A Revolution of '26?

Hey Guys,

Could someone tell me how you could have a small-ish POD that could spark massive violent riots in the General Strike of 1926? In the TL I need this for there are two parties by this time that have mid-to-far right wing leanings but aren't hugely popular with only around 30 seats in Parliament. While the communists only have 1 seat in parliament at this point.

So I'm setting the task to anyone who wants to take it to start a communist/socialist active revolt in the strike that's violent, very violent so to give the mid-to-far right parties a big bonus and that would force another General Election in 1926/7.

Thanks to anyone who can help :)
 
Well, it is a cliché I know but it wouldn't take much for Churchill to get worked up enough to consider tackling the strikers head on. He had already talked about shooting at the demonstrators in Wales when he was Home Secretary in 1910 so, perhaps if we see him gain enough support in the Cabinet to make sending the troops in a possibility then we could see a more serious development materialise.

An alternative would be a more supportive and radical Labour Party. MacDonald and his cronies didn't support the strike owing to fears that it would damage their respectability with the electorate (not unfounded I would say) if even a few MP's gave their tacit support for the strike then things could get very ugly indeed.
 
Well, it is a cliché I know but it wouldn't take much for Churchill to get worked up enough to consider tackling the strikers head on. He had already talked about shooting at the demonstrators in Wales when he was Home Secretary in 1910 so, perhaps if we see him gain enough support in the Cabinet to make sending the troops in a possibility then we could see a more serious development materialise.
How would it be possible for Churchill to have a higher standing for him to be able to make this decision?
An alternative would be a more supportive and radical Labour Party. MacDonald and his cronies didn't support the strike owing to fears that it would damage their respectability with the electorate (not unfounded I would say) if even a few MP's gave their tacit support for the strike then things could get very ugly indeed.
Also how could I get a few more 'radicals' in the Labour party to support the strike?

Thanks for the suggestions :)
 
-Bump-

Anymore ideas on this people? Or anyone care to give me any ideas as to how the ideas given above could've occurred?
 
How would it be possible for Churchill to have a higher standing for him to be able to make this decision?

I don't think that can work: if Churchill is appointed to some higher position than Chancellor of the Exchequer, his likely alternative (Chamberlain? McKenna?) probably won't be so hasty to return to the gold standard; thus softening or preventing the economic downturn that led to the General Strike.
 
There is no higher position than the Exchequer other than No 10. The Great Offices of State (PMO, FO, Home Office, No 11) are the ones who effectively run the Cabinet and the UK. If you want to appoint Churchill Lord President of the Council (another name for Deputy Prime Minister) you could as well.
 
There is no higher position than the Exchequer other than No 10. The Great Offices of State (PMO, FO, Home Office, No 11) are the ones who effectively run the Cabinet and the UK. If you want to appoint Churchill Lord President of the Council (another name for Deputy Prime Minister) you could as well.

Noted: but wouldn't he have to be PM or Home Secretary to order the strikers shot?
 
Yes, but he was Home Secretary IOTL, and lethal force would require Prime Ministerial approval. If he's PM then the only thing he has to worry about is public opinion.
 
Yes, but he was Home Secretary IOTL, and lethal force would require Prime Ministerial approval. If he's PM then the only thing he has to worry about is public opinion.

Right: but if Churchill is PM then someone else (such as Chamberlain or McKenna) is Minister of the Exchequer in 1924. They probably make different economic policy decisions that don't set the General Strike into motion.
 
I don't think that can work: if Churchill is appointed to some higher position than Chancellor of the Exchequer, his likely alternative (Chamberlain? McKenna?) probably won't be so hasty to return to the gold standard; thus softening or preventing the economic downturn that led to the General Strike.
There is no higher position than the Exchequer other than No 10. The Great Offices of State (PMO, FO, Home Office, No 11) are the ones who effectively run the Cabinet and the UK. If you want to appoint Churchill Lord President of the Council (another name for Deputy Prime Minister) you could as well.
But the Lord President of the Council is in fact lower than being the Chancellor of the Exchequer isn't it? Or is this just in recent times? And during the '20s it was a more powerful role? If so then how could you get Churchill to this role in the government?
Yes, but he was Home Secretary IOTL, and lethal force would require Prime Ministerial approval. If he's PM then the only thing he has to worry about is public opinion.
I don't want Churchill being PM, I don't think public opinion of him would exactly be high in the '20s. I just need him to have more influence over Baldwin.
 
