AHC - Split both Labour and the Tory Parties after WW2

The challenge is to split both Labour and the Tory Parties each into two parties sometime after WW2, so future elections effectively become a multi-party system.

With Labour for example being roughly split into Gaitskellite and Bevanite factions respectively, while the Tories are split along similar moderate / extreme lines yet with additional divergent views on both the US (and Cold War, etc) as well as whether to fully embrace decolonisation or (akin to the French) try to delay the inevitable for as long as possible.
 
Get PR introduced. The nature of the UK's electoral system means that the only parties capable of winning are incredibly broad church coalitions. A proportional electoral system would create a completely different dynamic.

For a potential split in the Conservative Party one thing I'm considering is having the National Liberals (technically a separate party but affiliated with the Tories and later fully merged with them) break away and rejoin the Liberals, maybe even taking some mainstream Conservatives with them. The way I'm thinking of doing it is have the Liberals do a bit better (hold onto abot 10 seats throughout the 50s) whilst Labour remain in power throughout the 50s. With the Tories stuck in the political wilderness the Nat Libs decide that its not worth remaining tied to them and rejoin the Liberals (effectively doubling their seats and giving them a significant boost nationally). Of course, given how much this state of affairs would benefit Labour, its hard to see how Labour could then be split (internal factional disputes are less intense if you're winning elections), although political fragmentation that a revived Liberal Party would cause could lead to greater demands for PR.
 
Get PR introduced. The nature of the UK's electoral system means that the only parties capable of winning are incredibly broad church coalitions. A proportional electoral system would create a completely different dynamic.

For a potential split in the Conservative Party one thing I'm considering is having the National Liberals (technically a separate party but affiliated with the Tories and later fully merged with them) break away and rejoin the Liberals, maybe even taking some mainstream Conservatives with them. The way I'm thinking of doing it is have the Liberals do a bit better (hold onto abot 10 seats throughout the 50s) whilst Labour remain in power throughout the 50s. With the Tories stuck in the political wilderness the Nat Libs decide that its not worth remaining tied to them and rejoin the Liberals (effectively doubling their seats and giving them a significant boost nationally). Of course, given how much this state of affairs would benefit Labour, its hard to see how Labour could then be split (internal factional disputes are less intense if you're winning elections), although political fragmentation that a revived Liberal Party would cause could lead to greater demands for PR.

hmm how about devolution as a causer of splits. Historically the Liberals were more pro this than the other parties, assume the Liberals are doing better in part because devolution gets a slightly earlier political start, and this in turn also makes devolution more successful, a type of feedback A stronger Liberal position in Wales for eg could stop Megan L-G leaving for Labour and her seat was a future bastion of devolutionist sentiment in Caemarthanshire for eg . If devolution becomes a defining issue Labour could easily split over it..
 
Get PR introduced. The nature of the UK's electoral system means that the only parties capable of winning are incredibly broad church coalitions. A proportional electoral system would create a completely different dynamic.

For a potential split in the Conservative Party one thing I'm considering is having the National Liberals (technically a separate party but affiliated with the Tories and later fully merged with them) break away and rejoin the Liberals, maybe even taking some mainstream Conservatives with them. The way I'm thinking of doing it is have the Liberals do a bit better (hold onto abot 10 seats throughout the 50s) whilst Labour remain in power throughout the 50s. With the Tories stuck in the political wilderness the Nat Libs decide that its not worth remaining tied to them and rejoin the Liberals (effectively doubling their seats and giving them a significant boost nationally). Of course, given how much this state of affairs would benefit Labour, its hard to see how Labour could then be split (internal factional disputes are less intense if you're winning elections), although political fragmentation that a revived Liberal Party would cause could lead to greater demands for PR.

On top of proportional representation, perhaps an earlier equitable resolution to the West Lothian Question would help place Labour at enough of a disadvantage where a split into Gaitskellite and Bevanite Labour successor parties can occur.

For the Conservatives was thinking of either a similar split either between roughly High Tory and Red Tory factions or another scenario that leads to Enoch Powell becoming more of a threat compared to OTL as potential head of one of the two Conservative successor parties, at least with regards to the latter seeking to distance the UK from the US yet not seeking detente with the Soviets (otherwise not sure where exactly he would fit on the Red Tory - High Tory spectrum since past threads here suggest he was socially moderate such as being in favor of divorce).

