Many historians argue that the Labour party was a dynamic, because class based, organisation before 1914. They frequently suggest that the party was making substantial organisational and electoral progress, particularly after 1910 when the level of industrial conflict and trade union membership increased. As a result of this progress, they contend, Labour was about to break out of its shackles in 1914, and attack the Liberal party at the forthcoming parliamentary election. Yet, as the foregoing survey has revealed, Labour was not a universally, or even a generally, dynamic organisation. Electoral politics were not so simple; ‘progress’, was much less pronounced. Labour's preparations for the next election were incomplete when war was declared. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that the size and geographical distribution of its parliamentary campaign would be compatible with the idea of a Progressive Alliance. Labour had not developed the ideological/political strength to support an expansionist strategy. It had not created a solid ‘class’ vote, based on cultural unities which were common to working-class voters in all areas. It had not even the uniform support of trade unionists. The assumption that it did is based on inadequate theory and shaky and partial empirical analysis. In reality, electoral politics followed a pattern in which past political practices and current economic interests combined to create an extremely uneven electoral map. The distribution of support was such that it was comparatively strong where the Liberal party was weak, and unable to seriously rival it in most Liberal areas.