Is this possible? In OTL, Clement Attlee managed a meagre majority of 5 seats, and was then defeated by Churchill the following year, but what if Labour wins a more workable majority of say 20 or 25 seats? How would the country develop? Would Hugh Gaitskel ever become PM?
Labour wins a proper victory in 1950?
- Thread starter Basileus Giorgios
- Start date
Labour splits over similar issues as per OTL, Gaitskill takes over the party whilst it's in power instead opposition and ascends to the throne alá Brown. He's probably beaten in the next election. I seriously don't see the Labour government implementing radically different policies to the Conservatives. More radical elements may ultimately destroy Private Schooling in the country, but really there wasn't much of Labour's actual political aims left. They'd completely all the expansion of the state they wanted by 1950 courtesy of the Parliament Act 1949.
Well, they won the PV 46-40 (1.5 million), with a majority of 5. Keeping in mind that Korea would be a factor, and rationing is still in effect. So in a way, the war never really ended until the Korean armistice. If somehow Lab wins a safe (20+) majority, Churchill retires, and perhaps Eden becomes Leader of the Opposition. Macmillan, Butler & Co. wouldn't be as prominent as OTL without serving as senior ministers in the Churchill II Cabinet. Though both of them are rabidly ambitious, as the '57 coup showed. If Gaitskell gets in, he sounds like a Blair prototype, so there wouldn't be more nationalisations like Wilson did IOTL. Callaghan and Jenkins (leaders of the Lab right) would eventually become prominent in the party.
Re "completed their objectives": How many sectors did Harold the Honours Auctioneer nationalise again?
Re "completed their objectives": How many sectors did Harold the Honours Auctioneer nationalise again?
They won the popular vote a year later also when Churchill became Prime Minister again.
I'd suggest that the Party actually learns how to properly target seats. A small majority could have been turned into a good majority with just a little more forethought.
Also, a proper victory in 1950 would consolidate the achievements of the 1950 government, hopefully leaving Attlee to hand over the reigns of power to either Ernie Bevin, Aneurin Bevan, Hugh Gaitskill or even Harold Wilson who by 1950 in otl was President of the Board of Trade. This would give the party five more years and a sense of renewal in office.
The Suez fiasco would have been avoided and the country would have been handed over to the Tories in 1960-61 in all liklehood.
I'd suggest that the Party actually learns how to properly target seats. A small majority could have been turned into a good majority with just a little more forethought.
Also, a proper victory in 1950 would consolidate the achievements of the 1950 government, hopefully leaving Attlee to hand over the reigns of power to either Ernie Bevin, Aneurin Bevan, Hugh Gaitskill or even Harold Wilson who by 1950 in otl was President of the Board of Trade. This would give the party five more years and a sense of renewal in office.
The Suez fiasco would have been avoided and the country would have been handed over to the Tories in 1960-61 in all liklehood.
Who would the Tory leader be? Not Eden after another defeat. Perhaps the eternal DPM Rab Butler?
Good point re. Suez: what happens to decolonisation under Labour? I know the 1945-51 government was quite pro-Empire, would we see more colonial investment in Africa in a Labour 1950s? I wonder if road building and private motor ownership would also take off ITTL?
Quentin Hailsham maybe? Rab Butler is a possiblity. A delayed Macmillan premiership? Or, for lots of fun, how about PM Profumo?
Well, who picked the Tory leader in those days? I know that prior to '65, they were chosen by the "Magic Circle" by means of Her Majesty. Hailsham would be a good idea, Profumo would be a ticking time bomb. How about Thorneycroft, who's on the party right and thus apparently disqualified?
The tory leadership is an interesting question. I do not think that the Tory party chose a proper leader properly in opposition from about 1885 to 1965. When in office the formality of the appointment by the Soveriegn of the leading tory as Prime Minister.
The process might be quite difficult.
Also would Churchill have resigned as Party leader when it became clear he would not get another go at leading the party in an election until 1954. Logic would say he should but Churchill was not always 100% rational or logic.
The process might be quite difficult.
Also would Churchill have resigned as Party leader when it became clear he would not get another go at leading the party in an election until 1954. Logic would say he should but Churchill was not always 100% rational or logic.
Thande
Donor
Where did you get that impression from? And compared to who?
The question here is whether the Tory government that will presumably come in in 1955 would accept the socialist consensus like OTL or not. I can see arguments for either side: on the one hand the Tory leader is likely to be more moderate than Churchill and even Churchill accepted it, on the other hand if Labour has taken its reelection as a green light to push its nationalisations to greater extremes and it irritated enough interests then the Tories might have built their election campaign around repealing them...
Privatization in the 1960s sounds very interesting , but I think it would take someone from the right of the party like Thorneycroft as PM. Also, the Tories at that time seemed to believe in managing the status quo as conservatively as possible, hence the name Butskellism. Both parties were broadly centrist.
, but I think it would take someone from the right of the party like Thorneycroft as PM. Also, the Tories at that time seemed to believe in managing the status quo as conservatively as possible, hence the name Butskellism. Both parties were broadly centrist.Reading a line quoted by Andrew Marr I think, in which the official Labour policy on the colonies was something like "We're all for the jolly old Empire". And compared to later Labour (and indeed Conservative) administrations.
Where did you get the impression they weren't? Decolonisation under Labour started at India - and stopped there. Decolonisation in the proper sense only got into the swing of things with the wind of change era. (I.E, Macmillan, post-Suez.)
Labour was actually highly pro-Commonwealth and it would remain so well into the sixties - very much so in fact. The Commowealth greatly played on the left's imagination as a free association of (mostly non-white) people. The white, capitalist EEC looked decidedly ropey by ideological contrast. And that was just the left. The Labour mainstream was even less willing to let go of the apron strings.
As I said the last time this came up, Labour sailing on into the fifties would depend upon a lot of 'ifs.' Which is to say, Labour not further ballsing up the economy, the left not getting restive, Attlee (or his successor) finding a 'voice' for peacetime conditions. And against Eden at that - that would be a very difficult thing to pull off. Likely the Tories would win in 1955.
The one big divergence I can see here might be over Europe. The Tories in 1945-51 talked highly European, but reverted to standard practise when in government. Perhaps a further five years of making pro-European noises (and the possibility of a Suez-like incident, or something similarly big in the meanwhile under Labour) might make the sufficient difference to their worldview.