I'm not looking to prove you wrong, I'm looking for you to, if you'd like to, tell me why you believe that the Tories were unelectable in 1945 - given that they only experienced 6 years out of power between 1931-1964.
A Better Britain: POD 1944
- Thread starter Chris Nation
- Start date
I'm no expert in military; but maybe (IDK) a slighty buff in all branchs in both SEAC and BPF (even possibly extra forces for Op. Downfall) - in my mind, I thought that they would even press Germans(!) to their branches (as replacements for their occupation - RAF German Auxiliary squadrons (operating mid-modern aircraft instead of modern)) + Imagine now Churchill decided to annex Heligoland island! (Not request, just thought's I've have)
Britain can survive in Asia as long as it keeps the Suez. It was the loss of the Suez which shattered the Imperial mirage even for the most reactionary Conservative. The fact that the USA could just say "stop" and the UK couldn't refuse basically made the UK give up trying to have an independent foreign policy or operating the RN on a global scale.
No joke. I’m deadly serious. The lack of long term investment has been disastrous for the UK. Then again, I’m still also not joking about the thought of Powell having power making me feel ill.
I understand, and to some extent agree with you, however Butler was surely a progressive Tory. He originated the 1944 Education Act whose main problem was the system being starved of funds for Secondary Modern Schools and Technical Colleges. He was a Chancellor under "Butskellism", so hardly one for grinding the poor. There was also Macmillan, a definite Tory "wet" because of his experience in Stockton in the 1930s, who built more public housing than anyone.
The problem was there weren't enough of them to make a difference, or enough pressure for Churchill to go. Possibly a deterioration in Churchills health in May 1945 allows his wife to pressure him into retiring from the frontline of politics, thereby letting Eden and reformers take control, and put forward a progressive manifesto.
A Long Road
A Long Road
Just a month following the results of the 1945 general election, on 6 August 1945, the Enola Gay dropped the most consequential bomb in human history on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This was followed 4 days later with another bomb on Nagasaki and just 6 days from the second bombing, on 15 August 1945, the Empire of Japan surrendered to Allies. The Second World War was over, and Winston Churchill would take his rightful place next to US President Truman as the leader of the victorious Western Allies.
By September, it was clear that caretaker ministry that had been set up by the Prime Minister just before the general election would need to be reshuffled to meet the new demands of peacetime. Although several ministers, especially National Liberals who had lost their seats in the general election, would see reassignment, the most important change would be the creation of a new Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Winston Churchill summoned the young former intelligence officer responsible for crafting the Tory policy many credited with winning them the election, who had been elected to Parliament for the first time during the recent election, to tell him that he’d like him to carry out his policy in government. “Mr. Powell, you have committed us to something grand. You had better deliver on it.” Enoch Powell accepted the challenge of his life, replying simply to the Prime Minister, “It will be a long road, but I am ready to build it.”
Third Churchill ministry, September 1945
Prime Minister and Minister of Defence: Winston Churchill
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Oliver Stanley
Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons: Anthony Eden
Home Secretary: Sir John Anderson
Minister of Housing and Local Government: Enoch Powell
Colonial Secretary and Leader of the House of Lords: Viscount Cranborne
Dominion Secretary and Lord Privy Seal: Lord Beaverbrook
Secretary of State for India and Burma and President of the Board of Trade: Leo Amery
First Lord of the Admiralty and Minister of Information: Brendan Bracken
Minister of Education: Rab Butler
Minister of National Insurance: Osbert Peake
Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries: James Henderson-Stewart
Minister of Labour and National Service: Harold Macmillan
Minister of Health: Henry Willink
Secretary of State for Scotland: Viscount Muirshiel
Secretary of State for War: Sir James Grigg
Meanwhile, negotiations were underway in Washington. John Maynard Keynes, the celebrated economist who had spearheaded the financing strategy of the British war effort, was leading the negotiations. The aim of the negotiations was to deliver a loan to the United Kingdom on massively improved interest rates, which could then be used to finance the rebuilding of the British economy. Churchill himself intervened in these negotiations on several occasions, writing to the United States President, “Britain and the whole of the British Empire stand ready to fight alongside the United States in the next great peril of our age - the scourge of Communism sweeping through the world. Even now, Stalin is preparing the countries of eastern Europe to fall into her brutal grip. Britain is ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with you. But, my God, we need help to do it!”
