Lloyd George's government was destroyed more by his style than by the content of his policies.

Essay by sykopowerHigh School, 12th gradeA-, May 2003

download word file, 9 pages 2.2

Downloaded 41 times

Lloyd George's government was destroyed more by his style than by the content of his policies

From 1916-1922, Lloyd George, a Liberal, was in a coalition government with the Conservatives. The Conservatives entered this coalition as they had been out of power since 1902 and wanted the popularity Lloyd George would bring, particularly with the new electorate, which had tripled. Lloyd George was believed to have the skills to sort out post war problems, for example Reconstruction, and suppress the rise of Labour. During the war, he had proved to be a capable, flexible realist. There was strong support for Lloyd George in the highest ranks of the Conservative party, as they had worked with him during the war, however, the back-benchers were willing to support him only whilst they needed to. In 1922, the coalition collapsed, this was due to both Lloyd George's independent strong-willed character and also his policies, for example, on Chanak.

Policy was an important factor in the destruction of the coalition; the Liberal's policy was that of social-reform, but the Conservatives did not believe in getting involved in people's lives, and considered the economy more important, this resulted in tensions in the coalition. For example, the Liberal's had a policy of reconstruction, building low-cost housing, to create "a land fit for heroes," the Conservatives wanted to cut down on government expenditure and forced Lloyd George to drop the policy in 1921. People lost faith in him due to his inability to keep his promises and create the land he had promised, although it could be argued that this was the result of the economy, not his inadequacies, his presidential style meant that people held controversial parliamentary decisions against him personally. Conflict in policies led to dissatisfaction with the coalition, within both parties, and therefore,