Could the British Tories Have Possibly Won in 1945?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Not thinking winning the war = election victory and not making stupid statements on behalf of Churchill. Many Britons thought while effective war leaders, Labor would be more suited to rebuild postwar - change that.
Tories were vague on postwar economic development, bringing memories of the 30s crisis while Labor ministers had presented their competency during the war in the form of Atlee, Home Office and Labor Ministry. Plus, Churchill misjudged the voters, clearly evident by him saying Atlee's programme would need a sort of Gestapo to enforce. Someone more informed could say how to change that.
Churchill would essentially need to realise that the Tories could not go on as they were. For that, he needed to show that he wanted a clear end to the war and quash the rumours that he was planning on war with Russia. He would also have to accept the Beveridge Report and outline clear proposals for postwar rebuilding and reform.
If I were Tories I would consider having Churchill stand aside as PM and have him continue to preside over non-domestic and military issues in some special position. You get the advantages of Churchill the war hero sticking up for Britain abroad without having Churchill the cantankerous old Tory. That's probably completely implausible though.
If I were Tories I would consider having Churchill stand aside as PM and have him continue to preside over non-domestic and military issues in some special position. You get the advantages of Churchill the war hero sticking up for Britain abroad without having Churchill the cantankerous old Tory. That's probably completely implausible though.
It would help if Churchill realized that British Colonialism was on its way out and planned for that fact.
Better yet: butterfly the Beveridge Report away all together. It only happened because its author was snubbed for a 'more important' job in Whitehall on rationing and the report faced the opposition of Bevin and the Treasury. There would still be a widespread desire for economic and social reconstruction, but it wouldn't be as effectively communicated and ambitious as in OTL and wouldn't give rise to the perception that Churchill was dragging his feet on the issue.
It would still be not near enough for a Tory majority, but a slimmer Labour majority was possible.
The Tories were too closely associated with the UK’s economic woes of the Thirties. You would need them to adopt polices designed to boost the economy when they came into power in the early part of that decade.
I think people should understand that the "despite Churchill's popularity" part is often misty eyed nostalgia. At the time Churchill was no where near as popular as he later became, because he'd just been directly in charge during a time of intense suffering and hardship. A lot of his habits people think are iconic now, like the ever present expensive cigars, were actually extremely annoying to troops who went mouths without a good smoke. He was not hated but he wasn't yet a God either. Another factor is that Churchill only begrudgingly accepted the election and berated Labour for not continuing the war-time unity government, when the public mood was very much in favour of drastic political change.
In my view the Conservative Party would have to show that it is prepared to adopt new ideas and a change in perspective as well as leadership to have a shot at winning in 1945, that would mean:
(1) Ditching Winston Churchill, preferably for someone like Anthony Arden, in other words, not tarnished with pre war failures and representing a new generation, a change of guard if you all
(2) Adopting the Beveridge Report without wavering and immediately, so as to try and win the hearts and minds of socially minded voters
(3) Committing to peace as soon as possible, and completely, explicitly ruling out further conflict with the USSR or anyone else, the voters were tired of war
I think these would be prerequisites.
(1) Ditching Winston Churchill, preferably for someone like Anthony Arden, in other words, not tarnished with pre war failures and representing a new generation, a change of guard if you all
(2) Adopting the Beveridge Report without wavering and immediately, so as to try and win the hearts and minds of socially minded voters
(3) Committing to peace as soon as possible, and completely, explicitly ruling out further conflict with the USSR or anyone else, the voters were tired of war
I think these would be prerequisites.
Not directly but the colonies were an expensive boondoggle. Getting rid of them freed up money for more important things.
It's not really possible with a standard campaign or campaign-adjacent divergence. The way to a Conservative post-war re-election which involves a 'minimal' amount of changes to make that possible would involve a much shorter war - which is still a sizeable divergence. All the structural factors in 1945 were really working for Labour - though that wasn't seen as clearly as we see it today.
A 'simple', albeit rather hackneyed divergence which could have seriously cut into Labour's majority is Churchill dying, FDR-like, becoming Saint Winnie, and Eden leading the Tories into the election - but I'm very doubtful that would have come close to flipping the election.
A 'simple', albeit rather hackneyed divergence which could have seriously cut into Labour's majority is Churchill dying, FDR-like, becoming Saint Winnie, and Eden leading the Tories into the election - but I'm very doubtful that would have come close to flipping the election.
Last edited:
Having a Conservative government throughout WW2 rather than a National government.
Having Attlee as DPM etc gave Labour great credibility as an already governing party.
Having Attlee as DPM etc gave Labour great credibility as an already governing party.
The Conservatives were massively re-elected in 1935 and the economy continued to improve from then until the outbreak of war.
I don't think its possible with a situation recognizable from OTL. Mass Observation made the point I think in 1943 that 'unless something changed drastically' Labour was going to win the next election because apart from Churchill, all the really liked members of the coalition were from Labour. And you have to consider that the Tories had been in government for 14 years, a large number of which had been pretty disastrous and the good years were not evenly distributed across the country. They had a record that was not very easy to defend.
I've always found it curious that it was considered such an upset. The Gallup poll had shown a Labour lead for over two years in 1945. In May 1945 the lead was even 40-24! http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/48961460 But modern "scientific" polling was still young and not taken too seriously in 1945...
Thomas1195
Banned
Because Tories won a landslide in 1931, and you ignored the fact that Labour won over 100 seats in 1935.
Then you combine it with Tories' disastrous appeasement politics, which were basically only a Tory thing by 1938.
Thomas1195
Banned
The problem is appeasement and austerity had become a Tory thing, so even new gen candidates would have been tarnished anyway, even if he came out to endorse the Beveridge Report.
So what if Labour gained over 100 seats in 1935, they still had only 154 MPs to 400+ for the Conservatives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_United_Kingdom_general_election
The 1935 general election was a huge Conservative victory.