On hearing that the United States were not prepared to go over $3.75bn in the loan and wanted the convertibility the pound sterling, far from Keynes’ initial expectations of a $5bn grant, the Prime Minister decided that it was time for a visit to his wartime ally, as a show of goodwill and the brotherhood between the British and American people, forged by ties of blood and war, and also to kick the Americans in the shin for being, as Churchill saw it, unscrupulous in taking advantage of Britain. Arriving at Shangri-La in Maryland on 5 October 1945, Prime Minister Churchill gave a short statement to an enthusiastic group of American reporters, before going inside to speak with President Truman.
“Look, Harry, I came here two years ago at the height of the war in Europe. I spoke with your predecessor, Franklin. Franklin knew and understood what was at stake then. We are brothers, America and Britain, but we have run the bloody bottle pretty dry in this war, but I don’t think it’s quite right for a brother to slit the other brother’s throat in exchange for a drink of water! Now, if you’re not going to budge on the amount you’re willing to spare us, at least drop this blasted demand for me to kill the bloody cow just for a single steak! Time, Harry, we need bloody time!”
Truman was slightly bemused. Thinking to himself, “Why do these Brits always feel so entitled to our damn money?!” But, immensely respecting the man who had stood alone against Hitler, he said he’d have a word with the Treasury to see what could be done.
By December, the negotiations were complete. The United Kingdom had secured a loan of $3bn, and, thanks to the intervention of the Prime Minister, and much to Keynes’ immense satisfaction, the hard demand for sterling to become a fully convertible currency was dropped. Britain would commit itself to “free money exchange over time”, but would not be immediately forced to open her exchange controls. In exchange, the parties reiterated their commitment to removing trade barriers which now existed between the United States and the whole of the British Empire, a market ripe for American companies to enter.
Although a smaller loan in dollar terms, this was a momentous triumph for the United Kingdom, and one that was not well understood at the time. This would allow British industry to retain an extremely privileged position within the British Empire, for as long as exchange controls were allowed to insulate the Sterling Area, the strength of the pound could be defended. Churchill and the British negotiators assured dubious US negotiators that Britain wanted to see a day in which the pound could be fully convertible, but simply couldn’t agree to such a fast transition. If the United States wanted a strong partner against communism in the coming storm, Britain would need to be trusted. It is reasonable to wonder whether the American government would have placed such trust in a government of Socialists. Churchill had saved the nation from what, in the words of Keynes, would have otherwise been a financial Dunkirk.
Churchill returned to cabinet and told an ecstatic Chancellor of the Exchequer the news. Most of this money would be earmarked for defence spending, but Britain would have the financial headroom to make good on the Tory promises in the general election. The Chancellor would release the first peacetime budget of Churchill's first peacetime ministry in April 1946.
Just a month following the results of the 1945 general election, on 6 August 1945, the Enola Gay dropped the most consequential bomb in human history on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This was followed 4 days later with another bomb on Nagasaki and just 6 days from the second bombing, on 15 August 1945, the Empire of Japan surrendered to Allies. The Second World War was over, and Winston Churchill would take his rightful place next to US President Truman as the leader of the victorious Western Allies.
By September, it was clear that caretaker ministry that had been set up by the Prime Minister just before the general election would need to be reshuffled to meet the new demands of peacetime. Although several ministers, especially National Liberals who had lost their seats in the general election, would see reassignment, the most important change would be the creation of a new Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Winston Churchill summoned the young former intelligence officer responsible for crafting the Tory policy many credited with winning them the election, who had been elected to Parliament for the first time during the recent election, to tell him that he’d like him to carry out his policy in government. “Mr. Powell, you have committed us to something grand. You had better deliver on it.” Enoch Powell accepted the challenge of his life, replying simply to the Prime Minister, “It will be a long road, but I am ready to build it.”
