Tiffany Burrows takes a look at the 1923 election, the last time voters went to the polls in December.

Voters in the UK go to the polls tomorrow. The last time the electorate went to the polls in December was 1923. Will Boris Johnson’s election gamble succeed, or will the ghost of elections past haunt him and the Conservatives to deliver a hung parliament as it did to his predecessor in 1923?

In 1923, Stanley Baldwin, a Conservative Prime Minister who had held the role for only a few months, called an election to seek a mandate for a change in policy direction from his predecessor and to pursue a controversial policy (Tariff Reform/Protection). Sound familiar?

The make-up of the electorate was vastly different to today – the Representation of the People Act in 1918 trebled the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million, but suffrage was still not universal.  While men over the age of 21 were able to vote, women who did not own property and women under the age of 30 were still unable to do so. Can parallels be drawn between the manifestos of the parties of old and their modern incarnations?

Protect the Home Market

So what were Baldwin and the Conservatives promising?

The UK was still recovering from the aftermath of the First World War. The 1923 Conservative manifesto argued that the situation was “due to the political and economic disorganisation of Europe” and Baldwin vowed to “continue to devote every effort through the League of Nations […] to the restoration of a true peace in Europe.” He also added that “even if it does not become worse, is not likely to be normal for years to come.” The establishment of a new European order (whilst the circumstances dictating the necessity of such are vastly different) certainly will not seem unfamiliar to today’s politicians and voters.

The Conservatives also identified that the “indefinite continuance” of unemployment and under-employment “threatens to impair permanently the trained skill and the independent spirit of our workers, to disorganise the whole fabric of industry and credit, and, by eating away the sources of revenue, to undermine the very foundations of our national and municipal life.” Baldwin argued that “drastic measures” were needed. Baldwin’s answer? Imposing tariffs on imported manufactured goods. 

Baldwin argued that the situation “exposed us to a competition which is essentially unfair and is paralysing enterprise and initiative” and justified his position by asserting that “trade which is subject to the arbitrary interference of every foreign tariff, and at the mercy of every disturbance arising from the distractions of Europe, is in no sense free, and is certainly not fair to our own people.” It was his intention that this policy would create fairer competition and encourage increased home production.

Give Labour a Chance

Ramsay MacDonald, the leader of the recently formed Labour Party, accused the Conservatives of failing to tackle unemployment and refuted Baldwin’s policy, stating that “tariffs are not a remedy for unemployment.” Labour explained that tariffs “are an impediment to the free interchange of goods and services” and “foster a spirit of profiteering, materialism and selfishness, poison the life of nations, lead to corruption in politics, promote trusts and monopolies, and impoverish the people.” Whilst the language is dated, the sentiment would not look out of place in today’s Labour literature.

Labour proposed its own solutions to the unemployment crisis, urging “the immediate adoption of national schemes of productive work” and the introduction of a Labour Programme of National Work which would “not only provide a remedy for the present distress, but are also investments for the future”. MacDonald argued for “adequate maintenance for those who cannot obtain employment to earn a livelihood for themselves and their families”.

Labour stated that they would regulate wages in agriculture, reduce Income Tax, abolish Food Duties, Entertainments Tax and the Corporation Profits Tax, and use the “increased revenue from Taxation of Land Values” and “reduction of expenditure on armaments” to fund these tax reductions as well as “provide money for necessary Social Services”. Unlike Labour’s manifesto today, it is interesting that the Labour Party of 1923 was advocating tax cuts, as opposed to tax rises.

To tackle the war debt, Labour pledged to “work out a scheme to impose a non-recurring, graduated War Debt Redemption levy on all individual fortunes in excess of £5,000” (£297,000 in today’s money according to the Bank of England inflation calculator).

The Labour Party also called for the “creation of a Commonwealth Co-operative Service” which in practice would mean “the principle of Public Ownership and Control to the Mines, the Railway Service and the Electrical Power Stations, and the development of Municipal Services”. Swapping mines for broadband, this programme of nationalisation parallels the offer of Labour in 2019.

On foreign affairs, Labour stood for a “policy of international co-operation through a strengthened and enlarged League of Nations”, a policy not too dissimilar from the Conservatives.

A Call to the Nation

Herbert Asquith’s reunited Liberals were still suffering from their split from the feud between Asquith, Lloyd George and their respective supporters in the aftermath of their wartime coalition government. Jo Swinson will be undoubtedly know how it feels to deal with the legacy of difficult coalition choices…

On European policy, the Liberals argued that “no greater economic, political or moral question has confronted Europe than the French and Belgian occupation of the heart of Germany industry in the Ruhr”. One particular phrase that leaps off the page as being strikingly reminiscent of Liberal Democrat sentiment is: “by moral indecision, by divided counsels, and by diplomatic incompetence, the Government have failed in Europe and Asia alike, to make one single effect effort to assert our rights, to restore our trade, or to bring back peace and order to a distracted world”. The Liberal manifesto also added that it would “welcome the reopening of full relations with Russia” and that “the whole force of the Liberal Party will be thrown into the support of the League of Nations.”

The Liberals described Baldwin’s tariff “cure for unemployment” as “unproved and unproveable”. In rejecting the Tory policy of protection, the Liberals were also “equally convinced that the remedies recommended for unemployment by the Labour Party - Socialism and the Capital Levy - would prove disastrous…what is needed is not the destruction of enterprise but its encouragement; not the frightening away of capital but its fruitful use.” The latter part of this statement reads remarkably like something that could feature in a Lib Dem document today.

Like Labour, the Liberals pledged to invest in education and housing, and supported equality of women and men. Both the Liberals and Labour begin their manifestos by highlighting the perceived failures of the incumbent Conservative government to tackle the issues of the day. This was, and is, an easier argument for Labour which has not been in government for nine years, and in 1923, ever.

Conclusion

Every election reflects the issues of the day, but it is fascinating that some issues, notably, unemployment, trade, economic policy, and above all our relationship with Europe, featured just as prominently 90 years ago as they do today.  The current Prime Minister may well sympathise with some of the sentiments in the Conservative Manifesto back in 1923, particularly regarding Europe. In just over 36 hours, we will know whether history will be repeated, or the Conservatives can remain in office.