Who were the whigs? And why do they still matter? | thearticle

Since 12 ‘centrist’ MPs quit their parties last week, the media has been full of examples of successful centrist politicians in other countries – Macron and Trudeau being the go-to case

studies. But given the peculiarities of the British political system and the Anglo-Saxon mindset, these comparisons often don’t hold water. In fact, to gain a good understanding of how a

British centrist party could (or should) work, we’d be better off looking at British political history. The Whig party is a largely forgotten fossil, but it can teach us some salient

lessons. First an incredibly simplified history. The Whig movement morphed into many different guises over the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Sometimes it was a true political party in the

modern sense, sometimes just a label people applied to themselves or others. There was an early schism between ‘Junto’ and ‘Country’ at the end of the 17th century, and the ‘Country’ faction

was eventually swallowed up by the Tories. The Junto Whigs (or just plain Whigs after a time) went on to be the dominant political orthodoxy of the 18th Century. The period between

1715–1760 is referred to as ‘The Whig Supremacy’; Robert Walpole, the first British prime minister, was the standout figure. During the Napoleonic Wars, the two main political enemies of the

time, Pitt and Fox, would have both described themselves as Whig. The Liberal Party was officially formed in 1852, thanks to a coalition of Whigs, free trade Tories and free trade Radicals.

It came to power under Lord Palmerston in 1859. This was when the Whig movement effectively died. Long after its demise, the badge of Whig still sticks. Churchill was a ‘Whig historian’,

emphasising the rise of constitutional government, personal freedoms and scientific progress, which had a direct impact on his political thinking. Thatcher’s economic liberalisation is often

branded ‘Whig not Conservative’ while some of Blair’s policies were described as a ‘Whig not socialist’. Many of these labels are plain wrong, but why is the word ‘Whig’ still in the

contemporary political lexicon? We can’t prescribe an ideology to the movement, but we can see clear strands of Whig thought. For starters, they were nearly all for reducing crown patronage.

Support of commerce and trade was key, which is where Napoleon got his insult of a ‘Nation of Shopkeepers’. He thought the Whigs held power for the demands of the merchant class; a

peculiarity of the British political system at the time. Whigs nearly always sided with the idea of voting reform and social justice. Ideologies were picked up by the movement, but could be

dropped quickly; they certainly didn’t stand for a political philosophy. What would a Whig look like today? This is very subjective, but first, a Whig would see small and medium sized

businesses as the way to drive growth in the economy while making commerce benefit all. These enterprises are automatically protected from institutional power – be it multinational

corporations or state control. Second, the Whig would see liberal democracy, best expressed and protected through the nation state, as sacrosanct. Third, they’d invest in state institutions

which shelter the disadvantaged, and develop systems for social justice. Lastly, the Whig would make damn sure Britain was meritocratic and socially mobile. It seems that if there is such a

thing as ‘Whiggism’ it’s when politicians act successfully from the centre ground, ideologically free enough to move as needed. If there is to be a new political movement in British

politics, its leaders could do a lot worse than having a good look at Whig politics, understanding where they got it right, and trying to translate their successes into the modern day. It’s

time to drop the ‘lessons from Macron’.