AHC: Make Winston Churchill a Liberal Prime Minister

In OTL, Winston Churchill served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as a member of the Conservative Party. However, for a period of some 20 years he was a member of the Liberal Party, and even served as Home Secretary while a Liberal.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to make Winston Churchill Prime Minister while a Liberal.
 
If I’m not mistaken, the deciding factor for Churchill was that he favored using the military or police to break up Union strikes, and that was what made him a Conservative. Show him a bad experience of something like that happening and - voila - he’s a Liberal. Or Labour. Not sure.
 
If I’m not mistaken, the deciding factor for Churchill was that he favored using the military or police to break up Union strikes, and that was what made him a Conservative. Show him a bad experience of something like that happening and - voila - he’s a Liberal. Or Labour. Not sure.
Winston Churchill, a member of the Labour Party? Now that's something I've never seen before.
 
My understanding is that Churchill broke with the Conservatives over trade, becoming a Liberal, but remained interventionist and if not opposed at least doubtful of Irish Home Rule. He was Lloyd George's ally and likely heir so my thought would be no Great War for Britain and the 1915 election moves to a Conservative government that undermines free trade while pushing back Home Rule. The latter likely gets violent and the events lead to a Liberal return to power after a vote of no confidence. Asquith might be ready to step away from direct power and let Lloyd George move to the front, Churchill assumes an important post and is on track to earn his nod for PM in future. This might see a weakening of the pacifist wing and a more hawkish Liberal party that gives Labour an ideological platform to sap off the left leaning Liberals while moderate and free trade Conservatives shift to this evolving Liberal party, leaving the Conservatives as the lesser party. Britain might have a very tight three-way party struggle for government that despite its first past the post system results in many coalition governments, weak or slim majorities and overall livelier political debates and less swing between two visions. I might argue that this Churchill is just as scrappy but not as liked, his legacy might be a failed one as he assumes power in an economic downturn and his lack of enthusiasm for that thorny issue leads him to bungle it for the Liberals. He may be one of the men talked of for wasted potential or lost opportunity but otherwise more footnote than figure.
 
If I’m not mistaken, the deciding factor for Churchill was that he favored using the military or police to break up Union strikes, and that was what made him a Conservative.
A common misconception about Churchill. Actually when the strike at Tonypandy was getting violent, virtually the entire Liberal Cabinet (including John Morley) wanted to send in the Army to restore order. Except for the Home Secretary Winston Churchill who argued that it was a matter for the police and drafted in officers from other police forces to support the local force. He did support measures to destroy the General Strike but because he saw it as aimed at overthrowing constitutional democracy not because he was a strikebreaker per se. And suprisingly tolerant of union action including strikes during WW2.

As said above, best bet is either no WWI or a neutral Britain. Lloyd George is ill in 1931 so his senior Cabinet colleague Winston Churchill assumes the Premiership.
 
I have always been interested in a timeline which explores the Lloyd George Liberals and the Tories 'fusing' after the First World War (being much too lazy to do one myself) as opposed to what actually happened which was the Tories feasting off the corpse of the Liberal Party. EdT sort of did this with Fight and Be Right, but set several decades earlier. I suspect that a fused party, while occupying a similar place in the political spectrum as Baldwin's Conservatives, might well sound quite different and try to strike a more dynamic note. Churchill, as someone with a certain degree of appeal to both Conservative and Liberal wings, might be a decent shout to lead such a party (although I think it would take on a very anti-Socialist tone and could be quite authoritarian dependent upon the extent of union militancy during the inter-war years).

Of course, post-war Churchill has all the misjudgements of the First World War and period immediately following that haunted him in real life in this time line. He at least though won't be tarnished with the brush of having re-ratted to the Tories given that they and the Coalition Liberals will be under one big tent.

http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/history/fusion-liberals-and-conservatives/
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I have always been interested in a timeline which explores the Lloyd George Liberals and the Tories 'fusing' after the First World War (being much too lazy to do one myself) as opposed to what actually happened which was the Tories feasting off the corpse of the Liberal Party. EdT sort of did this with Fight and Be Right, but set several decades earlier. I suspect that a fused party, while occupying a similar place in the political spectrum as Baldwin's Conservatives, might well sound quite different and try to strike a more dynamic note. Churchill, as someone with a certain degree of appeal to both Conservative and Liberal wings, might be a decent shout to lead such a party (although I think it would take on a very anti-Socialist tone and could be quite authoritarian dependent upon the extent of union militancy during the inter-war years).
Such party would be a Conservative one, since the Tories are still the majority. Not to mention a large number of liberals never wanted this.

