Churchil wins Big In 45?

[Alratan]

The only one step POD that could do it would be to have the US decide that a strong and reasonably successful Britain was better than an impoverished one. If Keynes had managed to obtain the funds he was sent to ask for, rather than half the amount as a loan and with economic restrictions attached, the chance of a real economic recovery in Britain would have been much greater.

This was directly opposed to American policy, which was to ensure that "both enemies and allies were prostrate, enemies by military action, allies by bankruptcy"*. With this as an aim, there is no way that the US would be more helpful. The only way to prevent the American's impoverishing the UK is either to avoid the War all together or make it much, much less costly for Britain - having the French continue fighting and knocking out the Italians early and then the Japanese deciding not to fight at the minimum, and perhaps even this isn't enough.

*Dean Acheson, US Undersecretary and later Secretary of State.

 

[stevep]

This was directly opposed to American policy, which was to ensure that "both enemies and allies were prostrate, enemies by military action, allies by bankruptcy"*. With this as an aim, there is no way that the US would be more helpful. The only way to prevent the American's impoverishing the UK is either to avoid the War all together or make it much, much less costly for Britain - having the French continue fighting and knocking out the Italians early and then the Japanese deciding not to fight at the minimum, and perhaps even this isn't enough.

*Dean Acheson, US Undersecretary and later Secretary of State.

Alratan

I didn't say it was likely. I said it was the only one POD step I could see of changing it. You never know, a politician could have done the intelligent thing. It happens occasionally.

Steve

 

[DMA]

Do either of these works say there is a causality between these events in NSW and any defection of normally 'rusted on' Labor voters? (Do they even refer to core voters abandoning the government, or is it just that said voters were merely demoralised?)

Well first off you used a dirty word as far as history goes: causality . This implies history is a science akin to physics or maths. History isn't a science, but a humanity. Hence we use terms like "probability" or "probable" as Bolton does in his histories.

Now elsewhere Manning Clark points to the stike breaking efforts of Labor as either freighting Labor's general supporters in the electorate, and angering the left wing supporters where he alludes to the unions & even Labor Party members.

I mentioned Cameron as he is the perfect example of a union leader/party official who was _gutted_ by the controversies we are talking about yet never ever countenance anyone in the 'tribe' voting against the party ticket.

Of cause he wouldn't openly admit it. They've got to get back together at some point. You really should look behind the motives of your sources. He is about as subjective, in these matters involving such heated disputes between the unions & Labor, as Howard saying he was the best friend workers ever had. Well, admittedly, maybe not that bad, but...

However, if your family were veterans of the Lang wars then I can see how their perception of Labor tribalism would have differed from that of union men in the rest of Australia.

Sorry, but this is way too much of a generalisation. To suggest that the reactions of my two grandfathers, both good union members, were merely isolated examples is being naive I'm sorry to say. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this pattern was repeated almost everywhere - it's just that most never confessed publically. It is also an example of the type of history particular subjective writers come up with in order to play politics rather than write history. For example, the list you offered in your prior posting, about the cottage history, is far from a list of objective histories. These writers all had/have their own axe to grind in one way or another. Daly, for example, ignores everything else, for the 1949 election debarkle, & blames everything on Lang instead of looking at Labor's own mistakes. McMullin's history, meanwhile, was lampooned by the history staff at Newcasle Uni for its bias - even though the ones highly critical of it were all left-wingers (one was even an active ALP member).

Now normally, I would agree with the tribalism of Labor, but it isn't always a certainty at every election. Howard, for example, would never have been elected 12 years ago if it wasn't for his "battlers". And they were identified as Labor voters, for the most part, who were sadly seduced by the offerings of the Whore of Babylon. Pardon the joke, as I couldn't resist, but the analogy is correct.

Mind you, you must remember, two things. Firstly I was trying to establish that there were fundamental differences as to why Labor lost in 1949 as compared to Churchill in 1945. Secondly I was refering to the historical pattern, which is clearly established, that whenever Labor takes on the unions in such a manner, whilst in government, they are defeated at the next election.

Anecdotal evidence can be tricky. At one point my father was a member the Country Party. He was also a great admirer of men like Chifley and John Cain, Sr. and he voted against Menzies' proposal to ban the Communist Party--this is great stuff for narrative reasons but not the kind of thing you can use to find serious trends in early 1950's Australia.

