Alec Douglas-Home wins in October 1964

Alec Douglas-Home wins in October 1964
"Prosperity With A Purpose"

What would a Home Full Term look like.

Note:Wilson's first three years in office were dominated by an ultimately doomed effort to stave off the devaluation of the pound. He inherited an unusually large external deficit on the balance of trade. This partly reflected the preceding government's expansive fiscal policy in the run-up to the 1964 election, and the incoming Wilson team tightened the fiscal stance in response. Many British economists advocated devaluation, but Wilson resisted, reportedly in part out of concern that Labour, which had previously devalued sterling in 1949, would become tagged as "the party of devaluation"

Foreword

by Sir Alec Douglas-Home

As Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, I submit this Manifesto to my fellow countrymen and women.

Its object is to declare the principles for which Conservatives stand and to show how we propose to translate them into action. Part of it is a record of achievement, and that is deliberate. For work well done carries conviction that our policies for the future will succeed. Our philosophy is to use what is good from the past to create a future which is better.

But these pages are not an introduction to an easy, sheltered life. No country has an inherited right to wealth or influence. Prosperity has to be worked for. The future will be assured only if our people recognise the simple economic rules which must be kept by a country dependent on earning its living in a competitive world. This manifesto points the way.

Throughout, you will find a constant theme. It is the creation of a social and economic climate in which men and women can develop their personalities and talents to their country's benefit as well as their own. Conservatives believe that a centralised system of direction cramps the style of the British people. Only by trusting the individual with freedom and responsibility shall we gain the vitality to keep our country great.

Such greatness is not measured in terms of prosperity alone. What counts is the purpose to which we put prosperity. The Conservative purpose is clear from our record and from our programme. It is to raise the quality of our society and its influence for good in the world. We are using the growth of wealth to expand opportunities for the young, to provide more generously for the old and the sick and the handicapped, to aid developing countries still battling against widespread poverty, and to maintain the strength on which national security and our work for peace depend.

In a world as dangerous as that in which we live it can make no sense whatever for Britain unilaterally to discard her strength. We therefore reject the idea of giving up our nuclear arm. We adopt instead a balanced policy of strength and conciliation: strength to be used to stop wars before they start; conciliation to reach areas of agreement with the Soviet Union and the Communist world which will replace tension and potential conflict. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was one such achievement. We mean to work for more until the danger of war is eliminated. The way will be rough but we will persevere. I ask you to conclude that we should retain British power and influence so that they may be used for such high purpose.

In short, I trust that the values for which Conservatives stand and the policies which we intend to follow commend themselves to the imagination and the common sense of the British people.

Here are Some snipets

Working for Peace

Our policy of peace through strength has brought Britain safely through years of tension and danger. it contributes to the security of the free world. It provides the realistic basis for better relations between East and West. It keeps this country in her rightful place at the centre of international affairs.

The Socialists, by contrast, would relegate Britain to the sidelines. They are as always deeply divided on international and defence issues so divided that they dared not even discuss them at their last party conference lest an open quarrel should break out. Nuclear abdication is the only policy on which they can unite.

And i am not shure we would see this.

Social issues
A number of liberalising social reforms were passed through parliament during Wilson's first period in government. These included the abolition of capital punishment, decriminalisation of sex between men in private, liberalisation of abortion law and the abolition of theatre censorship. The Divorce Reform Act was passed by parliament in 1969 (and came into effect in 1971). Such reforms were mostly via private member's bills on 'free votes' in line with established convention, but the large Labour majority after 1966 was undoubtedly more open to such changes than previous parliaments had been.
Wilson personally, coming culturally from a provincial non-conformist background, showed no particular enthusiasm for much of this agenda (which some linked to the "permissive society"), but the reforming climate was especially encouraged by Roy Jenkins during his period at the Home Office.

http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml

So how do you think the rest of the decade would pan out?
 
Last edited:

cumbria

Banned
Alec Douglas-Home wins in October 1964
"Prosperity With A Purpose"

What would a Home Full Term look like.

Note:Wilson's first three years in office were dominated by an ultimately doomed effort to stave off the devaluation of the pound. He inherited an unusually large external deficit on the balance of trade. This partly reflected the preceding government's expansive fiscal policy in the run-up to the 1964 election, and the incoming Wilson team tightened the fiscal stance in response. Many British economists advocated devaluation, but Wilson resisted, reportedly in part out of concern that Labour, which had previously devalued sterling in 1949, would become tagged as "the party of devaluation"

Foreword

by Sir Alec Douglas-Home

As Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, I submit this Manifesto to my fellow countrymen and women.