I might argue that this Churchill is just as scrappy but not as liked, his legacy might be a failed one as he assumes power in an economic downturn and his lack of enthusiasm for that thorny issue leads him to bungle it for the Liberals.
Churchill as a Liberal, however, was much more economically interventionist than he was IOTL as the Chancellor.

Asquith might be ready to step away from direct power and let Lloyd George move to the front, Churchill assumes an important post and is on track to earn his nod for PM in future. This might see a weakening of the pacifist wing and a more hawkish Liberal party that gives Labour an ideological platform to sap off the left leaning Liberals while moderate and free trade Conservatives shift to this evolving Liberal party, leaving the Conservatives as the lesser party
The problem is that Lloyd George becoming leader, especially without a ww1, would empower the left-leaning liberals (like Keynes) rather than those on the right.
 
Such party would be a Conservative one, since the Tories are still the majority. Not to mention a large number of liberals never wanted this.
I think there is a distinction between a party being of the centre-right and being Conservative. Yes, the majority of the party's MPs would be of Conservative origin, but the infusion of a phalanx of formerly Liberal MPs is going to have an effect on the party's policies and outlook, and for the initial period at any rate it is going to be led by Lloyd George (and rather importantly be funded by him too). Even in real life the desire to woo Liberal voters and MPs led to a significant softening of the Tories' image and moderation of their policies in a number of areas.
 
Churchill as a Liberal, however, was much more economically interventionist than he was IOTL as the Chancellor.


The problem is that Lloyd George becoming leader, especially without a ww1, would empower the left-leaning liberals (like Keynes) rather than those on the right.

My thinking was that Churchill would be open to an active part by government in the economy but likely only take half measures when it required harder choices, similar to taking the UK back to Gold but eschewing any devaluation to reflect reality, he might fall prey to the financial elite in City of London who would not always do what is best for Britain while making London wealthier or at least being blinded by themselves. He might bristle at the Keynesian heresy, especially without the deeper crisis of a global depression, the Liberals would do fine in a buoyant economy but might never develop the tools for a sinking one. It is not a flaw in Churchill but of the era, he would be as ill prepared as Hoover found himself, by the time he learns the damage is done, that was my thrust, an issue of being at the helm at the wrong time. Without a Great War, or at least no participation, there is no guarantee that the UK does not hit a different crisis, after all I doubt many would have believed the USA would go from the highs of Roaring 20s to 1929 and the Depression.

My notion was that Labour would be more firmly pacifist as opposed to the hawkish Liberals, on economics they might agree that the state should intervene in he economy but otherwise would have very different policy on what that means. I assume here Labour is a more left leaning British Social Democrats with Liberals holding a more centrist position spanning into the left and touching the right with the Tories holding more traditional Centre-right to right. And I wonder if the Socialist international does not hold more sway here yet remain a diverse collection of national parties, Labour might be rather different, perhaps more or perhaps less relevant.
 
From reading the replies to this post, I have this image in my head of Churchill as a Cold War Liberal before the Cold War (i.e, Hawkish but Progressive on Economic Issues).
 
If I’m not mistaken, the deciding factor for Churchill was that he favored using the military or police to break up Union strikes, and that was what made him a Conservative. Show him a bad experience of something like that happening and - voila - he’s a Liberal. Or Labour. Not sure.
the fundamental drivers with Churchill were A) He wanted Office, B) He really did not like Socialism. However he did like many Leftish policies ie wages councils.. The key like most successful Liberal timelines is avoid the Liberal Party Split by any means possible. This could largely prevent the rise of Labour, or severely limit it. (Hello Canada yes I am looking at you) and prevent Churchill being bounced into becoming a Conservative.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
My thinking was that Churchill would be open to an active part by government in the economy but likely only take half measures when it required harder choices, similar to taking the UK back to Gold but eschewing any devaluation to reflect reality, he might fall prey to the financial elite in City of London who would not always do what is best for Britain while making London wealthier or at least being blinded by themselves. He might bristle at the Keynesian heresy, especially without the deeper crisis of a global depression, the Liberals would do fine in a buoyant economy but might never develop the tools for a sinking one.
If there is a Lloyd George's pure Liberal Cabinet, then the Chancellor would be someone like McKenna or Chioza Money (DLG's own protege). Both were more economically literate than Winny, and under Lloyd George leadership the Liberals would resist the City bankers. After all, the Liberal Party represented industrial interests rather than financial elites, since nearly all bankers had defected following the First Irish Home Rule Bill.

The trend would continue to be more state intervention, but no ww1 would delay Keynesian economics.

From reading the replies to this post, I have this image in my head of Churchill as a Cold War Liberal before the Cold War (i.e, Hawkish but Progressive on Economic Issues).
Well, by 1925, Churchill had become a conservative, and only differed from other Tories in his free trade position.
 
