This article reassesses the electoral decline of British Liberalism in the 1920s, especially the catastrophic defeat of 1924. A leading explanation for this disaster is that the Liberals were ‘fighting to lose’ by leaving nearly 250 constituencies uncontested. David Lloyd George is widely seen as deliberately seeking to destroy his party by refusing to finance candidates through his infamous ‘fund’, so he could lead what remained after electoral evisceration. His actions are widely credited with stymieing prospects of a Liberal recovery in the next election, 1929, which confirmed the party's permanent replacement by Labour. Through a wide-ranging statistical reanalysis, supported by a study of grassroots constituency campaigns, this article argues that the lack of candidates was a negligible contributor either to Liberal annihilation in 1924, or to Liberal failure to recover in 1929. The sharply deteriorating health of the party was already felt keenly at the grassroots before, not after, the seemingly freak result of 1924 was known. We thus argue that, contrary to the judgement of historians and contemporaries, the 1924 result represented the truer reflection of the party's fundamental interwar strength, with 1923 the exception. The inaction of Lloyd George in 1924 thus can be interpreted as pragmatic rather than Machiavellian.

本文重新评估了1920年代英国自由主义的选举衰落，特别是1924年的灾难性失败。对这场灾难的一个主要解释是，自由派正在“争取失败”，因为将近250个选区毫无争议。人们普遍认为，大卫·劳埃德·乔治（David Lloyd George）故意通过拒绝通过其臭名昭著的“基金”资助候选人来破坏自己的政党，因此他可以领导选举后的遗弃。在1929年下届大选中，自由党的复苏前景令人st目结舌，这充分证明了他的行动，这证实了该党将由工党永久取代。通过广泛的统计重新分析，并在对草根选区运动的研究的支持下，本文认为，缺乏候选人对1924年的自由主义ni灭造成了微不足道的贡献，或是自由党未能在1929年恢复过来。在知道1924年看似怪胎的结果之前，而不是在此之后，基层已经敏锐地感受到了党的健康急剧恶化。因此，我们认为，与历史学家和同时代人的判断相反，1924年的结果更真实地反映了该党在战争中的基本实力，而1923年除外。因此，劳埃德·乔治（Lloyd George）在1924年的无所作为可以被解释为是务实的，而不是马基雅维利安。的基本战时实力，但1923年除外。因此，劳埃德·乔治（Lloyd George）在1924年的无所作为可以被解释为是务实的，而不是马基雅维利安。的基本战争力量，但1923年除外。因此，劳埃德·乔治（Lloyd George）在1924年的无所作为可以被解释为是务实的，而不是马基雅维利安。