Was debating on whether to include the West Lothian Question being resolved as an optional bonus question in my previous post, though did not want to potentially derail the thread from the challenge at hand.
 
Last edited:
It's relatively easy to split the two main parties. With PR, it would probably be inevitable. But without it, it would be difficult to replace it with a multi party system in the long run. The SDP were primarily a Labour split, though they had one Tory MP, they were close to getting many more. I'm not sure if having the moderate wings of both parties break off and form their own party together is what you have in mind though. Either way, even if the SDP actually got to the point where it could lead a government, in a proper multi party system, they would probably have to do with the help of another party, who would in turn be punished at the next election, and would probably drift backward to third party status in a 'two and a half' party system, playing a role similar to the Lib Dems in the New Labour years.

It's possible to have multiple parties with double digit seat totals in the Commons, but if you define a multi party system as one where more than two parties can consistently challenge for power, I don't think it's feasible in the long run without PR.
 
Get PR introduced. The nature of the UK's electoral system means that the only parties capable of winning are incredibly broad church coalitions. A proportional electoral system would create a completely different dynamic.
<snip>
This. The tendency of First-Past-The-Post electoral systems to generate a two party system is well documented (generally known as Duverger's law [wiki] after the French sociologist who documented it in several papers published more than fifty years ago).
 
For the Conservatives was thinking of either a similar split either between roughly High Tory and Red Tory factions or another scenario that leads to Enoch Powell becoming more of a threat compared to OTL as potential head of one of the two Conservative successor parties, at least with regards to the latter seeking to distance the UK from the US yet not seeking detente with the Soviets (otherwise not sure where exactly he would fit on the Red Tory - High Tory spectrum since past threads here suggest he was socially moderate such as being in favor of divorce).
Firstly, have you been peaking at my notes ;)?

Secondly, wasn't Enoch Powell in favour of closer ties to the USSR, albeit for geopolitical reasons although he was a bit of a Russophile too? As I understand it his views on international relations had a strong realist bent to them which put states geopolitical interests above professed ideology. As such it would make sense for a Powellite party to favour détente with the Soviets and telling the US to shove off, possibly going full non-Aligned.
 
Firstly, have you been peaking at my notes ;)?

Secondly, wasn't Enoch Powell in favour of closer ties to the USSR, albeit for geopolitical reasons although he was a bit of a Russophile too? As I understand it his views on international relations had a strong realist bent to them which put states geopolitical interests above professed ideology. As such it would make sense for a Powellite party to favour détente with the Soviets and telling the US to shove off, possibly going full non-Aligned.

Maybe, it occurred to me that he would potentially benefit in such a scenario including proportional representation and resolved West Lothian Question though would be quite unlikely to actually become PM.

Essentially am roughly envisioning the ATL Labour and Tory successor parties as follows in terms of political ideologies if not in name with each having different (or at minimum nuanced) positions with regards to the Soviets, Nuclear Disarmament, EEC, US, NATO, Nationalization, Unions, etc:

-Labour successor parties-
Gaitskellite
Bevanite

-Tory successor parties-
Powellite (formerly Red Tory?)
Thatcherite (formerly High Tory?)
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to speculate how the Leadership Elections of each ATL successor party would turn out, especially in how the West Lothian Question being resolved would impact Welsh and Scottish born ministers.
 
hmm how about devolution as a causer of splits. ..... If devolution becomes a defining issue Labour could easily split over it.
I think you vastly overestimate the importance of Scottish and Welsh devolution in the English political scene. Not 1 Englishman in 10,000 would be willing to split his political party over devolution. Labour (in England) splitting over devolution is ASB.

On top of proportional representation, perhaps an earlier equitable resolution to the West Lothian Question would help place Labour at enough of a disadvantage where a split into Gaitskellite and Bevanite Labour successor parties can occur.
Nope. Until 1992 the Tories did fairly well in Scotland.
 
There were other issues that Labour could have split over, if OTL tensions between the Gaitskellite and Bevanite factions are anything to go by from nuclear disarmament, NATO (along with the foreign policy of opposing the Soviets and supporting the US) as well as internal divisions over economics and nationalization, etc.
 
The main problem is that the British political system heavily discourages splitting. If a party is in government then their internal factions are more tolerant of each other (no one is pointing fingers for losing the last election) whilst a party in opposition won't split as it would be mutually devastating to both factions and would benefit their shared rival the most (as happened with the SPD).
 
