AHC/WI: Lloyd George became someone similar to the Grand Old Man

Thomas1195

Banned
Title says it all. Challenge: Lloyd George becomes the longest-serving PM in the UK.

IOTL, Lloyd George came out of the First World War as an extremely popular figure, not only because he was "The Man who won the War" but also a social reformer before the war. Actually, his reputation peaked in 1918. Bonar Law once thought that he could be a dictator for life if he wanted to. However, he committed various strategic political mistakes before, during and after 1918 that eventually led to his downfall.

Just question how Britain would look like under successive Lloyd George ministries during 1920s and 1930s.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
There could be four possible solutions:
- Asquith retired in 1916, following his son's death.
- Asquith stayed as a figurehead. This could be possible with no Edward Carson in War Committee.
- Asquith decided to serve under the Lloyd George as Lord Chancellor for the sake of party unity, but with a secret negotiation with LG to allow Liberal MPs to retain the Treasury, the Board of Trade, and the Ministry of Munitions, or at least 2 of them. By doing so, Liberal would still be able to take all or most of the credit.
- Asquith and Lloyd George united before 1918 election, but with Lloyd George as leader. They then focus on rebuilding an alliance with Labour (instead of Labour bashing from DLG IOTL).
However, I prefer the first three options as they could allow Liberal Party to win the 1918 election. Also, these options would completely eliminate the Cash for Honours scandal.

If Lloyd George become PM in a Liberal or Liberal-dominated government, it would not be difficult for him to retain his seat.
 
Considering the catastrophic drop in support for his pretty one-sided "coalition" government I seriously doubt he could have ever recovered, I assumed (like Winston Churchill in 1945) was viewed as a spent force and it was time for a change, as I have said on a previous thread, he was a great war leader granted, but he failed to transition to peace time. And thus became a footnote in history, no matter how long he remained in parliament.
 

Deleted member 94680

Considering the catastrophic drop in support for his pretty one-sided "coalition" government I seriously doubt he could have ever recovered, I assumed (like Winston Churchill in 1945) was viewed as a spent force and it was time for a change, as I have said on a previous thread, he was a great war leader granted, but he failed to transition to peace time. And thus became a footnote in history, no matter how long he remained in parliament.

Part of his problem was trying to prolong the War, or start a new one straight away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanak_crisis

Remove his boneheaded desire to go to War over Turkey and maybe he stays in power longer? Would his energetic drive be good for Britain trying to get out of the post-War slump?
 
Part of his problem was trying to prolong the War, or start a new one straight away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanak_crisis

Remove his boneheaded desire to go to War over Turkey and maybe he stays in power longer? Would his energetic drive be good for Britain trying to get out of the post-War slump?

Unlike Thatcher in 1983 he was dealing with a largely pacifist population after the Great War. Canada refused to support this venture and was eventually abandoned. Essentially, by 1918 British people in particular were willing to gain peace at any price, (as were the Germans). However, I cannot stress how important it is to remember the enfranchisement of lower income people would ultimately have led to a migration to Labour. Considering many of its platforms appealed to them in terms of welfare/relief programs.

Contrary to what I said it may be possible that Lloyd George and Law could engage in some good old black propaganda "Reds under the bed" kind of stuff, considering our PM here in NZ warded off Labours growth electorally with a similar approach.
 

Deleted member 94680

I don't know what the reference to Thatcher has to do with anything, but the point is he completely failed to gauge the mood of the public. Going to War so soon after the end of WWI to protect Greek expansionism (of all things!) was idiotic. Everyone else involved was against it, from Curzon to the General on the ground.

It suggests the power of wartime leadership had gone to his head.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Part of his problem was trying to prolong the War, or start a new one straight away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanak_crisis

Remove his boneheaded desire to go to War over Turkey and maybe he stays in power longer? Would his energetic drive be good for Britain trying to get out of the post-War slump?
He once said that:
"Revolution I am not afraid of. Bolshevism I am not afraid of. It is reaction that I am afraid of".
This was praised by Asquith and Wilson, who advocated a clean peace. However, during the election he did the opposite, partly due to the fact that he had to act in line with the Tories, I mean other things, not Chanak, which was opposed by anyone but Churchill and DLG.