Well the counter position here is simply a historiography one. That is there's far too much top to bottom history writing which takes place in Australia. As a result grassroots opinon is rejected a "narrative stuff", whilst the ruling elites are only heard. So we get Ruling Class, Ruling Culture syndrome taking place, instead of a thorough history taking everything into account equally.

And, more cynically, just because some politican said something doesn't make it true. They are all liars after all. So I can't see why their dishonest opinions should outweight the average Australian's honest opinion

Thanks. I hope this is all taken as rigorous debate & nothing more--if nothing else it's made me figure out how to embed quotes.

Yes, no worries And those quote things can be tricky at first. It took me about a month or so to figure it all out...

 

[Magniac]

Well first off you used a dirty word as far as history goes: causality . This implies history is a science akin to physics or maths. History isn't a science, but a humanity. Hence we use terms like "probability" or "probable" as Bolton does in his histories.

I might have leaned this way once. But the _language_ of social science is so prevalent in serious political and historical writing these days that you just can't ignore these expressions and pretend they don't have a place in debate. Don't you read blogs or broadsheet op-ed pieces?
Hell, 'causal'/'causality' is the easiest social science-y term to understand--it's not like this is a word alien to modern historiography.

But I'll re-phrase the offending question: Do either Bolton or Moloney (or even Clark) state that the coalfields dispute of 1949 caused rusted-on ALP supporters to vote for the Coalition in numbers large enough to swing that year's federal election? Do they think the Chifley government deserved to lose the election? Do they think the government was somehow immoral?

Of cause he wouldn't openly admit it. They've got to get back together at some point. You really should look behind the motives of your sources. He is about as subjective, in these matters involving such heated disputes between the unions & Labor

Cameron was running for the HoR for the first time in 1949. He was effectively 'boss' of the SA Labor Party for a generation, and was later more than happy to boast about forcing Rightwingers out of the SA branch for failing to be sufficiently loyal to his party leadership, including purging one isolated sub-branch (that's constituency party or district committee for non-Australians) in the very lead up to the election we're talking about.

Yet nowhere does he make mention of repressing Leftwing groups for opposing Chifley--and this is a brutally honest _socialist_ we're talking about, a guy who openly went to war against the Leftwing factional alliance that dominated the ALP between '55 and '70. If any anti-Chifley activity had existed in his state machine in 1949 he would have documented it, and he would have documented his crushing of it.


Because for men like Cameron Ben Chifley was the last PM to truly represent the Australian working class.
But there wasn't any anti-government revolt in SA. And I don't believe that anything resembling an open revolt happened anywhere--with the exception of a faction of New South Welshmen who had never been for that particular federal leader--the Langites.
DMA, how much anti-Chifley feeling on the left do you believe there was outside of Chifley's own state?

Sorry, but this is way too much of a generalisation. To suggest that the reactions of my two grandfathers, both good union members, were merely isolated examples is being naive I'm sorry to say.

I'm sorry, but because one family member voted Liberal and the other voted Communist...

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this pattern was repeated almost everywhere - it's just that most never confessed publically. It is also an example of the type of history particular subjective writers come up with in order to play politics rather than write history.

...and because they were strong union men (personally effected by these controversies?) it then makes perfect sense that there was a psephological trend at work in 1949 which has been denied by historians ever since?

For example, the list you offered in your prior posting, about the cottage history, is far from a list of objective histories. These writers all had/have their own axe to grind in one way or another. Daly, for example, ignores everything else, for the 1949 election debarkle, & blames everything on Lang instead of looking at Labor's own mistakes. McMullin's history, meanwhile, was lampooned by the history staff at Newcasle Uni for its bias - even though the ones highly critical of it were all left-wingers (one was even an active ALP member).

Don't forget MacQueen. Humphrey MacQueen was also one of the authorities I listed. Do you know where he stands in comparison to a NSW Right MP or the man commissioned by Hawke-era Labor to write the official party history? He's a Marxist. Yet in his most recent general work of Australian history he doesn't make mention of this 'great betrayal' by Chifley; although he is happy to go into detail about whether-or-not Korean war inflation, the royal tour of 1954 and the Petrov affair might have influenced the subsequent elections of the postwar era.

Now normally, I would agree with the tribalism of Labor, but it isn't always a certainty at every election.

