AHC: The political extinction of the Tory Party, and 25 years of Labour Government

During the 1945 election left-wing firebrand and future architect of the NHS Nye Bevan gave a speech where he said:

"We have been the dreamers, we have been the sufferers, now we are the builders. We enter this campaign at this general election, not merely to get rid of the Tory majority. We want the complete political extinction of the Tory Party, and twenty-five years of Labour Government."

Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to make this dream a reality, with a PoD no later than 1920.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
During the 1945 election left-wing firebrand and future architect of the NHS Nye Bevan gave a speech where he said:

"We have been the dreamers, we have been the sufferers, now we are the builders. We enter this campaign at this general election, not merely to get rid of the Tory majority. We want the complete political extinction of the Tory Party, and twenty-five years of Labour Government."

Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to make this dream a reality, with a PoD no later than 1920.

There is an unspoken rule in British Politics that no leader will last 15 Years and no Government 20. However, it is not impossible to break this rule, but to wank Labour is difficult.

Part of the issue is that the Conservative Party is the natural Governing Party (to an extent) of Britain, and so entrenched in society that to destroy it is like destroying the Democrats, after a point it simply become impossible (They formed the Modern Conservative Party in 1834, however have existed in some form since the Restoration). What would have to happen to dislodge its rather lofty position is to do to it what happened to the Liberal Party, namely stagnation and being upstaged by a more relevant party.
 
Is there any ideological split in the Conservatives at the time that would be profound enough to break them in two or lead to a decently-sized split, allowing Labour to continue to win thanks to the disorganization of their opposition?
 
No Korean War might do the trick. Harold Macmillan's NDP proposal would probably fufil the first bit as well.
 
I can't say I've heard of the proposal, but a new Conservative Party emerging from the pre-War quagmire would work quite well.

In 1946, Supermac was asked how to improve the Tories and one of the things he suggested was ditching the Conservative label and becoming the 'New Democratic Party'. With the Conservatives staying in opposition well through out the 50's, it would probably get a second look.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
In 1946, Supermac was asked how to improve the Tories and one of the things he suggested was ditching the Conservative label and becoming the 'New Democratic Party'. With the Conservatives staying in opposition well through out the 50's, it would probably get a second look.

Perhaps Attlee doesn't call an election in '51. When '55 rolls around, Eden (assuming that Winston is likely to still have a stroke and Eden succeeds him) is unable to win outright and Labour and the Liberals enter a Coalition. Macmillan leads a split with the NDP out of desperation, causing the Conservative Party to fall to infighting that prevents them from winning elections between 1956-1970, or all together collapsing and becoming the NDP. (Note: I'm note sure how likely any of this is, so take it with a pinch of salt)
 
POD no later than 1920...

A POD before 1920 is not just a tough one to split and destroy the Tory party, but also a very hard one to achieve 25 years of Labour.

If you are looking for an issue to split the Tories over then perhaps the best is Tariff Reform. Joseph Chamberlain split the Conservative-Liberal Unionist coalition over it and the echoes of the tariff question went on into the interwar period. If this doesn't fade away as IOTL but continues to hamper the Conservatives (pushing out moderates like Stanley Baldwin and Bonar Law who had wide electoral appeal in the 1920s and 1930s) then you could see the Tories so divided they split into factions like the Liberals do after their failure at the polls in 1923, leaving Labour the only cohesive national party.

With a Labour Party coming to power as IOTL in 1923 as a minority, facing a weak opposition, the chances are that if they called a snap election in 1924 they might secure a majority. Labour were an untested force in the 1920s and made a lot of people uneasy but were also the embodiement of a lot of hope for a new Britain. If the Tories remain divided and Labour are able to effectively deal with the General Strike in 1926 (which they could probably do well given their links to the TUC) they could well ride a wave of popular support into the 1930s.

The Great Depression would be the hardest thing to maintain a majority for, but there were some radical and impressive ideas on how to affect change in society then (such as Moseley's plan for the economy) that might have seen Labour cling on to public support in an almost New Deal kind of way. If they can cling to power to 1939 they would probably form the same coalition type agreement for national security the tories did OTL. This would take them to 1945 (providing none of this has butterflied WWII) and given the public support OTL for their effective promise to build a better Britain post-war, you could easily see them win a post-war majority at least until 1948.

1923-1948 is twenty five and, by extension, such a long period out of power that the Tories would be reshaped beyond recognition.

For an alternative past your 1920 POD have New Labour stay clear of Iraq, continuing their liberal progressive policies in the 2000s. Have Brown, upon take over, call an election (which he would most likely win), and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to see 1997-2022 as a Labour quarter century. Remember a lot of political commentators in the early 2000s were talking about the Conservative Party as a place politicians "went to die" and its likely that, with no Cameron-renaissance more would bolt to UKIP as "young and vibrant" alternative. By the late 2010s/early 2020s Labour would probably rely on a coalition with the Greens/LDs but its not inconceivable people would still choose them as the Government come election time. Because Iraq dominates British political memory these days, people forget just how much broad support New Labour had.
 
To be honest, pre-1920 is one of the most fractious periods in Conservative Party history. Aside from tariff reform and the Lloyd George coalition, the idea of the Lords reform was the biggest issue to face the party and the most likely one to cause civil war (as it almost did in 1911).