His various postwar reforms were rolled back mercilessly by Geddes Axe, which was the brainchild of Anti-Waste League.


Considering the catastrophic drop in support for his pretty one-sided "coalition" government I seriously doubt he could have ever recovered, I assumed (like Winston Churchill in 1945) was viewed as a spent force and it was time for a change, as I have said on a previous thread, he was a great war leader granted, but he failed to transition to peace time. And thus became a footnote in history, no matter how long he remained in parliament.

Thats why the only ways to achieve my challenge is to have an united Liberal Party either win 1918 election, or lose the election as the main opposition. Lloyd George in a Liberal government would never drift away from his progressive platform, since the strong radical wing would keep him from doing so.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I don't know what the reference to Thatcher has to do with anything, but the point is he completely failed to gauge the mood of the public. Going to War so soon after the end of WWI to protect Greek expansionism (of all things!) was idiotic. Everyone else involved was against it, from Curzon to the General on the ground.

It suggests the power of wartime leadership had gone to his head.
Chanak actually damaged his reputation much less than Cash for Peerage and Homes fit for Heroes. Well, because after all it never became a real war.
 

Deleted member 94680

Chanak actually damaged his reputation much less than Cash for Peerage and Homes fit for Heroes. Well, because after all it never became a real war.

Maybe, but Chanak led to the fall of his government so is the more important issue here. It might have done less damage to his reputation as a man and a politician, but it ended the coalition he relied on to govern.

It never became a real war because everyone involved outside of DLG refused to back his intent. It's disingenuous to suggest it wasn't serious as it didn't result in a War when the whole point of the reaction to the crisis in Britain was to stop a War occurring. That was the main British result of the Crisis, the fact that the Conservatives declared that they were going to fight the next election independently. The 1922 comittee is still around today, after all.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Maybe, but Chanak led to the fall of his government so is the more important issue here. It might have done less damage to his reputation as a man and a politician, but it ended the coalition he relied on to govern.

It never became a real war because everyone involved outside of DLG refused to back his intent. It's disingenuous to suggest it wasn't serious as it didn't result in a War when the whole point of the reaction to the crisis in Britain was to stop a War occurring. That was the main British result of the Crisis, the fact that the Conservatives declared that they were going to fight the next election independently. The 1922 comittee is still around today, after all.
What I wanted to say from the beginning is that Lloyd George can only become the second GOM when he lead a Liberal government. In the coalition, after all it was Bonar Law and Co held the true power, while DLG was just a little more than a figurehead, especially after Geddes Axe.

Lloyd George with a Liberal government would be quickly able to resort to a third solution: anti-Turk diplomatic policies similar to Gladstone, especially by 1922, the League of Nations was already formed. This was not possible IOTL because many Tories were pro Turks. No need for a war, some harsh sanctions, like trade embargo, on Turkey would be enough. The Armenian genocide would provide a good cause.

Overall, I think the first and foremost solution to achieve this is to have DLG form a Liberal government. This was not really ASB, DLG only needed to think more about his party so that he would not wreck his party in 1916.
 

Deleted member 94680

What I wanted to say from the beginning is that Lloyd George can only become the second GOM when he lead a Liberal government. In the coalition, after all it was Bonar Law and Co held the true power, while DLG was just a little more than a figurehead, especially after Geddes Axe.

OTL he favoured the Tories in the coalition towards the time of the election. Do we know why this was? What policies would he need to favour (or the Liberal Party need to favour) for him to be more firmly in the Liberal camp? Could he push an agenda that splits the liberals more akin to 50/50, reduces the number of Tory seats won and remains in power as a more balanced (DLG lead) coalition?

Lloyd George with a Liberal government would be quickly able to resort to a third solution: anti-Turk diplomatic policies similar to Gladstone, especially by 1922, the League of Nations was already formed. This was not possible IOTL because many Tories were pro Turks. No need for a war, some harsh sanctions, like trade embargo, on Turkey would be enough. The Armenian genocide would provide a good cause.

Doubtful, but it would still be an anti-Turk policy in support of Greek aggressive expansionism. In the era of national self determination, no more wars and attempts to reduce budgets it would seem horribly out of place. Post-War, what was the balance of trade between Ataturk's Turkey and Britain? Would a trade embargo be an effective 'weapon'? If the Tories are pro-Turk, I believe they were more anti-war imo, would this ATL liberal government have the majority needed to drive through these policies? Again, for what purpose? The Armenian genocide had no reckoning on British-Turkish relations OTL, so why in this ATL?

