AHC: Prime Minister (Eric) Blair

Eric Blair, better known by his pen-name George Orwell, is amongst my favourite historical writers & probably my favourite writer of all time. He was a committed democratic socialist, highly critical of Stalinism whilst a had a more complex relationship with British imperialism.

Your challenge is to create the situation that allows Blair to be elected to the highest office in the land, with a PoD no earlier than 1923. How would it be done & what would be likely impact of history losing one of its most iconic authors to the murky world of politics?
 
Actually this raises an interesting question, would you or would you not say that he was on the Left of the Old Labour party? From what I have read from him I've always gotten that impression.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
That would make sense and actually serves as a good analogy for him!

I'd of given a more detailed outline, but I was kinda busy.

But yes, Macmillan. I do doubt he would have become Party Leader. He was a bit like Tony Benn, and was hesitant to the shift from Old Hardie Labour to the New Attlee Labour, critical of the shifting ideology and how certain aspects were being implemented. I can see him become a cabinet figure, but unless he becomes more accepting to Attlee, Prime Minister perhaps not.
 
I'd of given a more detailed outline, but I was kinda busy.

But yes, Macmillan. I do doubt he would have become Party Leader. He was a bit like Tony Benn, and was hesitant to the shift from Old Hardie Labour to the New Attlee Labour, critical of the shifting ideology and how certain aspects were being implemented. I can see him become a cabinet figure, but unless he becomes more accepting to Attlee, Prime Minister perhaps not.

He didn't exactly have the temperament to become Prime Minister. His was a romantic socialism - more Cavalier than Roundhead - and the Fabianism of the 20s and 30s just wasn't aligned with his thinking. The only leader that would have understood his thinking was George Lansbury, but Lansbury was pro-Soviet and pacifistic. So, Lansbury would have been against him as well.

There is no real place for Eric Arthur Blair in the interwar party, really.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
He didn't exactly have the temperament to become Prime Minister. His was a romantic socialism - more Cavalier than Roundhead - and the Fabianism of the 20s and 30s just wasn't aligned with his thinking. The only leader that would have understood his thinking was George Lansbury, but Lansbury was pro-Soviet and pacifistic. So, Lansbury would have been against him as well.

There is no real place for Eric Arthur Blair in the interwar party, really.

This is true.

You need Blair to become political in the sense of wanting to be a Politician early on, perhaps during his time in Burma, giving him enough time to be desensitized and come to the reality of Socialism.
 
George Lansbury's rumoured coup in 1924 needs to occur, no doubt. Its success would effectively put the party on a "better" (for Blair, at least) path and lure him in to actually become a Labour politician.
 
Might be possible later than that; was he not offered a job in SOE, during the war? That would have given him something to do that would have both suited and stretched his talents, not as an agent in the field but in propaganda or the operations directorate; would also have got him medical care that could have stretched him towards a full three score and ten;

meaning that there may still be time for him to hold ministerial office under Attlee, and things may proceed differently from there. How well does he do when he doesn't get to be a critic any more?
 
Might be possible later than that; was he not offered a job in SOE, during the war? That would have given him something to do that would have both suited and stretched his talents, not as an agent in the field but in propaganda or the operations directorate; would also have got him medical care that could have stretched him towards a full three score and ten;

meaning that there may still be time for him to hold ministerial office under Attlee, and things may proceed differently from there. How well does he do when he doesn't get to be a critic any more?

There's no reason for him to join the Labour Party and, from there, the Attlee government. That's the point I'm getting at: Orwell's socialism does not correspond to any major strand of Labour thinking in the 40s and 50s. He would be a pariah in the party - without allies and surrounded by enemies - and wouldn't have any chance at ministerial office.

At best, he'd be an eccentric backbencher with a small gaggle of followers and no influence. There is no way that a man with such eclectic views that he could well be described as a "Trotskyite Tory" would be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet or the office of Prime Minister in the OTL 1940s/50s.

Labour has to change and so does Britain. Therefore, the earlier the PoD, the better.
 
There's no reason for him to join the Labour Party and, from there, the Attlee government. That's the point I'm getting at: Orwell's socialism does not correspond to any major strand of Labour thinking in the 40s and 50s. He would be a pariah in the party - without allies and surrounded by enemies - and wouldn't have any chance at ministerial office.

At best, he'd be an eccentric backbencher with a small gaggle of followers and no influence. There is no way that a man with such eclectic views that he could well be described as a "Trotskyite Tory" would be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet or the office of Prime Minister in the OTL 1940s/50s.

Labour has to change and so does Britain. Therefore, the earlier the PoD, the better.

So with a change to Labour circa 1924, with the rumoured Lansbury coup being one possible way of shifting the party into the necessary direction for Blair to see the party as more in-line with his own thinking, what else would need to happen? Lansbury would certainly be taking the Labour Party into a more leftist direction but also strongly pacifist which is obviously something that Blair was not a complete supporter of. Not to mention that he'd still be over in Burma and it wasn't until the mid-to-late 20s that saw his return to Blighty.
 
