Most Dominant Party:Democrats(1932-1980),Liberals(1935-1984),Tories(1931-1997)

[OSR stands with Israel]

What was the most dominant party out of these 3



I would actually say the Democrats in that period

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So it turns out that you're historically illiterate as well.

[OSR stands with Israel]

So it turns out that you're historically illiterate as well.

Democrats held the WH for 32/48 years during that period and Congress for 44/48 .

[Peanut]

The Canadian Liberal hegemony was disrupted 3 times in the period stipulated, and the Liberal Party has just all-around been more of a government party than the Dems or Tories.

[brucejoel99]

The Canadian Liberal hegemony was disrupted 3 times in the period stipulated, and the Liberal Party has just all-around been more of a government party than the Dems or Tories.

[DC Al Fine]

The Canadian Liberal hegemony was disrupted 3 times in the period stipulated, and the Liberal Party has just all-around been more of a government party than the Dems or Tories.

Three? Dief, Clarke, who is the third?

I'd still throw out the Canadian Liberals in the half century from 1935-1984 as one of the most dominaint groups in the West.

Their spells out of power in that stretch:
A single Tory majority (after winning five majorities in a row and losing their 6th on the campaign trail)
Three Tory minorities

Combined length: about 6.5 years... 6.5 years out of power in a half century.

[brucejoel99]

The Canadian Liberal hegemony was disrupted 3 times in the period stipulated, and the Liberal Party has just all-around been more of a government party than the Dems or Tories.

Three? Dief, Clarke, who is the third?

I'd still throw out the Canadian Liberals in the half century from 1935-1984 as one of the most dominaint groups in the West.

Their spells out of power in that stretch:
A single Tory majority (after winning five majorities in a row and losing their 6th on the campaign trail)
Three Tory minorities

Combined length: about 6.5 years... 6.5 years out of power in a half century.

Not OP but I presumed the 3rd disruption meant the end via Mulroney.

[Blair]

Worth noting the Tories went through 1940-1951 without actually being in any dominance- likewise the party really was a bystander throughout 1963-1979 (the 4 years of Heath were a sh**tshow)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So it turns out that you're historically illiterate as well.

Democrats held the WH for 32/48 years during that period and Congress for 44/48 .

I was specifically referring to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that the Conservatives suffered a crushing defeat at the 1945 election and consequentially accepted most of the agenda of the Attlee government in order to remain a viable party of government, it is highly dubious to think about the long postwar period as one of Conservative dominance and using it to link together two actual periods of Conservative dominance (the interwar period and the Thatcher/Major years) is ridiculous given how long it lasted. If we look at all the General Elections between 1945 and 1979 (inclusive on both ends) we find that Labour won five, the Tories won five and one was essentially a 'winning draw' for Labour. No party dominated during the long postwar period: it was a time of intense electoral and political competition. It isn't even possible to understand a lot of government policies - especially the less intelligent ones - without reference to this fact.

[OSR stands with Israel]

So it turns out that you're historically illiterate as well.

Democrats held the WH for 32/48 years during that period and Congress for 44/48 .

I was specifically referring to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that the Conservatives suffered a crushing defeat at the 1945 election and consequentially accepted most of the agenda of the Attlee government in order to remain a viable party of government, it is highly dubious to think about the long postwar period as one of Conservative dominance and using it to link together two actual periods of Conservative dominance (the interwar period and the Thatcher/Major years) is ridiculous given how long it lasted. If we look at all the General Elections between 1945 and 1979 (inclusive on both ends) we find that Labour won five, the Tories won five and one was essentially a 'winning draw' for Labour. No party dominated during the long postwar period: it was a time of intense electoral and political competition. It isn't even possible to understand a lot of government policies - especially the less intelligent ones - without reference to this fact.

Tories has a majority of seats for a 14 year period, 13 year period and 18 year period


Labor longest run was 6 years



And during that period Labour held a majority of seats or even a plurality for only a total of 17 years out  of an 66 year period .

[morgieb]

The UK Tories were far from the most dominant center-right Anglosphere party at the time. Look at the Australian UAP/Liberals from 1931-1983, for example.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Tories has a majority of seats for a 14 year period, 13 year period and 18 year period

Labor longest run was 6 years

And during that period Labour held a majority of seats or even a plurality for only a total of 17 years out  of an 66 year period .

Except that it isn't a period that anyone other than you would regard as existing! At its heart is a period of thirty four years in which no party was dominant! You can't just tack the interwar, postwar and Thatcher/Major periods together and argue that they form one period distinct from anything before or after but unified in themselves without making a bloody good case for it. You're making a fool of yourself.

[Blair]

As I said earlier the Tories interwar dominance was a rather strange hybrid- they were a national government from 1931-1935, and then again from 1940-1945. These were not years of Tory dominance.  

As Al said- you can't just use years, or the length of term as a yardstick for dominance- especially when Labour's six years between 1945-1951 did more to reshape the political structure than nearly any other 20th century government.

I also don't know how anyone can claim that the years of 1963-1979, which were dominated by social liberation, culture backlash (powellism) and industrial unrest were at all a period of Tory dominance.

[Rocky Rockefeller]

As I said earlier the Tories interwar dominance was a rather strange hybrid- they were a national government from 1931-1935, and then again from 1940-1945. These were not years of Tory dominance.  

The Tories won 470 seats in 1931 and 386 seats in 1935. The only reason there was a national government during this period was because the Tories chose to form one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As I said earlier the Tories interwar dominance was a rather strange hybrid- they were a national government from 1931-1935, and then again from 1940-1945. These were not years of Tory dominance.  

The Tories won 470 seats in 1931 and 386 seats in 1935. The only reason there was a national government during this period was because the Tories chose to form one.

Are you familiar with the circumstances of the 1931 political crisis at all?

[DC Al Fine]

As I said earlier the Tories interwar dominance was a rather strange hybrid- they were a national government from 1931-1935, and then again from 1940-1945. These were not years of Tory dominance.  

The Tories won 470 seats in 1931 and 386 seats in 1935. The only reason there was a national government during this period was because the Tories chose to form one.

Are you familiar with the circumstances of the 1931 political crisis at all?

I'm not. Could you explain?

[Lechasseur]

As I said earlier the Tories interwar dominance was a rather strange hybrid- they were a national government from 1931-1935, and then again from 1940-1945. These were not years of Tory dominance.  

The Tories won 470 seats in 1931 and 386 seats in 1935. The only reason there was a national government during this period was because the Tories chose to form one.

Are you familiar with the circumstances of the 1931 political crisis at all?

I'm not. Could you explain?

[Beet]

I hate to side with Old School Republican here, but if anything he is too conservative. Between 1916 and 1997, the Tories were in government for 59 out of 81 years, 73% of the time. Further, all but one Labour government during this period ended in disaster. In 1924 they lasted less than a year before being felled by red baiting. In 1929 they came in just in time for the Great Depression. In 1967 they suffered a currency crisis, then lost an election they were supposed to win. And the Callaghan government.. well no more needs to be said. Granted, the Attlee government was a spectacular success despite its failure to sustain itself, but still... The Conservative Party certainly dominated the 20th century United Kingdom.