'Conservative dominance in the years 1884-1906 was due to Gladstone' Explain why you agree or disagree

with this statement.

Overall, between 1884-1906, Gladstone was not the lynchpin which sustained conservative dominance.
Although, Gladstone's conduct towards Irish politics facilitated Conservative ascendancy, minor yet essential
efforts taken by Salisbury's Party amplified their position. The recurrent pattern of the Conservatives availing
the Liberal Party's discoordination is reiterated in the ensuing Home Rule split. Although Gladstone was
responsible for his Party's disorientation, he was not accountable for the Conservatives' gradual erosion of
their laissez-faire principles. Salisbury's second ministry took advantage of the Liberal Party's state by
exerting 'Tory democracy' and implementing social reform legislations with a heavy focus on local
empowerment. The Conservatives' extensive electoral recruitment system played a substantial part in
developing their support. Members of the National Union promoted their Party whilst also gaining support
from middle-class citizens through the principle of 'Villa Toryism' as well as through the Prim Rose
League. Nevertheless, Gladstone's overriding aim to implement Home Rule over securing prime movers in
Parliament substantially wounded his Party. Liberal Unionists were the epicenter of Conservative domination
and their resignment of the Liberal Party was exasperated by Gladstone's neglect of social reform and his
Irish counterparts'' objective to fracture the Union. MPs who supported Liberal radicalism played a pivotal
part in securing the vote of the working-class which consequently enhanced the conservatives'
position. Whichever party held Chamberlin, 'the man who made the political weather', held the
advantage. During the pinnacle of the conservative Party, Salisbury, the dualistic character, was influenced
by Chamberlin and accentuated his paternalistic facet. However, Gladstone was responsible for the loss of
Parliament’s prime mover. Chamberlin's fear that his 'unofficial programme' would be
potentially marginalized with the introduction to Home Rule and the antipathy between Chamberlin and
Gladstone finalized Chamberlin's conversion. Furthermore, whilst Sainsbury's cabinet was embellished
with efficacious leaders, the Liberal party struggled to find a suitable candidate to function as the Party's
successor. Gladstone found no natural position of power in any of the candidates and believed that they all
lacked his presidential politics. Gladstone was therefore not entirely accountable for his Party's defect when
it came to leadership positions. Moreover, the 'khaki election' derived from Chamberlin's promise for a 'High
Noon Kingdom' and received substantial support from the patriotic working-class. The rise in imperialism
resulted in the Liberal Party's division as it generated a faction led by Lord Rosebery who were pro-
imperialism and another group which protested imperialism. The issue of imperialism undermined an
already wounded Liberal Party, yet this factor was not directly fabricated by Gladstone himself. Additionally,
although, the liberals' exploitation of their opponents' uncomfortable position dismantled the period of
conservative domination, Gladstone was not accountable for the downfall of the conservatives. The Creation
of the 'Napolean Fleet Street' generated Britain's democratic readership which was availed by the Liberals
who protested the war's lamentable conditions and generated a mass readership which opposed the
conservative' policies. Chamberlin's imperialism preference system played a major part in the conservative's
disintegration as it resulted in their Party’s inner division and received a negative response from the
working-class for creating the "stomach taxes". National efficiency and the 'identity crises' which the war
generated mobilized the Liberals, who promised to create a welfare state and position themselves as
interventionists. However, other factors such as Balfor's relucent attitude towards social change and his
cabinets' inefficient MPs amplified the loss of the conservative's domination. The late period of conservative
domination, during Balfour’s ministry, was not caused by Gladstone nor was he accountable for the majority
of his Party’s weakness which developed the conservative’s ascendancy.