AHC: Another Gladstone become UK Prime Minister

Thomas1195

Banned
Title says it all. The challenge is to make another member of Gladstone family become PM after 1900. And he must lead a Liberal government.
 
Most likely Herbert Gladstone replacing Campbell Bannerman in 1908. Strongest objection OTL was that the King disliked him. Earlier death or incapacitation of King Edward (not difficult, given his lifestyle) removes that obstacle.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Most likely Herbert Gladstone replacing Campbell Bannerman in 1908. Strongest objection OTL was that the King disliked him. Earlier death or incapacitation of King Edward (not difficult, given his lifestyle) removes that obstacle.
Well, I don't think the position could go to anyone other than Asquith, Grey and Haldane.

But another Gladstone being PM could create a huge butterfly in 1914.
 
They represented but one wing of the Liberal Party (Liberal Imperialists). Gladstone was a more middle of the road figure. He was senior to Haldane, if not Grey and probably neck to neck with Asquith. He and the other key figures in the Party all aware that the King disliked him so he didn't push his claims very vigorously. Very keen on Party unity and avoiding splits.
 
Gladstone's grandson was an MP and was killed in WWI, have him dodge a bullet (literally) and lead the Liberals at some point – or experience a Churchillian change in loyalty and have him succeed the man himself as Tory leader in the 1940s/1950s. The latter is perhaps more plausible as the issue with making someone Liberal leader after 1916 is that there aren't going to be any more Liberal PMs.

Or avoid WWI altogether and thus – perhaps – the Strange Death, and then young William G.C. Gladstone is a fresh-faced Liberal PM in the late 1920s.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Gladstone's grandson was an MP and was killed in WWI, have him dodge a bullet (literally) and lead the Liberals at some point – or experience a Churchillian change in loyalty and have him succeed the man himself as Tory leader in the 1940s/1950s. The latter is perhaps more plausible as the issue with making someone Liberal leader after 1916 is that there aren't going to be any more Liberal PMs.

Or avoid WWI altogether and thus – perhaps – the Strange Death, and then young William G.C. Gladstone is a fresh-faced Liberal PM in the late 1920s.
This man had a big potential if he was good enough. In fact, he was observed as a strong speaker when he won a by-election in 1911 with an unexpected large majority. And his name alone attracted lots of audience in his maiden speech in 1912.

If he survived, succeeded Asquith as Leader of Liberal Party, and converted to Keynesianism, then he would have put up a better fight in 1929 and 1931 elections, since he would be better at keeping party unity and persuading his party to accept Keynes' plan than Lloyd George, who was distrusted and hated by many of his party members for his treachery.
 
This man had a big potential if he was good enough. In fact, he was observed as a strong speaker when he won a by-election in 1911 with an unexpected large majority. And his name alone attracted lots of audience in his maiden speech in 1912.

If he survived, succeeded Asquith as Leader of Liberal Party, and converted to Keynesianism, then he would have put up a better fight in 1929 and 1931 elections, since he would be better at keeping party unity and persuading his party to accept Keynes' plan than Lloyd George, who was distrusted and hated by many of his party members for his treachery.
He was only 30 when he died, so in 1925 he's 40, which would require Strange Times Indeed if he is to take over the party any time before then, or really within less than a few years after that.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
He was only 30 when he died, so in 1925 he's 40, which would require Strange Times Indeed if he is to take over the party any time before then, or really within less than a few years after that.
Or as mentioned above, Herbert Gladstone becoming PM instead of Asquith. Maybe have KIng Edward dying earlier.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
He was only 30 when he died, so in 1925 he's 40, which would require Strange Times Indeed if he is to take over the party any time before then, or really within less than a few years after that.
Rosebery and Sinclair became leaders in their forties. So this would not be impossiblem
 

Thomas1195

Banned
They represented but one wing of the Liberal Party (Liberal Imperialists). Gladstone was a more middle of the road figure. He was senior to Haldane, if not Grey and probably neck to neck with Asquith. He and the other key figures in the Party all aware that the King disliked him so he didn't push his claims very vigorously. Very keen on Party unity and avoiding splits.
So, how would Herbert's policies look like if he become PM?
 
Domestic policy not hugely different. Women's suffrage not going anywhere soon as both parties split on the issue and Irish Nationalists anti/disinterested. Herbert a humane man so Factory Acts, health and safety legislation etc. probably much as OTL. Health ditto, general consensus by all but the most reactionary at Westminster that more needed to be done. Old Age pensions as OTL (except Asquith gets credit not DLG) Unemployment exchanges ditto. Less likely to support an assertive foreign policy. More wanting to concentrate on domestic policy. Not personally beholden to Grey for his support either. Slightly keener on Irish and Scots Home Rule.
 
