The Introduction to this book suggested that the best way to define historical British political Liberalism is as a series of stances and campaigns against concentrations of power, with the aim of boosting good governance and individual freedom, in opposition to interest groups that wield too much political or social influence, or to institutional rigidities and shortcomings that require redress. Over-mighty interests may be located anywhere on the post-1920 political spectrum: Liberals have not felt imprisoned by a conventional left–right political model. International corporations may exert excessive power over our lives in some ways, at the same time as public sector unions and complacent bureaucracies do in others.

Some readers who have persevered this far may be persuaded by this claim, but others may feel that it is too generous to many of the politicians who have traded under the name Liberal. The history of Liberal parties has included periods not only of coherence and dynamism but also of consolidation, complacency or confusion. Some political strategies have succeeded but many have failed, from bad timing, judgement or luck. Some vested interests have turned out too strong for Liberals; others have persuaded the public that they are more useful than Liberals have claimed. Many Liberals have moderated their aspirations in the face of obstacles posed by Conservative electoral strength, institutional inertia or imperial strategic needs. And for long periods since the 1920s, the primary objective has simply been survival.

All political strategies have limited shelf lives. Even in the pre-1920 period, there were arguably only three Liberal leaders – Lord John Russell, William Gladstone and David Lloyd George – whose activist approach powerfully shaped the party's sense of itself, and none of these visions was without its problems.