If there is a Lloyd George's pure Liberal Cabinet, then the Chancellor would be someone like McKenna or Chioza Money (DLG's own protege). Both were more economically literate than Winny, and under Lloyd George leadership the Liberals would resist the City bankers. After all, the Liberal Party represented industrial interests rather than financial elites, since nearly all bankers had defected following the First Irish Home Rule Bill.

The trend would continue to be more state intervention, but no ww1 would delay Keynesian economics.


Well, by 1925, Churchill had become a conservative, and only differed from other Tories in his free trade position.

So the trend would be Liberal-Labour coalition and either Labour withers over time to populate a left-wing of the Liberals or remaining a rump "fringe" third party? So Liberal governments would strengthen British industry at the expense of London's financial elite? Am I correct in seeing Churchill as more aligned to that elite and ultimately alienating himself inside the Liberals? As you say, I see Churchill as Conservative in almost every stance but free trade, thus I suspect he would never see the PM post unless the Liberals shifted towards a less free trade policy and he was a unity candidate between factions including an imperialist or hawkish international clique. I still have not thought through how a Britain not at war in 1914, without more changes before, would not see a split Liberal party that may end up just as broken. Assuming it does weather the calamity better then I can accept the argument that the Liberals remain a strong influence in Parliament and governing party. I use that in my alternative for a UK that still loses its Empire but remains a wealthier industrial nation and great power in my different post-Great War world. Very interesting to me as a very amateur outsider observer of British political history.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
So the trend would be Liberal-Labour coalition and either Labour withers over time to populate a left-wing of the Liberals or remaining a rump "fringe" third party? So Liberal governments would strengthen British industry at the expense of London's financial elite?
Yep. And I actually came across an article which stated that the Liberals already began to curb capital export by 1914, just before ww1.

I see Churchill as Conservative in almost every stance but free trade, thus I suspect he would never see the PM post unless the Liberals shifted towards a less free trade policy and he was a unity candidate between factions including an imperialist or hawkish international clique.
No, 1914 Churchill was essentially an American Cold War Liberal rather than a free-trade Tory.

I still have not thought through how a Britain not at war in 1914, without more changes before, would not see a split Liberal party that may end up just as broken
The issue of conscription wrecked the Liberals as much as slavery destroyed the Whig (US). It would be avoided without a total war.
 
. . . try to strike a more dynamic note. . .
Churchill very much strikes me as energetic, active individual . . . much like FDR?

probably should say that I’m a Yank :)

And what if Sir Winston had been PM starting in ‘36 (instead of 1940 as in OTL), might he have adopted an FDR-like experimentalist approach and his own versions of New Deal alphabet soup programs?
 
Yep. And I actually came across an article which stated that the Liberals already began to curb capital export by 1914, just before ww1.


No, 1914 Churchill was essentially an American Cold War Liberal rather than a free-trade Tory.


The issue of conscription wrecked the Liberals as much as slavery destroyed the Whig (US). It would be avoided without a total war.

Thank you, I will have to reevaluate Mr. Churchill. Now that would set in motion a very different UK. If the BEF is given a more limited scope in the war and other theaters are not developed I could find the need for conscription avoided, but I think such a war ends without an Entente victory, more likely a stalemate or even modest CP victory.


In my own tinkering with the Great War, leaving Germany weakened but intact, the undefeated rather than vanquished or victorious, I have two roads forward to choose, one that leaves the UK out of the war or one where the UK enters later. My best guess is that the 1915 election brings a Tory PM and government but no majority so any entry to war still looks like a "unity" government as the Liberals built with the Tories. As I understand it the Liberals were divided within over going to war, only the clear belligerency of Germany brought the "pacifist" faction to maintain unity, as an out of power and coalition party that divide might not need close. Thus it would seem that if the war remains limited to the continental powers then the Liberals are in position to take up power somewhere after the war with an agenda that prepares the UK to remain a peer or near peer power into the modern era. In the event that the UK goes to war under a Tory government the Liberals can remain distinct enough to remain a major party in future and if Labour strengthens that should push the Liberals to absorb more Tories and cause a rightward shift of its policy. At bottom I think a war that ends without a victory nearly destroys the party in power as the arguable victory mortally wounded the Liberals. Therefore my thinking would be that Churchill has a good chance to be unpopular within the party but the most likely Liberal to bridge its wider wings in some later 1930s or early 1940s election and government.

Without bogging down this thread with gross details, would a surviving Imperial Germany that by the 1930s is beginning to reassert herself as the proto-continental super power and still globally aspiring great power, likely with a colonial empire retained, give Churchill relevance as a hawkish Liberal? I would imagine Churchill might steer reactionary, defend British imperialism and promote military spending, but does he retain enough confidence and supporters to become PM?
 
Top