‘balfour’s Leadership Was Responsible for the Decline in the Power of the Conservative (unionist) Party in the Years 1902 to 1906.’ How Valid Is This View?

...

had stood by for decades. British farmers were aware that through free trade, they had cheaper food and in times where over 30% of the population lived in poverty, the “big loaf” seemed to be much more favourable than Chamberlain’s “small loaf”. In the two years that these talks went on, Balfour expressed that he had no opinion on tariff reform, and therefore, he let talks continue which only worsened the stature of the Unionists; the party had split into several factions- the “Whole Hoggers”, “Free Fooders”, “Balfourites” and “Hughligans”.

Where the Conservative side of the Unionist Party were “Whole Hoggers”; in favour of tariff reform, the Liberal Unionists slowly shifted back to the Liberal Party where the majority were “Free Fooders”; in favour of the continuance of free trade. The “Hughligans” were supporters of free trade, led by Lord Salisbury’s son, Hugh Cecil. As Balfour remained “sat on the fence” and impartial, a third faction, the “Balfourites” established. These people were in favour of supporting the side that the Prime Minister took, as it is the Prime Minister’s role to manage the economy in its best interests. When observing from a historical viewpoint, when a political party is split, it is not in a position to be elected in the next Election, and such was the position of the Unionists. Rather than taking a firm stance, Balfour tried to hide the split in his government however, this merely provoked ridicule, and generated more support for the Liberals. Robert Blake described the Unionists as “hopelessly divided on all the main political issues”, which was “an achievement for any campaign”. This reflects how senseless Balfour’s leadership was in a time where the party was in desperate need to be invigorated.

Leading up to the 1906 General Election whereby the Unionist Party suffered, the Liberal Party had begun to revitalise, all due to the ineffectuality of Balfour’s ministry. However, the factor that allowed the Liberals to become predominant was the effects of Joseph Chamberlain’s tariff reform. Balfour resigned as Prime Minister in December 1905, hoping the Liberal leader Campbell-Bannerman would be unable to form a strong government; another oversight by Balfour that ignominiously lost him his own seat.

The difference in-between the Unionists and the Liberals was that the majority of Unionists were conformists and the Liberals hence were non-conformists. This meant that in the 1902 Education Act where local rates were going to be used to pay for conformist Church schools, outrage erupted as people did not accept that their money should be used to pay for schools they are not in support of. The Act was notoriously dubbed as “Rome on the rates” by many non-conformists. For Robert Blake, the passing of this Act was another one of Balfour’s “blind spots” as he failed to grasp the indignation the measure would cause. Many Liberal Unionists that had once united with the Unionists over Home Rule, soon went back to the Liberals after learning that they were not in a party that represented their beliefs, allowing support for the Liberals to rebuild, and consequently fall for the Unionists.

Similarly, the 1904 Licensing Act passed by Balfour was to guarantee more support for the Liberals. The Licensing Act attempted to reduce the numbers of public houses in areas where they were not needed. This Act infuriated the temperance section of the non-conformists as Balfour’s government proposed to compensate brewers for any losses they may have encountered. As the majority of brewers were strong supporters of the Conservatives, non-conformists viewed the Act as a “brewer’s bill” in which they did not benefit; Balfour acted in the interests of this own class rather than in the national interest.

...