Apropos of what I was saying about the long serving Member for Hindmarsh, what I'd like to know is twofold:
1. To what extent are you projecting upon the national Labor-supporting electorate of 1949 a belief system that only existed in either Leftwing or diehard Langite circles, and to what extent was this tendency confined to NSW? and,
2. Were these people just 'barracking' for the defeat of the Chifley government, or, as you have tried to prove ("communist preferences determined the election") was there a genuine voter defection?

Mind you, you must remember, two things. Firstly I was trying to establish that there were fundamental differences as to why Labor lost in 1949 as compared to Churchill in 1945.

Indeed. I wish I had the time to discuss that, it's an interesting mix-and-match scenario.

Secondly I was refering to the historical pattern, which is clearly established, that whenever Labor takes on the unions in such a manner, whilst in government, they are defeated at the next election.

An emotive and unprovable thesis--which ignores the State Labor government collaborating with Chifley & Evatt 100% on the coalfields dispute and then remaining in power for another fifteen years.

Well the counter position here is simply a historiography one. That is there's far too much top to bottom history writing which takes place in Australia. As a result grassroots opinon is rejected a "narrative stuff", whilst the ruling elites are only heard. So we get Ruling Class, Ruling Culture syndrome taking place, instead of a thorough history taking everything into account equally.

And, more cynically, just because some politican said something doesn't make it true. They are all liars after all. So I can't see why their dishonest opinions should outweight the average Australian's honest opinion.

Well, I admire your refusal to buy into personality cults. But after much thought I can't help but wonder if your primary influence in this argument has been the intense Chifley-hatred of the diehard Langites in your state's Labor history.

Yes, no worries And those quote things can be tricky at first. It took me about a month or so to figure it all out...

There's nothing like a good stoush to force one to become a quick adapter.

 

[DMA]

I might have leaned this way once. But the _language_ of social science is so prevalent in serious political and historical writing these days that you just can't ignore these expressions and pretend they don't have a place in debate. Don't you read blogs or broadsheet op-ed pieces?
Hell, 'causal'/'causality' is the easiest social science-y term to understand--it's not like this is a word alien to modern historiography.

The fundamental problem, which is always pointed out in historiography, is the gathering of data to satisfy a scientific model approaching a true science akin to maths or physics. It simply can't be done, as a real historian-scientist would have to go back in time, interview everyone involved in an event, like the 1949 election - all 4.6 million odd voters - so that a true formula can be calculated in order to prove causality (re: David Hume's old thesis). Instead in history we've got access to a very limited amount of information handed down through sources, many of which are questionable regardless who wrote them. Consequentially history is far more like the artform of an investigation. Furthermore those positivists, who wanted to transform history into a science, pretty much reached their peak about 30 years ago & then soon declined. Yet the ones who still remain carry on regardless of the huge weakness in their argument.

And it's not like the Social Sciences are much better, in this regards, although they can conduct various experiments on people, rats, & other vermin like Liberal Party members, & observe at first hand the reactions to a given test. In history, that's next to impossible, although it would be nice to drag Howard into a dungeon, then making him talk...

But I'll re-phrase the offending question: Do either Bolton or Moloney (or even Clark) state that the coalfields dispute of 1949 caused rusted-on ALP supporters to vote for the Coalition in numbers large enough to swing that year's federal election? Do they think the Chifley government deserved to lose the election? Do they think the government was somehow immoral?

As I said, they use the term "probable" in linking the two events. And what do you mean by immoral? I don't think anyone, me included, is talking about the Chifley government as being immoral

Cameron was running for the HoR for the first time in 1949. He was effectively 'boss' of the SA Labor Party for a generation, and was later more than happy to boast about forcing Rightwingers out of the SA branch for failing to be sufficiently loyal to his party leadership, including purging one isolated sub-branch (that's constituency party or district committee for non-Australians) in the very lead up to the election we're talking about.

Yet nowhere does he make mention of repressing Leftwing groups for opposing Chifley--and this is a brutally honest _socialist_ we're talking about, a guy who openly went to war against the Leftwing factional alliance that dominated the ALP between '55 and '70. If any anti-Chifley activity had existed in his state machine in 1949 he would have documented it, and he would have documented his crushing of it.