Its object is to declare the principles for which Conservatives stand and to show how we propose to translate them into action. Part of it is a record of achievement, and that is deliberate. For work well done carries conviction that our policies for the future will succeed. Our philosophy is to use what is good from the past to create a future which is better.

But these pages are not an introduction to an easy, sheltered life. No country has an inherited right to wealth or influence. Prosperity has to be worked for. The future will be assured only if our people recognise the simple economic rules which must be kept by a country dependent on earning its living in a competitive world. This manifesto points the way.

Throughout, you will find a constant theme. It is the creation of a social and economic climate in which men and women can develop their personalities and talents to their country's benefit as well as their own. Conservatives believe that a centralised system of direction cramps the style of the British people. Only by trusting the individual with freedom and responsibility shall we gain the vitality to keep our country great.

Such greatness is not measured in terms of prosperity alone. What counts is the purpose to which we put prosperity. The Conservative purpose is clear from our record and from our programme. It is to raise the quality of our society and its influence for good in the world. We are using the growth of wealth to expand opportunities for the young, to provide more generously for the old and the sick and the handicapped, to aid developing countries still battling against widespread poverty, and to maintain the strength on which national security and our work for peace depend.

In a world as dangerous as that in which we live it can make no sense whatever for Britain unilaterally to discard her strength. We therefore reject the idea of giving up our nuclear arm. We adopt instead a balanced policy of strength and conciliation: strength to be used to stop wars before they start; conciliation to reach areas of agreement with the Soviet Union and the Communist world which will replace tension and potential conflict. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was one such achievement. We mean to work for more until the danger of war is eliminated. The way will be rough but we will persevere. I ask you to conclude that we should retain British power and influence so that they may be used for such high purpose.

In short, I trust that the values for which Conservatives stand and the policies which we intend to follow commend themselves to the imagination and the common sense of the British people.

Here are Some snipets

Working for Peace

Our policy of peace through strength has brought Britain safely through years of tension and danger. it contributes to the security of the free world. It provides the realistic basis for better relations between East and West. It keeps this country in her rightful place at the centre of international affairs.

The Socialists, by contrast, would relegate Britain to the sidelines. They are as always deeply divided on international and defence issues so divided that they dared not even discuss them at their last party conference lest an open quarrel should break out. Nuclear abdication is the only policy on which they can unite.

And i am not shure we would see this.

Social issues
A number of liberalising social reforms were passed through parliament during Wilson's first period in government. These included the abolition of capital punishment, decriminalisation of sex between men in private, liberalisation of abortion law and the abolition of theatre censorship. The Divorce Reform Act was passed by parliament in 1969 (and came into effect in 1971). Such reforms were mostly via private member's bills on 'free votes' in line with established convention, but the large Labour majority after 1966 was undoubtedly more open to such changes than previous parliaments had been.
Wilson personally, coming culturally from a provincial non-conformist background, showed no particular enthusiasm for much of this agenda (which some linked to the "permissive society"), but the reforming climate was especially encouraged by Roy Jenkins during his period at the Home Office.

http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml

So how do you think the rest of the decade would pan out?

The Conservatives were also working on some much tougher immigration policies before they lost the election in 1964 and thus did not get chance to put them into action.
 
The Conservatives were also working on some much tougher immigration policies before they lost the election in 1964 and thus did not get chance to put them into action.

Again interesting changes,
we might never see large scale Immigration to the UK after 64
and if the Tory' s win in 1970
under Home, or dare i say E.P, but perhaps Reginald Maudling?

would the Labour party go far left? if they have not done so already?
 

cumbria

Banned
Again interesting changes,
we might never see large scale Immigration to the UK after 64
and if the Tory' s win in 1970
under Home, or dare i say E.P, but perhaps Reginald Maudling?

would the Labour party go far left? if they have not done so already?

If Douglas-Home stays on long enough for Enoch Powell to make his speech on immigration (if he still does so) then the leadership election between Heath, Maudling and Powell could be very different.
I dont think Douglas-Home would sack Powell either for making his speech unlike Heath.
 
The permissive society or the social revolution of 1960s in Europe and America both in the new attitudes to the arts, abortion, homosexuality and capital punishment. Also commonly mentioned is the general loosening of Britain's former adherence to Victorian values.

do we see this change in the UK. perhaps as we enter the 1970's as the World economy is in trouble, the The Uk could go Even more Conservative.

''If Douglas-Home stays on long enough for Enoch Powell to make his speech on immigration (if he still does so) then the leadership election between Heath, Maudling and Powell could be very different.
I dont think Douglas-Home would sack Powell either for making his speech unlike Heath.''

Would he ever have to make that speech?