The main problem is that the British political system heavily discourages splitting. If a party is in government then their internal factions are more tolerant of each other (no one is pointing fingers for losing the last election) whilst a party in opposition won't split as it would be mutually devastating to both factions and would benefit their shared rival the most (as happened with the SPD).
Agreed unless there's an introduction of pr labour and Tories splitting is like a genuine 4 hours race for us president. Not happening.
 
Agreed unless there's an introduction of pr labour and Tories splitting is like a genuine 4 hours race for us president. Not happening.
Unless you could find some way to get them to split simultaneously. Perhaps a national unity government supported and opposed by different factions in each party?
 
There were other issues that Labour could have split over, if OTL tensions between the Gaitskellite and Bevanite factions are anything to go by from nuclear disarmament, NATO (along with the foreign policy of opposing the Soviets and supporting the US) as well as internal divisions over economics and nationalization, etc.
The trouble with that is Labour was never in any real danger in the 1950s, because the splits of the thirties were still well within the memory of practically all their MPs.
Unless you could find some way to get them to split simultaneously. Perhaps a national unity government supported and opposed by different factions in each party?
That could work. The main problem I can foresee is stopping any mergers from taking place after. Moderates from both parties forming a government of national unity without the more radical factions of their party might well merge eventually depending on the circumstances, or if they didn't both sides would try to unite their old party again. If they didn't it is likely that one side would die out eventually. The best way of preventing that I could see would be electoral pacts.

Also, it is likely in such a TL that the Liberals would end up allying with a one nation conservative party or a Gaitskellite Labour Party.
 
This. The tendency of First-Past-The-Post electoral systems to generate a two party system is well documented (generally known as Duverger's law [wiki] after the French sociologist who documented it in several papers published more than fifty years ago).

I mean there are a lot of exceptions on either side (Canada and India for the multi-party FPTP situations, vs. Malta, Chile (which has two coalitions rather than 2 parties but still). It'd be pretty hard to argue Portugal hadn't essentially settled into a 2-party system in the 90s).
 
I mean there are a lot of exceptions on either side (Canada and India for the multi-party FPTP situations, vs. Malta, Chile (which has two coalitions rather than 2 parties but still). It'd be pretty hard to argue Portugal hadn't essentially settled into a 2-party system in the 90s).
Those exceptions rely on strong regionalism.

In Canada's case, the Conservatives are the only true national party. The Liberals are stronger in the East and the Urban areas traditionally, while the NDP a prairie and mountain west phenomenon. And Bloc Quebecois are obviously limited to Quebec by virtue of being Quebec separatists.

In India's case, two broad coalitions are made up of numerous local and state parties, with some parties outside of the duopoly like the Communist Party have strong traditional powerbases in some of the states.
 
I mean there are a lot of exceptions on either side (Canada and India for the multi-party FPTP situations, vs. Malta, Chile (which has two coalitions rather than 2 parties but still). It'd be pretty hard to argue Portugal hadn't essentially settled into a 2-party system in the 90s).
Canada is at best a three party system (as opposed to the four party system the OP is proposing) and even then the NDP haven't really competed for power on the federal level till the last decade or so. Prior to that, their status was broadly similar to what the Lib Dems were between 1997 and 2015.

You could argue Canada had a multi party system in the years leading up to the creation of the modern Conservative party, but that serves as a pretty good reminder of why such a system isn't sustainable under FPTP, as it just led to one party dominance until the right joined forces.

Also, Canada is unique in that it has a very open minded electorate that is willing to change its votes from one election to the next, which allows it to circumvent FPTP to an extent. The circumstances for that simply don't exist in post war Britain with its rigid class divides, at least not without a PoD long beforehand.
 
Ideally would like to see a 4 party or more multi-party system though it is easy to envision seeing mergers take place, perhaps both ATL Successor parties from both Labour and the Tories manage to scoop up a few of the smaller parties besides potentially merging with the Liberals. There are also the National Liberals to consider who were in an alliance with the Conservatives prior to merging with the latter later on in OTL, since an ATL split within the Conservatives would likely prompt the National Liberals to end their alliance.

There is also a (likely distant) possibility of a merger between One Nation Conservative or a Gaitskellite Labour successor parties.

So it is possible the main parties within an ATL post-war UK multi-party system would resemble as follows.

Gaitskellite Labour
Bevanite Labour
Red Tory (later either One Nation or Powellite)
High Tory (latter possibly Thatcherite)
National Liberal
Liberal
 
Top