Overall, I think the first and foremost solution to achieve this is to have DLG form a Liberal government. This was not really ASB, DLG only needed to think more about his party so that he would not wreck his party in 1916.

Again, what would change that he would stop favouring the Tories?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
OTL he favoured the Tories in the coalition towards the time of the election. Do we know why this was? What policies would he need to favour (or the Liberal Party need to favour) for him to be more firmly in the Liberal camp? Could he push an agenda that splits the liberals more akin to 50/50, reduces the number of Tory seats won and remains in power as a more balanced (DLG lead) coalition?
I have mentioned the solutions in post 2 and post 4. Have Asquith retire or accept to serve under DLG either as a figurehead PM or as Lord Chancellor. Or in 1918, have DLG refuse to swallow pride when Bonar Law enforced the limit on the number of Coupon Liberal MPs (sorry but to tell you the truth that DLG was not in a position to demand to be an equal partner), so that he had to compromise with Asquith.
Doubtful, but it would still be an anti-Turk policy in support of Greek aggressive expansionism. In the era of national self determination, no more wars and attempts to reduce budgets it would seem horribly out of place. Post-War, what was the balance of trade between Ataturk's Turkey and Britain? Would a trade embargo be an effective 'weapon'? If the Tories are pro-Turk, I believe they were more anti-war imo, would this ATL liberal government have the majority needed to drive through these policies? Again, for what purpose? The Armenian genocide had no reckoning
They were more anti war so that they would use diplomatic measures via League of Nations rather than the force of arm. IOTL, the Liberal manifesto in 1923 mentioned that something must be done with the Turks. Not to mention they had reports about Armenian genocide, publicized by Charles Masterman. Trade embargo here would mean using the mandate of LoNs to enforce a collective trade embargo, not from Britain alone. The Liberals had been anti-Turkish since 1870s.
=>In other words, pushing Turkey into the situation of OTL Soviet. Meanwhile the Liberal IOTL actually planned to establish full diplomatic relationship with USSR => totally contrary to Tory policy IOTL.

For Greek expansion, they only have to give them surplus weapons from the war, no need to use British soldiers.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

I have mentioned the solutions in post 2 and post 4. Have Asquith retire or accept to serve under DLG either as a figurehead PM or as Lord Chancellor. Or in 1918, have DLG refuse to swallow pride when Bonar Law enforced the limit on the number of Coupon Liberal MPs (sorry but to tell you the truth that DLG was not in a position to demand to be an equal partner), so that he had to compromise with Asquith.

If you've mentioned the 'solution' what's the point of putting it out for discussion? Write a TL and let people discuss the merits of what you've written. That doesn't answer my question anyway, why did DLG lean towards the Tories? Was it simply an attempt to cling to power, because too many followed Asquith, or was he ideologically moving towards the Tories?

They were more anti war so that they would use diplomatic measures via League of Nations rather than the force of arm. IOTL, the Liberal manifesto in 1923 mentioned that something must be done with the Turks. Not to mention they had reports about Armenian genocide, publicized by Charles Masterman. Trade embargo here would mean using the mandate of LoNs to enforce a collective trade embargo, not from Britain alone. The Liberals had been anti-Turkish since 1870s.
=>In other words, pushing Turkey into the situation of OTL Soviet. Meanwhile the Liberal IOTL actually planned to establish full diplomatic relationship with USSR => totally contrary to Tory policy IOTL.

OTL nothing was 'done' about the Turks, why different now? Is DLG just warmongering to kick the Turk because it's what Liberals do? How is this fitting with Britain's post-war situation? The people don't want a war or a prolonged hostile relationship with Turkey, are they just falling in line because the great DLG hand waved them into it? The Liberals did establish diplomatic relations the USSR, with the Anglo-Soviet Trade Treaty. The Tories were in power soon after official recognition in February '24 and didn't do anything about overturning it. Maybe the realities of the world situation changed their policy?

For Greek expansion, they only have to give them surplus weapons from the war, no need to use British soldiers.

