Reflections On The Welsh Wizard

Books read this week: The Great Outsider: David Lloyd George (Roy Hattersley) 7/10

This is the second best biography of a Liberal prime minister written by a former Labour frontbencher called Roy I have ever read. Lloyd George is one of the two or three most influential and important British politicians of the 20th Century; Churchill (obviously) comes first, and Attlee and Lloyd George fight it out for second place. The modern Welfare State and modern cabinet government both owe their genesis to the Welsh Wizard. And yet Lloyd George is a far more divisive figure than either Churchill or Attlee; Hattersley notes on the very first page that Roy Jenkins (author of the brilliant biography of Gladstone which is the best biography of a Liberal prime minister written by a former Labour frontbencher called Roy) suggested to him that a new biography of Lloyd George was needed, but that he (Jenkins) bore such an animosity towards a prime minister who left office before he could walk that he could never write it himself.

There are a number of reasons why Lloyd George is so polarising; his fondness for vicious personal attacks on his political opponents; his brilliance ("When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."); the way in which any novus homo has to tread on toes to get ahead. I think the most important reason however is that if you could sum up Lloyd George in a single word, it would be "devious". If you could use two it would be "devious" and "unprincipled". Hattersley does a good job of showing that whilst these attributes made Lloyd George an unpleasant individual, they also made him a first class political operator - the man who broke the House of Lords, established old age pensions and unemployment benefit and won the First World War. It was said of Gladstone that if he had been a worse man he would have been a better politician; that reproach could never be made to Lloyd George.

The comparison with Gladstone is an interesting one; Gladstone created the Liberal Party, and Lloyd George destroyed it. They were both electrifying orators, and both profoundly shaped by their early religious experiences. They were at their best when heading gigantic popular campaigns, and made their mark as Chancellors before ascending to Number 10. Although Gladstone was a devout Anglican, there is something very puritanical about his outlook; Lloyd George, on the other hand, although a non-conformist was far more relaxed in his dealings with others. And both engaged in behaviour which, whilst well known to their political colleagues, would have destroyed their careers had it become more widely know; in Gladstone's case, self-flagellation and the frequenting of prostitutes; in Lloyd George's his numerous affairs. By the by, I have often thought that Gladstone's case is a clear example of how politics has changed for the better over the last hundred years or so; in the present day, it is inconceivable that if the Prime Minister's favourite pastime was wandering London's red light district in the early hours of the morning, picking up prostitutes that (a) this information would remain secret and (b) that the Prime Minister would keep his job. Both also showed a willingness to take advantage of those around them, with a disregard for others that verges on callousness, motivated by a sense of their own personal destiny, to which the destinies of everyone around them were to be subordinated. The crucial difference between them was this; Gladstone would never allow politics to get in the way of his principles. Lloyd George never allowed his principles to get in the way of his politics. That said, I'd choose to spend an evening talking with Lloyd George over Gladstone any day; there is something very priggish and unattractive about Gladstone; as his wife said "William, if you weren't such a great man, you'd be a terrible bore.". Whereas Lloyd George (despite his commitment to temperance) would be very entertaining company.

Lloyd George was a cottage born Welshman. He was (I believe) the first and only British Prime Minister not to speak English as his first language. He was also the first working class Prime Minister the United Kingdom ever had; unlike Gladstone, Lloyd George got into parliament without patrons, without mentors and without family money. And he did this at a time when MPs were unpaid (a restriction on working class participation in politics with Lloyd George himself lifted). It is this which is behind many of the less reputable aspects of Lloyd George's career; his exploitation of his brother's business, his shady investments and his sale of honours; Salisbury and Balfour could draw on the enormous Cecil family wealth, and the Chamberlains on their father's millions. Lloyd George had to make his own way.

One thing which distinguishes Lloyd George from both Churchill and Attlee was that his best, and most enduring work was done when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than Prime Minister. The People's Budget of 1909, and its political fallout, still have ramifications today. The Welfare State and the National Health Service both originate in the idea first put forward by Lloyd George in 1909 that the state has a duty not just to ameliorate the effects of poverty, but to actually eliminate it. Meanwhile, Asquith, the Liberal Prime Minister at this juncture, spent most Cabinet meetings composing love letters to his mistress, one of his daughter's school friends. Lloyd George was also sleeping with one of his daughter's school friends, but had the good grace not to write to her during cabinet (although he did form a one-sided suicide pact with her, so I think the points for this round go to Asquith. Go Asquith!). Hattersley's description of this period suffers because of the inevitable comparison with Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England, which is a superb book, and one of the very best (and funniest) books I have ever read.

Lloyd George's tenure as Prime Minister was less successful; he was unable (or thought himself unable, which amounts to the same thing in politics)  to fire Douglas Haig, despite his gross incompetence and disregard for human life. He therefore bears a significant responsibility for the massacre in the mud at Passchendaele. Although the prosecution of the war was hideously botched, this was nothing compared to the utter disaster that was the Versailles treaty. And for that, Lloyd George carries a heavy burden of blame. However, he did revolutionise the office of the Prime Minister, creating the cabinet office and instituting the taking of minutes at cabinet meetings (I was amazed that minutes were not already being taken; just one sign of how backward the government of this country was at the outbreak of war). Both of these innovations have had far reaching consequences and shape British government to this day.

After Lloyd George left office, to be replaced by Bonar Law (The Man Formerly Known As The Unknown Prime Minister; we really need a new one - Lord Rosebery perhaps?) both Lloyd George and the book enter a slow decline; as is so often the case, Lloyd George was burned out when he left office, and displaced by younger, hungrier men. Towards the end of his life we have the unedifying spectacle of Ramsay Mac (not one of the sharpest Prime Ministers we've ever had) stringing the aging Lloyd George along with a promise of AV. It is quite amusing; there is a passage in John O'Farrell's history of Britain (which I reviewed a couple of months ago) where he says, basically, 1918: Liberal Party is defeated in a general election and immediately begins whining about electoral reform. I though that was a joke.

There is lots more to say here about the suffragettes and the People's budget; about the relationship between Lloyd George and the trade unions and about the death (I should say euthanasia) of the Liberal Party; about how the Liberals chose to die rather than to change. But it is getting late, and this post is already very long.  I'm sure I'll return to these topics again.

One last, and very strange thing: Lloyd George's love child with his secretary (and later second wife) was adopted by her birth mother, and then told that her parents were murdered African missionaries. Who does that to a child?

My final verdict on Lloyd George: fun guy to have a (suitably non-alcoholic) drink with, but I wouldn't trust him with my wallet.