EdT, many years ago, floated the idea that the group of Diehards and right-wing grandees that opposed the Parliament Act of 1911 could have, under the leadership of Baron Willoughby de Broke, split to form a new "National Party". There were rumours of such a split occurring and it isn't inconceivable that, had Arthur Balfour retired from frontline politics after losing his seat in 1906, a less competent leader would screw up relations between the leadership and the Tory Right enough to encourage a split.

Had that happened, then Britain would be faced with a weakened but moderate Conservative Party, a Liberal Party that has dwindling support but still retains power, a Labour Party that is surging ahead, and a new National Party that believes in tariffs, eugenics, social reform and populist nationalism. There are many ways that WWI could go from there, but the political effects will either see Labour in power after the war or the National Party supporting the Labour Party in government (so long as the party isn't led by "pacifist cranks" like George Lansbury and Ramsay MacDonald). Whilst the latter option seems far-fetched, the OTL National Party (1917) was willing to support Labour governments against the spineless and defunct (as they saw them) Liberal and Conservative parties.

If the Conservatives and Liberals retain their OTL apprehensions over joining forces to become the Centre Party, then the Tories will fade over the decades and Labour will most likely be in power for at least 20 years with, or without, National supply and confidence.
 
POD no later than 1920? Not much of an A1900 thread, then.

Breaking that rule, some kind of butterflied recession (maybe a Gore presidency means no Iraq, which means the GFC isn't as bad, and also Blair's credibility remains untainted) could get the 1997 government to last indefinitely IMO, if only by simple failure of the Tories to break through. Cameron wasn't expected to win power until 2015 or so when he was elected leader, and if Labour successfully renewed themselves after five years of a less out-upon Gordon Brown, they could theoretically make it to 2022. The Tories would then be in such a state that some kind of European split might have rendered them effectively extinct.

A bit wishy-washy, but starting with Labour's biggest ever majority seems logical.
 
My bad, I meant no PoD before 1920. I am terrible at proofreading my own work.

Then I would suggest a scenario based on New Labour post 1997 following what either I or Meadow have pointed out. Not a vision of the Labour Party that Bevan would have necessarily 100% liked, but one with significant popular appeal at a time when various issues threatened to splinter the Tories.

So the goal is basically a one party state with no opposition allowed ?

Not really - the goal as the OP pointed out was the collapse of the Conservative party leading to a 25 year period of rule by the Labour Party. Its not unprecedented in democracies - the Social Democrats are (in various forms) in power between 1932 and 1976 in Sweden.
 
Then I would suggest a scenario based on New Labour post 1997 following what either I or Meadow have pointed out. Not a vision of the Labour Party that Bevan would have necessarily 100% liked, but one with significant popular appeal at a time when various issues threatened to splinter the Tories.

I'm not sure how effective that would be in the long-run. Whilst New Labour was initially very popular, a lot of the factors that contributed to their initial successes, I think, were fairly contingent on specific historical conditions at the time, such as a heavily divided and widely despised Tory party, a lack of a radical or populist alternative to draw away the left-leaning and working-class elements of their voter base especially in Scotland, the fact that they ruled during a period of explosive growth, etc. Lets not forget that they lost seats in every general election after 1997. The Blair years were also an historic high-point for the Lib Dems, and if the Tories somehow collapse I can see them massively benefiting from the political vacuum that opens up, possibly forming a broad centrist coalition of former pro-EU Tories and soft-left Labourites concerned over the authoritarian elements in New Labour (ID cards was quite a contentious issue back in the day), and presenting themselves as the only alternative to New Labour. Play their cards right after the 2008 crisis and a Lib Dem majority could be a possibility in 2015, if not 2010.
 
Here is a thought, John Smith stays Labour leader. Better relations and no Blair phenominan

Lib Dems do a bit better but tories just as bad. a LOT more tactical voting

1997 Lib Dems get more MPs than the tories
 
I'm not sure how effective that would be in the long-run. Whilst New Labour was initially very popular, a lot of the factors that contributed to their initial successes, I think, were fairly contingent on specific historical conditions at the time, such as a heavily divided and widely despised Tory party, a lack of a radical or populist alternative to draw away the left-leaning and working-class elements of their voter base especially in Scotland, the fact that they ruled during a period of explosive growth, etc. Lets not forget that they lost seats in every general election after 1997.

Here is a thought, John Smith stays Labour leader. Better relations and no Blair phenominan

Lib Dems do a bit better but tories just as bad. a LOT more tactical voting

1997 Lib Dems get more MPs than the tories

The problem with both of these scenarios - apart from the fact that they don't fulfill the terms of the OP's criteria! - is that you have both left out the euroscepticism that was a powerful part of the political landscape from 1997 on.

You need, if you want to destroy the tory party as stated in the challenge, to not just have a centrist Lib Dem vs Labour (or New Labour). This leaves out a vast swathe of former tory voters who are small c conservative, pro free market, and anti Europe. The best bet in this scenario is to have the anti-EU bolt to UKIP whilst the pro-EU bolt to the Libs. This is, of course, an interesting scenario as this would be a pre-Farage Ukip in many cases. Kilroy Silk anyone?

Also, just my opinion, but I've never been convinced of the "if only John Smith" argument really. I think practically any Labour Party can get elected in 1997. But Smith was practising an older brand of left-labour, for all his modernising, that whilst strong in the North, Scotland, and Wales, wouldn't win over those new professional swing voters in the centre and south that were crucial to those early majorities for Labour. But thats just my opinion on that issue....
 
Top