And i think that the Uk's economy would be in much better shape at the end of the 1960's

Also i think we would have The TSR-2!!
 
If Douglas-Hume had won then it would have been with a small majority and like Wilson IOTL he would have been looking to go to the polls again within 18 months.

Two questions as to what could have happened, first would Powell and Ian MacLeod rejoined the government and how different would Britain's policy on Rhodesia have been?
 
If Douglas-Hume had won then it would have been with a small majority and like Wilson IOTL he would have been looking to go to the polls again within 18 months.

Two questions as to what could have happened, first would Powell and Ian MacLeod rejoined the government and how different would Britain's policy on Rhodesia have been?

Good Call. we might see london send in the Troops?
 

cumbria

Banned
"I shall meet with the Prime Ministers of the Republic of South Africa and of Rhodesia, as well as with other Ministers, and shall instill in them the necessary confidence that if we (the Conservatives.-V. V.) return to power, Britain will resume arms shipments for the defense of the R.S.A and its shipping routes. I shall also try to ascertain whether there is a basis for the resumption of our negotiations with Smith."

Douglas-Home 1968
 

cumbria

Banned
If Douglas-Hume had won then it would have been with a small majority and like Wilson IOTL he would have been looking to go to the polls again within 18 months.

Two questions as to what could have happened, first would Powell and Ian MacLeod rejoined the government and how different would Britain's policy on Rhodesia have been?

Powell and Macleod may well not serve.
 

cumbria

Banned
In 1955 we find Sir Alec Douglas-Home saying, 'it would be politically impossible to legislate for a colour bar and any legislation would have to be non-discriminatory in form.' He then abandons principle and does a complete about turn: 'I understand that, in the view of the Home Office, immigration officers could, without giving rise to trouble or publicity, exercise such a measure of discrimination as we think desirable.'
 
If Douglas-Hume had won then it would have been with a small majority and like Wilson IOTL he would have been looking to go to the polls again within 18 months.

Two questions as to what could have happened, first would Powell and Ian MacLeod rejoined the government and how different would Britain's policy on Rhodesia have been?

Well if England win the world cup as per OTL and the Economy in better shape because of no dithering over Devaluation, then We might see Home win a thumping Majority.

Rhodesia: well it looks like the Tory's would have keept the talking going!
 
There was a thread a bit back mentioning that this could lead to Britain going into Vietnam

Yes had the Tories have hung on in '64 then it's almost certain that Britain would have got involved in Vietnam. But how big would that commitment have been? At the time Britain was heavily involved in counter-insurgency operations in Aden (more on that on a minute!) and Borneo so there may not have been the troops available for a large scale deployment. I'm sure that the RN would have been sent to Yankee Station and you could have seen V-Bombers attacking targets in Vietnam from Singapore or Labuan but a large scale ground force may have had to wait until Aden and Borneo had concluded. And then seeing how Vietnam was going Britain might have concluded it was better to sit on the sidelines?

As for Aden, would a Tory government have cut and run in '67 as Wilson did or would they have stayed the course? What should Britain have done differently there?
 

Thande

Donor
Bear in mind that if Douglas-Home wins, Labour are almost certainly going to win in 1969 (or whenever) given that by that point the Tories would have been in power for 18 years. I doubt Douglas-Home would remain as PM for the whole term, I don't think he would want to fight a second election. The Conservatives didn't have a formal leadership election procedure at the time but it was Douglas-Home who brought it in OTL, so that might also be the case here. Possible names might be Powell, Maudling, Heath, Macleod or Butler.

Would Wilson resign after failing in 1964? Would he be forced out? If so, who would be the new Labour leader?
 
Bear in mind that if Douglas-Home wins, Labour are almost certainly going to win in 1969 (or whenever) given that by that point the Tories would have been in power for 18 years. I doubt Douglas-Home would remain as PM for the whole term, I don't think he would want to fight a second election. The Conservatives didn't have a formal leadership election procedure at the time but it was Douglas-Home who brought it in OTL, so that might also be the case here. Possible names might be Powell, Maudling, Heath, Macleod or Butler.

Would Wilson resign after failing in 1964? Would he be forced out? If so, who would be the new Labour leader?

Per Haps not, with a Labour defeat we might just see civil war in the Labour party, wilson was a one of the, Bevanites.

Gaitskell had died suddenly in January 1963,

wilsons defeat could well be seen by the Gaitskellites, That no Left winger can win A general election, and try to push the party to the right again.

but if the Left win out, then perhaps we would see an early SDP split from the Labour party?

As for Vietnam. well the Suez Crisis will still sit badly with the Tory's they might just polietly say "sorry old man, quid pro quo and all that"
 
Top