AHC: Common Wealth Party survives

Inspired by current coalition anxiety in the UK:

During the Second World War, all of the main parties in the UK went into a Wartime Coalition and promised not to stand against each other in by-elections until the war was over. Since that particular parliament lasted from 1935 to 1945, and because several MPs were on active service, there were more than a few of these by-elections.

In 1942 an organisation called 'Common Wealth' was set up as a merger of radical Leftists, ex-Liberals and neo-Christian pacifists. Now, in several by-elections this was the only Party standing against the Government candidate, so in addition to the ex-Liberal Richard Acland and the 'Independent Progressive' Vernon Bartlett, they also gained three seats in by-elections in the period 1943-5. It looked like they were heading for a break-through, and they even managed to agree on a basic political programme - Guild Socialism and Libertarianism, with high-minded talk of Morality and 'Vital Democracy'. They also had support from current staples of GCSE English Lit, JB Priestley and Olaf Stapledon.

However, in the general election after the war ended, Acland, John Eric Loverseed and Hugh Lawson were all unseated (Lawson stood for a different constituency, keeping a promise he'd made to the Skipton Labour Party) while Bartlett kept his seat but became an Independent. Only Ernest Millington remained, and he crossed the floor to join Labour in 1946, causing the Party to completely implode. When Richard Acland returned to Parliament in 1948, he sat as a Labour MP.

So the challenge is simple but potentially difficult. Keep Common Wealth politically semi-relevant for at least two decades. Bonus points if CW is represented in Parliament consistently from 1942 to 1962, and extra points for keeping the Party alive and kicking to the present day.
 
Have Herbert Morrison be leader of the Labour Party during the talks over whether to split or stand on a National Government ticket, which sends a lot of disaffected leftists towards the Commonwealth Party, enough that they are able to maintain their seats in the 1945 election. As the five years go by, with the far-left of Labour feeling discontent with propping up the Tories, conflict between parties starting up again over the American Loan, Korean War, and various reforms made to the economy and certain sectors, you could have something broadly close to Bevan's resignation. It could be over Health, the budget cuts caused by the Korean War, or even just the general policy of the government itself.

1950 could see pressure for a split, or the Korean War forces another National Government ticket, only with the parties having a good few MPs and candidates rebel which benefits the Commonwealth Party in building up a base of continuous support and MPs recognition. Morrison was a firm backer of having Bevan kicked out of the party during the latter's time in the wilderness, and only Attlee's quiet pressure saw the narrow defeat of such by 1 vote, which could easily be reversed ITTL. Bevan is out in the cold, and you may see larger left-wing defections to the Commonwealth Party in response (Bevan would likely remain an Independent and focus on getting back in, if his words to Jennie Lee on her own defection from Labour are anything to go by).

Maybe have a Tory government triumph in 1951, or succeed on their own by 1955, and you can have Labour begin to bicker and attack one another as the Commonwealth grows more and more. Eventually, barring some big divide, Labour would rebuild itself again and the Commonwealth Party would begin to feel some strain as time goes on, the main figures begin to die out, and the electoral divide has people go for tactical voting. Over the late 50s and early 60s, it begins to lose momentum and eventually approaches Labour for a deal on the lines of the Co-Op Party.

Depending on the leader, the offer could be accepted early on in the late 50s, or they'd have to wait until the mid to late 60s for it to go ahead.
 
Have Herbert Morrison be leader of the Labour Party during the talks over whether to split or stand on a National Government ticket, which sends a lot of disaffected leftists towards the Commonwealth Party, enough that they are able to maintain their seats in the 1945 election.

Wasn't Morrison the guy who pressured Churchill into an immediate dissolution of the National Government IOTL? And didn't he essentially get his way? Surely having him in charge would appeal more to CW's anti-war, anti-Tory base, not less.
 
Wasn't Morrison the guy who pressured Churchill into an immediate dissolution of the National Government IOTL? And didn't he essentially get his way? Surely having him in charge would appeal more to CW's anti-war, anti-Tory base, not less.

I might have mixed him up with someone else, but the POD is essentially similar, in that the National Government continuing post-1945.
 
Top