Third Churchill ministry, September 1945
Prime Minister and Minister of Defence: Winston Churchill
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Oliver Stanley
Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons: Anthony Eden
Home Secretary: Sir John Anderson
Minister of Housing and Local Government: Enoch Powell
Colonial Secretary and Leader of the House of Lords: Viscount Cranborne
Dominion Secretary and Lord Privy Seal: Lord Beaverbrook
Secretary of State for India and Burma and President of the Board of Trade: Leo Amery
First Lord of the Admiralty and Minister of Information: Brendan Bracken
Minister of Education: Rab Butler
Minister of National Insurance: Osbert Peake
Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries: James Henderson-Stewart
Minister of Labour and National Service: Harold Macmillan
Minister of Health: Henry Willink
Secretary of State for Scotland: Viscount Muirshiel
Secretary of State for War: Sir James Grigg
Meanwhile, negotiations were underway in Washington. John Maynard Keynes, the celebrated economist who had spearheaded the financing strategy of the British war effort, was leading the negotiations. The aim of the negotiations was to deliver a loan to the United Kingdom on massively improved interest rates, which could then be used to finance the rebuilding of the British economy. Churchill himself intervened in these negotiations on several occasions, writing to the United States President, “Britain and the whole of the British Empire stand ready to fight alongside the United States in the next great peril of our age - the scourge of Communism sweeping through the world. Even now, Stalin is preparing the countries of eastern Europe to fall into her brutal grip. Britain is ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with you. But, my God, we need help to do it!”
On hearing that the United States were not prepared to go over $3.75bn in the loan and wanted the convertibility the pound sterling, far from Keynes’ initial expectations of a $5bn grant, the Prime Minister decided that it was time for a visit to his wartime ally, as a show of goodwill and the brotherhood between the British and American people, forged by ties of blood and war, and also to kick the Americans in the shin for being, as Churchill saw it, unscrupulous in taking advantage of Britain. Arriving at Shangri-La in Maryland on 5 October 1945, Prime Minister Churchill gave a short statement to an enthusiastic group of American reporters, before going inside to speak with President Truman.
“Look, Harry, I came here two years ago at the height of the war in Europe. I spoke with your predecessor, Franklin. Franklin knew and understood what was at stake then. We are brothers, America and Britain, but we have run the bloody bottle pretty dry in this war, but I don’t think it’s quite right for a brother to slit the other brother’s throat in exchange for a drink of water! Now, if you’re not going to budge on the amount you’re willing to spare us, at least drop this blasted demand for me to kill the bloody cow just for a single steak! Time, Harry, we need bloody time!”
Truman was slightly bemused. Thinking to himself, “Why do these Brits always feel so entitled to our damn money?!” But, immensely respecting the man who had stood alone against Hitler, he said he’d have a word with the Treasury to see what could be done.
By December, the negotiations were complete. The United Kingdom had secured a loan of $3bn, and, thanks to the intervention of the Prime Minister, and much to Keynes’ immense satisfaction, the hard demand for sterling to become a fully convertible currency was dropped. Britain would commit itself to “free money exchange over time”, but would not be immediately forced to open her exchange controls. In exchange, the parties reiterated their commitment to removing trade barriers which now existed between the United States and the whole of the British Empire, a market ripe for American companies to enter.
Although a smaller loan in dollar terms, this was a momentous triumph for the United Kingdom, and one that was not well understood at the time. This would allow British industry to retain an extremely privileged position within the British Empire, for as long as exchange controls were allowed to insulate the Sterling Area, the strength of the pound could be defended. Churchill and the British negotiators assured dubious US negotiators that Britain wanted to see a day in which the pound could be fully convertible, but simply couldn’t agree to such a fast transition. If the United States wanted a strong partner against communism in the coming storm, Britain would need to be trusted. It is reasonable to wonder whether the American government would have placed such trust in a government of Socialists. Churchill had saved the nation from what, in the words of Keynes, would have otherwise been a financial Dunkirk.
Churchill returned to cabinet and told an ecstatic Chancellor of the Exchequer the news. Most of this money would be earmarked for defence spending, but Britain would have the financial headroom to make good on the Tory promises in the general election. The Chancellor would release the first peacetime budget of Churchill's first peacetime ministry in April 1946.