So with a change to Labour circa 1924, with the rumoured Lansbury coup being one possible way of shifting the party into the necessary direction for Blair to see the party as more in-line with his own thinking, what else would need to happen? Lansbury would certainly be taking the Labour Party into a more leftist direction but also strongly pacifist which is obviously something that Blair was not a complete supporter of. Not to mention that he'd still be over in Burma and it wasn't until the mid-to-late 20s that saw his return to Blighty.

The issue of pacifism wasn't one of Lansbury's main points until the 1930s and the threat of war loomed in Europe. Domestic affairs and the economy would be the main points of a Lansburyite party platform and, hopefully, would enthuse a young radical like Blair to come back to Britain.

I think missing out the 1926 General Strike OR having it be a major success with the government backing down would also need to occur. The Tories need to lose to Lansbury somehow and the 1926 failure would discredit Lansbury's vision for the party and could lead to a coup within Labour. Therefore, Labour must be vindicated or strike action has to be stalled until the next general election.

Blair would have a better chance of gaining a seat in a Lansbury landslide. In terms of where he could go, he wouldn't be a bad fit working on an internal Labour committee. Either economic policy with G.D.H. Cole or the question of imperialism with the likes of Josiah Wedgwood would be good for Blair.
 
The issue of pacifism wasn't one of Lansbury's main points until the 1930s and the threat of war loomed in Europe. Domestic affairs and the economy would be the main points of a Lansburyite party platform and, hopefully, would enthuse a young radical like Blair to come back to Britain.

I think missing out the 1926 General Strike OR having it be a major success with the government backing down would also need to occur. The Tories need to lose to Lansbury somehow and the 1926 failure would discredit Lansbury's vision for the party and could lead to a coup within Labour. Therefore, Labour must be vindicated or strike action has to be stalled until the next general election.

Blair would have a better chance of gaining a seat in a Lansbury landslide. In terms of where he could go, he wouldn't be a bad fit working on an internal Labour committee. Either economic policy with G.D.H. Cole or the question of imperialism with the likes of Josiah Wedgwood would be good for Blair.

Well of the two options, having Lansbury's Labour trying to talk the TUC out of escalating the strike in 1926 seems the more likely option as we already know how it would have gone otherwise - unless other actions took place to allow the strike to be a success..?

Otherwise we'd be running to at latest 1929 for the next GE, but a weakened Conservative Party would be better suited to allow a Lansbury victory then. Rising through being a backbencher and a Colonial Policy Labour Committee seems like not a bad shout for him, but things seem to take a potential turn with the Great Depression depending on who is at the Treasury and what action is taken.
 
Nope, still convinced that after WWII is a better bet- he was born when, 1903? The second coming of William Pitt the Younger he is not. By the time of the General Strike he's hardly done any of his great writing yet, nor lived through most of the life experience it took him to form his views.

He's a junior officer in a colonial police force, thought seriously odd for actually caring about his job, at that point- he's five thousand miles from British politics, and metaphorically far further from a British readership.

He's too young, not bloodthirsty enough to claw his way in that ruthlessly that soon, and probably not serious political material at all until after the Spanish Civil War. Give him time to develop as a writer and thinker, and see about preventing his early death, then maybe.
 
Nope, still convinced that after WWII is a better bet- he was born when, 1903? The second coming of William Pitt the Younger he is not. By the time of the General Strike he's hardly done any of his great writing yet, nor lived through most of the life experience it took him to form his views.

He's a junior officer in a colonial police force, thought seriously odd for actually caring about his job, at that point- he's five thousand miles from British politics, and metaphorically far further from a British readership.

He's too young, not bloodthirsty enough to claw his way in that ruthlessly that soon, and probably not serious political material at all until after the Spanish Civil War. Give him time to develop as a writer and thinker, and see about preventing his early death, then maybe.

I think you've misunderstood what's being discussed here. Nobody has suggested making him Prime Minister at the age of 26 or something ludicrous like that - read back over the discussion and you'll see that we were working out how Blair could rise through the Labour Party at an earlier date to put him in good stead to become Leader and then PM.

You can't have a post-WW2 PoD because then it becomes practically impossible to save him from an early death. It needs to be, at the very least, before he was shot through the neck in the Spanish Civil War. Avoiding that is, last I've checked, good for anyone's health.

Please take the time to re-read what's being said, mate.
 
I have read it; that's why I don't believe it. Given the basic unlikelihood of his wanting to be prime minister, the idea becomes to shatter British politics in such a way that he does.

The project seems to lose all sense of proportion quite quickly, deploying enormous causes to achieve tiny effects, and sense of proportion was always one of the things he did hold on to. I don't think he'd actually approve.


Weirdly, though, this has actually given me an idea for my own timelines- under a different, reforming Viceroy in the mid twenties, he might very well become one of the founders and leaders of the Indian Labour Party.
 
Top