Britain would still go to war over a German violation of Belgian neutrality. It was both a treaty commitment and in their geostrategic interest to do so. HG didn't actively want war and wasn't signed up to any agreements with France over and above the Entente Cordiale. Would have been more interested in genuine neutrality I think and made it clear to the Germans "we hope to stay out of this but can't if Belgian neutrality is violated" which would have concentrated minds in Berlin. OTL the Germans realised that Grey was looking for an excuse to commit to the Franco-Russian alliance and therefore didn't think that staying out of Belgium would keep Britain out of the war for very long. Were they to believe it a genuine quid pro quo for British neutrality they might have exercised their brains a bit harder!
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Old Age pensions as OTL (except Asquith gets credit not DLG) Unemployment exchanges ditto.
I think DLG might be promoted to a higher position, since HG might give more slots for the left wing of the party to counter-balance the Imperialist wing.

And what about education and economic policies? IOTL, Asquith did create a counter-cyclical public work scheme on improving roads, harbours, land drainage..., which marked a shift in economic policy of the Liberal in particular and of Britain in general. There might be more education reforms if Gladstone makes a Radical like Trevelyan, Buxton or Masterman as President of Board of Education.

Britain would still go to war over a German violation of Belgian neutrality. It was both a treaty commitment and in their geostrategic interest to do so. HG didn't actively want war and wasn't signed up to any agreements with France over and above the Entente Cordiale. Would have been more interested in genuine neutrality I think and made it clear to the Germans "we hope to stay out of this but can't if Belgian neutrality is violated" which would have concentrated minds in Berlin. OTL the Germans realised that Grey was looking for an excuse to commit to the Franco-Russian alliance and therefore didn't think that staying out of Belgium would keep Britain out of the war for very long. Were they to believe it a genuine quid pro quo for British neutrality they might have exercised their brains a bit harder!
Well, Grey would not be allowed the level of independence he had IOTL. If Gladstone acts like the pro-Boer wing, he would make a very clear stance over Belgium.


One question, how would he fare as a war leader? It seems that he is no Lloyd George, but he would not fall in love with Venetia Stanley or lose his son (William Glynnes Gladstone was only his nephew).
 
Gladstone's grandson was an MP and was killed in WWI, have him dodge a bullet (literally) and lead the Liberals at some point – or experience a Churchillian change in loyalty and have him succeed the man himself as Tory leader in the 1940s/1950s. The latter is perhaps more plausible as the issue with making someone Liberal leader after 1916 is that there aren't going to be any more Liberal PMs.

Or avoid WWI altogether and thus – perhaps – the Strange Death, and then young William G.C. Gladstone is a fresh-faced Liberal PM in the late 1920s.
Then there was Charles, the 6th Baronet. He survived WW1 but didn't enter politics instead teaching at Eton for several decades.
 
Pretty much as Asquith, I would think. Not terribly interested in military and foreign policy. However, if we still got involved in WWI, and I would consider that to be quite a big "if" as you will see from my post above, I think the big difference would be when Bonar Law and Lloyd George got restive. Gladstone would never have split the Liberal party. He would have done a Neville Chamberlain and allowed himself to be relegated to the prestigious but secondary role of either Lord Chancellor or Lord President of the Council.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Pretty much as Asquith, I would think. Not terribly interested in military and foreign policy. However, if we still got involved in WWI, and I would consider that to be quite a big "if" as you will see from my post above, I think the big difference would be when Bonar Law and Lloyd George got restive. Gladstone would never have split the Liberal party. He would have done a Neville Chamberlain and allowed himself to be relegated to the prestigious but secondary role of either Lord Chancellor or Lord President of the Council.
Or he, knowing his limited experience in military, decided to give other ministers like DLG, McKenna, Montagu... more power. Tories like Bonar Law would have been given more important positions than IOTL, to use the talent of the likes of Geddes or Bonar Law. Himself would devote in issues like Easter Rising, i.e. maintaining social unity. As I said, two advantages for Gladstone were that he was not a heavy drinker and never fell in love with Venetia Stanley.

If things got worse, he might do a Chamberlain like you said to save his party. Last but not least, he would be unlikely to brand Labour as Bolshevik in 1918 election, since he was the chief architect of the Lib-Lab Pact.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Now, about post-war:

- First, a party man like Herbert Gladstone would be able to bring the whole Liberal Party to the 1918 election as a united opposition force to the Tories, and he woudl be more credible than Asquith IOTL, who was considered to nearly lost the war. Besides, aunlike IOTL, now we can't know which party would win.

- If he won, his government would have greater presence of the party's left wing than Asquith prewar government IOTL. This would lead to several outcomes:

+ First, the Treaty of Versailles would be more Wilsonian than IOTL.

+ Home Rule would be passed, regardless of the aftermath of the Easter Rising. Irish people would be let to solve their problem, like Grey wanted IOTL.

+ No intervention in Russian Civil War, which would help cut back wasteful military spending.

+ OTL postwar reforms would be implemented, but would not be repealed by Geddes Axe/ Anti-Waste League.

+ Public works would be introduced, unlike IOTL. So returning soldiers would not be left to live on the dole.

- If he lost and return in 1923:

+ Keynesian public works would be introduced.

+ Not sure about the Gold Standard issue, but Keynesian public works might demand either an abandonment or a lower exchange rate.
 
Top