But the Lord President of the Council is in fact lower than being the Chancellor of the Exchequer isn't it? Or is this just in recent times? And during the '20s it was a more powerful role? If so then how could you get Churchill to this role in the government?

.

They are not directly comparable. Lord President is a Great Officer of State (he is President of the Privy Council) , and takes precedence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer . But the CoE is an executive office - ie he has significant actual power. LP is non executive, no particular powers (except in certain rare emergencies). It is often filled by a very senior statesman, whose experience and advice is wanted in the cabinet but who does not want to be bothered with running a government department; or, as a parking place for a has been who still has too much influence in the party to be left out altogether.

It is a very honourable office, but not one capable of doing very much (unless the holder is appointed to manage some specific initiative or project, as sometimes happens).

In regard to your question : it is (was) quite common , if the Prime Minister was a peer, for the most senior/important member of the Commons to hold the office of LP ,and serve as leader of the House - ie because the management of the Commons , with the First Lord a peer, was a onerous and full time job, it was unwise to saddle the Leader with an executive role as well. But, he needed a senior office. Lord President fitted well.

So, if the PM was a peer, Mr Churchill could have been Lord President, and Leader of the Commons (of course, this would need a good deal of hand waving to override the claims of other MPs).

So- you need either Mr Baldwin to become Lord Baldwin but remain Prime Minister (almost certainly possible at that date, the Marquess of Salisbury was PM only 25 odd years earlier); or replace Mr Baldwin as PM with a peer. Too early for Halifax, can't think of a likely candidate off hand. Maybe Devonshire? Or Salisbury (the 4th Marquess - more commonly remembered as Lord Cranbourne).
 
Last edited:
Hmm... Thank you but it seems like it's a little too difficult to get Churchill at any higher standing without changing some of the hierarchy of the Conservative Government.

But what about the Labour Party? How could you get at least some MPs from the Labour Party to encourage the strikers? Maybe even get a different leader after the 1922 Leadership Election? How else could you get the Labour Party (or at least some MPs within it) to support the strikers?

I've got an idea that could spark some minor fights between the strikers and police, but I need the support of at least two Labour Party MPs for my plan to be set of (th support of the two MPs would be the catalysts for a proper rebellion.)
 
Lord Curzon wanted to become leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister when Bonar Law resigned in May 1923, but was passed over in favour of Baldwin. If he did become Prime Minister, presumably he would not have called a general election on the issue or protection as Baldwin did, and he continues as Prime Minister until he resigns because of ill health in March 1925. He dies on 20 March 1925 as in OTL.

But without the 1924 Labour government would Churchill have crossed over from the Liberals to the Tories? So assume that Curzon entices Churchill to join his cabinet either as Lord President of the Council or a lower-ranking post. When Baldwin succeeds Curzon as Prime Minister in March 1925 he appoints Churchill as Lord President of the Council.
 
Well the obvious thing is to have more militant strikers and more extreme repression.

There were small Anarchist and Communist elements involved due to the 'wildcat' nature of many of the strikes and they caused quite a lot of trouble including derailing a train.

Also to help take up key jobs and aid police Auxiliaries were brought in, many of them ex-Black and Tan, while others were anti-communists and fascists. There were several major stand-offs were government forces attempted to transport coal from striking pits and unload ships at striking docks. The Home Office were smart enough to realise the Auxiliaries' involvement would cause a riot so the better armed and less hated Army was brought to do the job on those particular incidents.

The government also intervened in the printing of the Daily Mail, which intended to run an edition with the headline KING AND COUNTRY effectively calling for "with us or against us" attack on the strikers.

So have more violent acts by radical strikers, have major clashes with the Auxiliaries leading to radicalisation and violence, and let the Daily Mail run its patriotic edition to polarise opinion. If the right-wing parties you're talking about can get Lord Rothermere's financial backing, then in this situation a post-26 election will see them in good sted and if they can capitalise on the Great Depression which will come in some form by this point, they might be a powerful force.
 
A few questions now that I've got a reason for it to be more violent:
  • Firstly, what if these politicians were assassinated in London in '26: PM Baldwin, Austen Chamberlain and John Gilmour.
  • What if at the same time as the above are assassinated Winston Churchill is shot in the stomach and the Speaker in the heart (though they survive these attempts.)
  • What kind of a PM would Lord Cranborne be? And what would his policies be like?

Also to anyone who wants to know. After the assassinations there's a small revolution, but it's put down in 4 months with the help of Winston Churchill. Communism after this is very unpopular as well, while the right is more popular. If you need more info please do ask away :)
 
Top