Last edited:
People so far have seemed to suggest that Churchill was near incapable of consisting domestic policy. Perhaps that was true in 1945. But it might be important to note that there was a time when he was among the most reform minded members of government. In the early 1900’s he was among the loudest in calling for reduced military spending to pay for the welfare state that the Liberals were building. He had a reputation as a conciliator in managing industrial disputes, introduced an eight hour work day for miners, minimum wage and lunch breaks for workers. He also championed unemployment insurance partly funded by the state. He tried to make sure all this was funded by attacking any spending on the military.
The Agadir crisis changed his mind, and from then on from his future place as First Lord he pushed preparedness and military spending. That may have simply become his claim thereafter, but he was not incapable of liberal thought, or of prioritizing domestic issues over foreign affairs.
The Agadir crisis changed his mind, and from then on from his future place as First Lord he pushed preparedness and military spending. That may have simply become his claim thereafter, but he was not incapable of liberal thought, or of prioritizing domestic issues over foreign affairs.
Some things just do not gel well. National Health Service was a massive vote winner for Labour and as others have said servicemen do not want half the things the plan gives. It also does not get round how broke Britain was. Worse year for rationing was 1946 as the US cut lend lease despite promises given and Britain could not afford to import grain. Que selling ships for scrap and other desperate measures.
It comes back to this. The voters want genuine social change along the lines that Labour is proposing. Why would they choose to support the party that's resisted and condemned socialism for decades just because all of a sudden they promise a watered down version of what Labour is offering? People were looking for radical change, the Conservatives are not the party to deliver it. They are the party of the establishment and the status quo ante in this period of history and even if you got a leader from somewhere who was willing to contemplate some sort of 'progressive' agenda you have backbenches stuffed with old school MPs who are never going to support Socialism, which they see as simply being the prelude to an all out Communist take over.
With the exception of the Thatcher period the Conservative Party has always been looking over its shoulder at a rose tinted vision of the past. I'm not saying its actually impossible for them to win in 1945, I'm saying that if they win they will then look to water down or renege on anything that even slightly smacks of Socialism. A 1945 Tory win will not be a 'Brit-Wank' for the working classes.
I disagree. Eisenhower wasn't particularly worried about the red flag being hoisted over Wall Street, but he wasn't particularly red-faced about the New Deal or the GI Bill. Also, Baldwin is actually the prime minister who designed the system that extended national insurance to cover widows, orphans, and the elderly who had not paid National Insurance (which is what made it...not insurance, but anyway).
Let me start my comments with the usual disclaimer that English is not my first language and this is intended to be constructive criticism, not an attack.
I am not an expert on these matters and the TL seems to be well written, but I understand why some people may struggle with the premise. This may seem simple, but the title "A Better Britain: POD 1944" could be a problem, as it seems quite partisan. The Attlee Labour government is generally accepted by mainstream commentators as a truly reformist government that helped improve post-war Britain. By saying this will be a 'Better Britain', you're creating high expectations (even if the benefits of POD may not be felt for many years), especially when using rather divisive figures like Powell. In fact, when I read the basic premise, my initial thought was that the title might be ironic. As others have said, the author of the TL can do what he wants, but that's my two cents.
I am not an expert on these matters and the TL seems to be well written, but I understand why some people may struggle with the premise. This may seem simple, but the title "A Better Britain: POD 1944" could be a problem, as it seems quite partisan. The Attlee Labour government is generally accepted by mainstream commentators as a truly reformist government that helped improve post-war Britain. By saying this will be a 'Better Britain', you're creating high expectations (even if the benefits of POD may not be felt for many years), especially when using rather divisive figures like Powell. In fact, when I read the basic premise, my initial thought was that the title might be ironic. As others have said, the author of the TL can do what he wants, but that's my two cents.
Actually, the NHS was not mentioned much in the 1945 general election. And, I know this will be heresy, it wasn't as popular of an idea pre-1947 as you might assume. Very far from the the British national religion it is today. When people were asked about the specific proposals of the Beveridge Report that they'd heard of (40% had no idea of the specific proposals in the report) and wanted to see implemented, health reform was a distant third. People were far more concerned about housing and jobs.
It may be "better" within a political ideology to have created the welfare state. But we have economic data to show that the way the welfare state was constructed in Britain was particularly detrimental to Britain's postwar economic trajectory. Britain almost certainly never regained the economic trajectory it otherwise would have been on.