Again, what does Britain have to gain by backing the Greeks into their (catastrophically mismanaged) War of expansion? It's very different to the 1800s Liberals' protection of the Greek from the overbearing 'bloody sultan'. The Greek is the aggressor here. The sultan has gone, this is Ataturk's secular Turkey, not the Ottoman Empire. Why would the LoN fall into line simply because DLG asks them to? Changing the PM and ruling party (unless the coalition remains) in Britain doesn't change the attitudes and interests of the other LoN Powers. OTL no-one wanted to back the Greeks up, why would it be different now? Just because DLG is rampaging round Whitehall banging the war drums?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
That doesn't answer my question anyway, why did DLG lean towards the Tories? Was it simply an attempt to cling to power, because too many followed Asquith, or was he ideologically moving towards the Tories?
Because too many followed Asquith, he must rely on Tory for support. He did not changed ideologically, but he became pro-conscription, which made him in conflict with the majority of his party.
 

Deleted member 94680

Because too many followed Asquith, he must rely on Tory for support. He did not changed ideologically, but he became pro-conscription, which made him in conflict with the majority of his party.

Could he stay opposed to conscription and challenge Asquith for primacy from within the main of the Liberal party? Challenge Asquith on basis of fitness to lead and suitability for power compared to an older, ill opponent?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Could he stay opposed to conscription and challenge Asquith for primacy from within the main of the Liberal party? Challenge Asquith on basis of fitness to lead and suitability for power compared to an older, ill opponent?
Actually, it was necessary to introduce conscription, but IOTL DLG even went further by demand conscription of married men, which was (somewhat correctly) opposed by McKenna and Keynes on the ground that this would eventually lead to bankruptcy.

In post 4, there was a timeline in which DLG used Temperance Movement to oust Asquith in a more legitimate way.

Or just simple, Lloyd George allow Asquith to be in the War Committee as a nominal member. IOTL he excluded Asquith while included Edward Carson (this was a true humiliation towards Asquith), causing him to resign (actually, this was also Asquith's mistake as he falsely believed that DLG could never form a government). If he decided not to include Carson, Asquith might swallow his pride and accept to be a figurehead PM, but this would have reduced Asquith to a figurehead--that the only control the Prime Minister and his Cabinet had over the War Commission was a veto that they would not dare to use for fear of bringing on themselves the collective resignation of the War Commission. Nevertheless, with the Leader of the Liberal Party still being Prime Minister, even in a weakened position, this could prevent the split. At least prior to December 1916 Liberals might have hoped that an improvement in the war situation might rescue them from disaster.

Have Asquith accept to serve under DLG as Lord Chancellor right after the coup would help maintain the balance in the Coalition, but this seems unthinkable after a too blatant back-stab (from Asquith's view).

The final chance I think would be the months before the 1918 Coupon election. DLG said in 12th November that: "Revolution I am not afraid of. Bolshevism I am not afraid of. It is reaction that I am afraid of". This was praised by Asquith and Wilson, who advocated a clean peace. However, he decided to accept the limit on Coalition Liberal MPs and join Bonar Law, and during the election he did exactly the opposite, with things like "hanging the Kaiser", partly due to the fact that he had to act in line with the Tories. Worse, he denounced Labour as Bolshevik and even lambasted his own party.

There is also no doubt that whether or not Lloyd George had conspired to bring about Asquith's downfall, a great many people *assumed* he had done so, and this not only helped to keep the Liberal Party divided, but also added to Lloyd George's reputation for unscrupulousness--which is one reason why, when the Conservatives abandoned their Coalition with him a few years later, it was difficult to find much sympathy for him or any sense that *he* had been betrayed. As a popular rhyme put it:

Lloyd George, no doubt,
When his life ebbs out,
Will ride in a flaming chariot,
Seated in state
On a red-hot plate
'twixt Satan and Judas Iscariot;
Ananias that day
To the Devil will say,
"My claim for precedence fails,
So move me up higher,
Away from the fire,
And make way for that liar--from Wales!"

Even when he became official party leader later IOTL, many hated him and opposed him, notably Runciman. During 1929 election, Labour found no difficulty to attack him due to his unscrupulousness and his ìnfamous Homes fit for Heroes.
 
Top