locals wishing to engage with Liberal voters, who many saw as representative of the non-party voters who had helped secure such an overwhelming National victory in 1931 (93, 175).
Through the book Thomas aims to challenge the insular view of 1931 as the success of Baldwinâs cross-party appeal, and instead bring to the fore the fact that local Conservatives also had to make such appeals themselves (130-131). Whether through criticism of the governmentâs restrictive gambling legislation or through embracing the paternalistic identity of landlords of large estates contrary to the position of the party leadership, these local appeals were not always dictated from above (125, 173-174, 176). Indeed, such independence helps to support Thomasâ challenge to the view of the National Government as an extension of Conservative high-political strategy (2-3). These are the main successes of the book; in bringing to light how membership of the National Government was embraced by, rather than imposed upon, local associations, and in showing the vibrancy of these local political cultures and the multiplicity of ways they appealed to their localities.
But Thomasâ acceptance of the claim that the National Government was more than just a Conservative one in all but name is problematic (2). As Thomas makes clear, the National Government could not be considered merely as an extension of Conservative high strategy of the 1920s. But given Neville Chamberlainâs belief, when Minister of Health during that decade, that the local Sheffield authority under Labour was not doing anything more than a progressive Conservative government would do, and the perceived failure of Baldwinâs âSafety Firstâ approach to government, it remains easy to see the National Government as a façade behind which lay the Conservatives, even if they had evolved since the 1920s (48, 55). This is where the chief methodological problem lies. Part of the question Thomas seeks to answer is why Conservatives remained committed to membership of the National Government given the cost to party morale where the Conservatives had to give way to the candidacy of a Liberal National or National Labour candidate (4). Given this, the notion that the use of twelve constituency case studies can also âensureâ consideration of seats where such candidates ran instead of Conservatives is a dubious one (7-8). Local Conservative reluctance to make way in this respect certainly gave Ramsay MacDonald cause to question their commitment to a truly âNationalâ government.[1] The problem here is in Thomas appearing to dismiss discussion of the situation in relation to National Labour, when the scope and methodology of the book cannot and does not support such a discussion itself. This is a minor point, given that this is not the focus of the book, but the claim on page two was, at any rate, unhelpful.
Nevertheless, Thomas has succeeded in bringing local Conservativesâ experience of National Government to the fore. In highlighting the seeming paradox of how this government facilitated Victorian style local politics whilst simultaneously laying the foundations of post-war government, Thomas has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of inter-war politics in general, and local Conservatism in particular (268).
[1] PRO 30 69 1177, Ramsay MacDonald to Viscount Stonehaven (Chairman of the Conservative Party), January 8, 1932. The National Archives, Kew, London.