New ideological stances, and new, more materially relevant, policies, were an important part of Progressive politics. So too was a ‘national’ willingness to overcome institutional obstacles to Progressive cooperation. However, the nature of politics and of institutional power in the constituencies was equally significant because local parties could undermine the ‘national’ image and strategy. ‘Westminster’ debates were repeated in ‘constituency’ politics. The local balance might be an improvement on the national position, since the local party might be better adapted to meeting local needs and views. It could also, however, cling to views which were no longer popular except with party activists. It could undermine the basis of the Progressive Alliance and make the prospect of permanent improvements over the position in the 1890s more suspect.

The ‘national’ ability to redefine the local party image in the constituencies was strongest where Progressive parties were weak, and had little to lose through change. Political desperation and financial problems ensured that local party members accepted central party dictates. It was easiest to operate the Progressive Alliance in ‘Tory’ working-class areas – principally parts of the North-West, the West Midlands, London and the south coast ports. Although the ‘centre’ exercised some influence in ‘Liberal’ areas, its influence was much weaker. The often informal links between the centre and the constituencies left scope for local organisations to determine the full extent of the local party image.