试论英国自由党的衰落

英国自由党的衰落是英国政治史上的一个大事 ,它历来是国外史学界研究的主要课题之一 ,但我国史学界对于这样一个重要的问题却很少有人进行研究。关于自由党的衰落问题国外有很多争论 ,争论的焦点集中在自由党衰落的时间和衰落的原因两个问题上。本文对这两个问题进行了探讨 ,提出了自由党是从 1 886年就开始衰落的观点 ,否认了自由党是在 2 0世纪初才开始衰落的流行说法 ;认为自由党的衰落则是由于英国经济的变化使自由党不能适应这个挑战和工党的兴起所导致。     

关于英国自由党百年沉浮的几点思考

本文指出 ,在有组织的对抗中失利 ,缺乏战斗的意识形态 ,并且未能在关键时刻抓住时机 ,是造成英国由贵族政治转向大众政治后自由党百年沉浮的主要原因。本文还通过对自由党命运的分析 ,认为现代英国政治又重新成为了一种“游戏”政治 ,各种政党只求执政的工具性日益突出 ,其原则性区别基本消失     

1932: A Neglected Date in the History of the Decline of the British Liberal Party

There is an historical consensus that the decline of the BritishLiberal Party, whenever it began, was essentially complete by1929 or 1931 at the latest. This article suggests that the possibilityof a Liberal revival still existed in the early 1930s, but thatit was thwarted by the formalization of divisions between Liberalsand Liberal Nationals which took place in 1932. These divisionswere not accidental, but the result of clear calculations onthe part of the Liberal National leadership. It is further arguedthat the events of this year were important in determining theelectoral politics of the following three decades—dominationby a Conservative party which set out to stress its ‘liberal’credentials and to persuade the electorate that it was the logicalrepository for the country's still significant ‘Liberalvote’. Meanwhile, an independent Liberal Party survived,but one which was far smaller and less electorally powerfulthan might have been the case if the party had remained united.     

The Liberal Party,Free Trade and the 1841 Election

It is a paradox that the Liberal Party's electoral defeat in 1841 attested to its underlying strength and vitality. This article focuses on the impact on party unity of the free trade measures advocated by the ministry in the months preceding its fall. The Liberal Party's bold electoral platform antagonised its protectionist MPs, a group previously overlooked in the historiography, but fell short of the demands of its radical wing for political reform. While all the ingredients for fragmentation existed, unity prevailed. Protestations of loyalty to the leadership could be heard from the mouths of Liberal MPs of all shades, from stalwart protectionists who coalesced around the ministry on traditional foreign policy grounds through to the most fervent radicals who celebrated its ‘new’ direction. Such findings of cohesion contradict accounts which have hitherto viewed the 1841 electoral defeat as evidence of the party's inchoateness. Indeed, this article shifts the historiographical narrative away from addressing why the Liberals lost to the more pertinent issue of why the losses suffered were not greater. In answering that question, both the sensitivity with which the financial agenda was presented by ministers and the flexibility of different sections of the Liberal Party in interpreting and presenting the free trade measures to the electorate are underlined. Above all, Lord John Russell is rehabilitated as a ‘popular’ leader and his importance in the development of the nascent Liberal Party is unearthed.