The wild rollercoaster of the 1920s

The 1920s are rather the forgotten decade of British politics. The ‘long 1920s’, from the general election of 1918 until that of 1931, was a wild rollercoaster of gyrating election results. It saw the British political party system changed fundamentally as first past the post butted up against politics not being a two-party affair.

Outside of the two World Wars, this was probably the most consequential decade for British politics since the battle of Waterloo. (Which thankfully showed that Wellington was a rather better general than politician.)

The election of 1918 saw a coalition landslide, then 1922 saw one of those coalition partners slip to third (the Liberals) and a large majority for the other coalition partner (the Conservatives) on its own. But that majority then evaporated in the election just a year later, which saw a new party (Labour) in power for the very first time, as a minority government. That government then also lost office in an election only a year later as the 1924 election resulted in a massive Conservative landslide. But did that last? Heck no, for when the next election came in 1929 it was a hung Parliament again, with Labour winning more votes but fewer seats than the Conservatives. A minority Labour government then became a coalition government which won a landslide two years later.

Across those six elections, British politics was completely remade. 1918 and 1928 were the landmark years for women’s political equality with the minority male population. Labour replaced the Liberals as one of the big two parties in British politics. 1918 saw the last general election victory for a government headed by a Liberal. By 1931 the party was split three ways, with under a 100 MPs and not going to get back above 20% of the vote until the 1980s.

That is without even getting into perhaps the most important faked document in British political history (the Zinoviev Letter).

In other words, first past the post really cannot cope when more than two parties are in contention – and a landslide at one election is no guarantee of a long-lasting period in power.

That gives lesson number one for us. While first past the post cannot cope with volatility in our party system, the persistent pattern was that doing well on seat numbers, not on vote share, was what gave parties political success.

Just as we showed so spectacularly at the 2024 general election – and at both the 2024 and 2025 local elections – we do best when we focus on winning under the rules in front of us. Targeting and seats are what matter most under first past the post.

The other two lessons come from the fact that the 1920s were also home to two things that the party collectively still loves.

One is the party’s electoral posters of the time, such as:

Wander around a Liberal Democrat Federal Conference, and chances are you will find merchandise on sale with a poster such as this on it.

We really like the message of posters such as these. So too the policies of this decade. For even with all the problems of changing times making some old policies look horribly dated, the 1920s are still one of the most idolised periods of Liberal policy-making.

The contributions of John Maynard Keynes, William Beveridge and Lloyd George’s ‘Yellow Book’ (formally titled Britain’s Industrial Future) are all still seen touchstones for liberals, with calls for a new Beveridge or the titling new publication in honour of the Yellow Book still common now. The 1929 Liberal general election manifesto has even been described by the (non-Liberal Democrat) historian Robert Skidelsky as the most intellectually distinguished manifesto ever put before British voters.

That may sound impressive… but then think back to what happened politically to the Liberal Party in these years. Lovely posters, great manifesto – and a party split three ways, trounced in elections and pushed out of serious contention for decades to come.

That 1929 manifesto and approach, much like the formation of the Alliance ahead of the 1983 elections, produced a surge in votes that did not convert into enough seats to be a political success in a system where the number of MPs elected under first past the post to the House of Commons is the dominant measure of success or failure.

Remembering those other two lessons then – that messaging has to appeal not only to ourselves but to the voters, and that there is more to a successful campaign than a collection of great policies – served us well last year, and will do so again in this Parliament, if we continue to apply them.

Thank you, Mike Ross