To calm claims of partisanship (I won't pretend I'm politically neutral here), I will give a sneak peak. If I take this timeline to 1960, which I intend to do, there will be a Labour government at some point.
Also, on the title, it is a reference to Attlee's favorite phrase in the 1945 general election. He used it constantly.
Last edited:
Whose talking about Eisenhower? I was referring to the Tory backbenches. Baldwin is indelibly tainted by appeasement, he is not coming back to No.10. What you haven't provided is any plausible explanation for is the voters choosing a Tory party with a thin veneer of progressivism over the full throated Socialism Labour offered when the electorate overwhelmingly chose the latter in OTL. You need to provide a convincing explanation as to how the Conservatives putting out a manifesto that concedes some of Labour's ideas are sort of okay is going to swing people around, especially when you are also assuming that all of those who did vote conservative would still vote for them if they go soft on Socialism. it would also be good if you could explain how doing away with the NHS is a win for the majority of the British people.
In the 1880’s to early 1900’s the Conservative party was the party to advance many of the ideals then considered socialist. Now that was a different time, and as much political expediency as ideology (the Gladstonian liberal government was near rabidly anti-interventionist). But the roles we cast these parties in have not always been as rigid as they are perceived now.
I was responding to the idea that "crusty conservatives" can't back a more moderate line on social reform. Eisenhower was a Republican, at a time when the Republican Party were becoming more ideologically conservative. As for Baldwin, it was similar illustration. Many of these specific crusty backbenchers would have been the same ones who had backed Baldwin.
I won't go in depth on the NHS. There was a Tory commitment to a version of it in OTL 1945 manifesto, but obviously not nearly Bevan's idea of what it should be. Suffice it to say, as I have said, it simply wasn't the main issue in 1945.
Okay clearly it was a mistake to try and engage you again. I will just leave this quote from Aneurin Bevan inspired by the Tories endless opposition to the creation of the NHS, which they voted against 21 times:
I'm sorry to have upset you. There was a specific commitment to the creation of a national health service in the real-life Tory manifesto in 1945. It's also worth mentioning that the Tory proposal was actually closer to the proposal found in the Beveridge Report, because voluntary hospitals would have been retained. I understand that this is an emotive topic with present-day implications, but I am simply trying to look at this from the perspective at the time.
And, at the time, the Labour proposals on health were not regarded as the most important issue in the 1945 general election. You can say that, with hindsight, the NHS is the most important innovation of the Attlee government. You'd probably be objectively right. But, at the time, it was viewed differently. When asked about the Beveridge Report, a poll in 1943 revealed that its proposals for health reform were listed as a distant third in terms of its most appealing proposals. A different poll in 1943, which left out the specific reference to the Beveridge Report found that half of Britons were opposed to "any major change on the health front".
This changed after the NHS formed. It became seen as much more important than other Labour reforms, almost immediately. A poll in 1949 showed that the NHS was "the best single initiative the government had taken since coming into office". But, again, at the time, in 1945, it was a different situation.
However, I will point out, and I have no real strong personal opinion on the NHS, as strange as that might sound, that a poll in the 50s found that just over half of respondents thought that their personal healthcare was "about the same" as it was in 1948.
Health reforms, opinion polls and surveys: myths and realities
<p>Attitudes to NHS reform today are shaped by a largely imagined past of poor healthcare prior to the NHS, according to Dr Nick Hayes in a new H&P policy paper. An Ipsos Mori poll in conjunction with King's College London confirmed Dr Hayes' research - finding a fear of reform, particularly the...
www.historyandpolicy.org
Did We Really Want a National Health Service? Hospitals, Patients and Public Opinions before 1948
OPPOSING the Conservative-led government’s planned ‘modernising’ health reforms in 2011, Dr Mark Porter, the Chair of the British Medical Association’s hospital
academic.oup.com
But if you insist on knowing the "benefit" to not immediately establishing an NHS in this timeline: it's the same reason that it took Labour three years to do in real life: it cost too much, and it cost far more than it was expected to. In the first year of it's operation, expenditure on just the provision of services in the NHS (i.e. not including the cost to actually nationalize the entire British healthcare system) was nearly double what it had been projected to be.
Last edited:
Eden was also a drug addict... Not a good thing in a Government leader of any flavour.