Factors in Opposition Performance: The Conservative Experience since 1867

  • Stuart Ball

Abstract

The Conservative Party has been in office much more than it has been in opposition, and its public identity and its own self-image are bound up with being a party of government. Between 1867 and the end of 2004, the Conservatives were in office for 86 years and in opposition for 51 years (see Table 1.1 below). Periods of extended dominance led to the Conservatives being seen as the ‘natural’ party of government, which was to their electoral advantage. The consequence was that they found opposition to be stressful, considering it an aberrant state of affairs rather than part of the normal cycle. However, although sometimes difficult and turbulent, the spells in opposition have been of crucial importance in the history and development of the Conservative Party. The most significant changes in its attitudes, policies and organization have followed from the shock of defeat. The Conservatives’ uncomfortable spells in opposition have seen leadership crises, factional strife and intense debate over the Party’s future direction. They have also often been the springboard for recovering power, and the foundation for the next spell of political dominance.

Keywords

Corn Depression Europe Steam Income 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    D. Dutton, His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition: The Unionist Party in Opposition 1905–1915 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  2. S. Ball, Baldwin and the Conservative Party: The Crisis of 1929–1931 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  3. M. Garnett and P. Lynch (eds), The Conservatives in Crisis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    L. Johnman, The Conservative Party in opposition 1964–1970’, in R. Coopey, S. Fielding and N. Tiratsoo (eds), The Wilson Governments 1964–1970 (London: Pinter, 1993), 184–206.Google Scholar
  5. J.D. Hoffman, The Conservative Party in Opposition 1945–1951 (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1964).Google Scholar
  6. R. Behrens, The Conservative Party from Heath to Thatcher: Policies and Politics 1974–1979 (Farnborough: Saxon House, 1980).Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    R.A. Butler, The Art of the Possible (Hamish Hamilton: London, 1971), 135.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    Lord H. Cecil, Conservatism (London: Williams and Norgate, 1912), 9–10.Google Scholar
  9. Q. Hogg, The Case for Conservatism (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1947), 11–12.Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    For a critical view of the Conservative Party’s position in 1914, see S. Ball, The Conservative Party and British Politics 1902–1951 (London: Longman, 1995), 55–56.Google Scholar
  11. E.H.H. Green, The Crisis of Conservatism: The Politics, Economics and Ideology of the British Conservative Party 1880–1914 (London: Routledge, 1995), 297–306.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    A. Rowe, The Community Affairs Department 1975–79’, in S. Ball and I. Holliday (eds), Mass Conservatism: The Conservatives and the Public since the 1880s (London: Frank Cass, 2002), 200–17.Google Scholar
  13. D.J. Wilson, ‘Constituency Party autonomy and central control’, Political Studies, 21 (1973), 167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 11.
    See D. Powell, ‘The Liberal Ministries and Labour 1892–1895’, History, 68 (1983).Google Scholar
  15. D. Howell, British Workers and the Independent Labour Party 1888–1906 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    For the development of the party organization in the Disraelian age, see E.J. Feuchtwanger, Disraeli, Democracy and the Tory Party (London: Oxford University Press, 1968).Google Scholar
  17. M. Pugh, The Tories and the People 1880–1935 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985).Google Scholar
  18. S. Ball, ‘The national and regional Party structure’, and S. Ball, ‘Local Conservatism and the evolution of the Party organization’, in A. Seldon and S. Ball (eds), Conservative Century: The Conservative Party since 1900 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 169–220, 261–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 15.
    S. Ball, ‘The 1922 Committee: the formative years 1922–45’, Parliamentary History, 9 (1990), 153, 155–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stuart Ball 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Ball

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations