First Labour Government lacked the Whip hand in 1924

Former MP Michael Meadowcroft delivered the annual J.H. Whitley Lecture about the lack of competence of the Whips leading to the quick demise of the first Labour government

PARLIAMENTARY whips are vital to UK politics and when the system breaks down, the consequences can be serious, according to ex-MP Michael Meadowcroft when he made his contribution to a prestigious lecture series at the University of Huddersfield.

His talk explored the first, short-lived Labour government, which came to power as a minority administration in 1924.  If Labour and Liberal whips had displayed more competence, the future course of British politics might have been very different, argued Mr Meadowcroft when he delivered the 2017 J.H. Whitley Lecture. 

Story continues below...

The author of several books on Liberalism, politics and local government, Mr Meadowcroft was Liberal MP for Leeds West between 1983 and 1987 and at the start of his lecture he described himself as “a paid-up member of the Whips’ Union”, adding that “this select band of unpleasant and unhappy people are absolutely central to the running of our democracy!”

He made his case by describing political state of affairs in 1924.  After a General Election, the Conservatives were the largest party, but could not command an overall majority.  The Liberals, who had been badly split by a rift between Asquith and Lloyd George, agreed to provide support to a minority Labour administration under Ramsay MacDonald.

The Speaker at this time – a Liberal MP himself – was the Halifax-born J.H. Whitley, who presided over the House during some of the most turbulent years of the 1920s. His archive is deposited at the University of Huddersfield and he has been commemorated in a lecture series delivered by a series of distinguished politicians and historians since 2012.

Describing the situation in 1924, Mr Meadowcroft said that the Chief Whips of both Labour and the Liberals should have liaised to ensure the smooth running of Parliamentary business.

“But this clearly never happened, not even at a very basic level of ensuring enough MPs present to ensure continuation of business.  Was this a deliberate snub to the Liberals or sheer incompetence?” asked Mr Meadowcroft, who argued that the evidence was for the latter.

Labour’s Chief Whip was Ben Spoor, frequently absent through illness and alcoholism.  The Liberal Chief Whip was Vivian Phillipps, who had difficulty exercising authority over his colleagues.

The scene was set for an unruly Parliament, in which Speaker Whitley dealt calmly with outbursts from a new cohort of Labour MPs, including the ‘Red Clydesiders’.

“Parliament drifted willy nilly, without the direction and without planning.  Even worse, the Labour whips failed to rein in the hotheads in their own party who were openly anti-Liberal.”

The decline of the Liberals as a major electoral force was accelerated, but the process was quicker than it might have been and more rapid than Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald probably intended, in Mr Meadowcroft’s argument.

“Labour MPs took advantage of lack of party discipline to take the opportunity for free hits against the Liberals, who were taking as best they could a responsible attitude to being present in Parliament and maintain the government.

“It is just possible that if the 1924 Parliament had set off with better intent and with effective Labour and Liberal whips, having found the basis for co-operation, then that might have been the foundation for very different politics in ensuing years.”

Mr Meadowcroft concludes that lessons from the episode included the importance of effective whips, and also the importance of party unity – for the Asquith-Lloyd George split was massively damaging to the Liberals.