No wonder he is kind over the whole affair. He has a vestured interest in trying to keep the backlash from doing irreparable harm between the unions & Labor, not to mention he is standing for Labor at the very same elections.

Because for men like Cameron Ben Chifley was the last PM to truly represent the Australian working class.

Well John Howard would disagree with that one!

But there wasn't any anti-government revolt in SA. And I don't believe that anything resembling an open revolt happened anywhere--with the exception of a faction of New South Welshmen who had never been for that particular federal leader--the Langites.
DMA, how much anti-Chifley feeling on the left do you believe there was outside of Chifley's own state?

Well nothing surprises me about what South Australia gets up to. More to the point, when has South Australian Labor ever had radicals? I've always got the impression that SA were moderates as politics go regardless of party.

The other thing is, lets face it, NSW is the dominate state as far as Labor goes, with VIC coming second. It always has been & always will be. And you can put that down to population size as much as anything.

I'm sorry, but because one family member voted Liberal and the other voted Communist...


...and because they were strong union men (personally effected by these controversies?) it then makes perfect sense that there was a psephological trend at work in 1949 which has been denied by historians ever since?

What historians? Seriously, to suggest that only two union men in all of Australia voted for someone else, because of the 1949 strike break-up, as a completely isolated incident is simply wrong. Voters are voters at the end of the day. More to the point, Menzies had to get votes from somewhere. Now given the swing voters back then were a smaller percentage of the overall population than today, probably around 6%, means to say that Menzies got votes from people who would traditionally vote Labor. Now according to the Wiki lists, the Coalition got around a 11% swing in the House. May I point out that overall swing calculations are a tad difficult, given the fact that a whole boatload of new seats were up for grabs, so in actual effect it could be a bit more. But regardless of the actual figure, what's important here is Menzies got at least 5% from traditional Labor voters. Given the high percentage of the workforce being union members back then, it's highly probable that a large number of this 5% were union members.

The thing is, I think, you've miss-understood what I originally meant. So I'll clarify my position. Did the union officials order their members to vote against Labor at the 1949 election? NO. Did individual union members, comprising around 200 000, decide to vote for someone else other than Labor? YES. And that's basically what I've been saying all along.

Don't forget MacQueen. Humphrey MacQueen was also one of the authorities I listed. Do you know where he stands in comparison to a NSW Right MP or the man commissioned by Hawke-era Labor to write the official party history? He's a Marxist. Yet in his most recent general work of Australian history he doesn't make mention of this 'great betrayal' by Chifley; although he is happy to go into detail about whether-or-not Korean war inflation, the royal tour of 1954 and the Petrov affair might have influenced the subsequent elections of the postwar era.

Just because ol' Humphrey is a Marxist doesn't make him right. He is also a supporter of the ALP too IIRC. But leaving his ALP support aside, he makes a lot of claims which I disagree with, whilst other times admittedly he is very astute. Anyway what's this new work of his you've mentioned as I haven't been made aware of it until now?

Apropos of what I was saying about the long serving Member for Hindmarsh, what I'd like to know is twofold:
1. To what extent are you projecting upon the national Labor-supporting electorate of 1949 a belief system that only existed in either Leftwing or diehard Langite circles, and to what extent was this tendency confined to NSW?

I think you're giving far too much credit to Lang for any influence upon my political leanings. Personally I thought Lang was a complete idiot for the antics he carried on with.

and,
2. Were these people just 'barracking' for the defeat of the Chifley government, or, as you have tried to prove ("communist preferences determined the election") was there a genuine voter defection?

Actually I think it was more about simply a voter backlash rather than anything else. People will do that given human nature. The "communist preferences determined the election" comment I thought was a well known observation of the period in question. It's often used as a piece of Australian political irony where Menzies partly won, thanks to communist preferences, but then he promptly turned around & tried to ban them.

Indeed. I wish I had the time to discuss that, it's an interesting mix-and-match scenario.

Well that's what this thread is supposed to be about, until our divergence...

An emotive and unprovable thesis--which ignores the State Labor government collaborating with Chifley & Evatt 100% on the coalfields dispute and then remaining in power for another fifteen years.

It's not unprovable at all. Just go back over the last 100 years at both state & federal levels. Whenever there's a major clash between a Labor government & unions, the Labor government usually loses the next election. That's clearly an historical pattern

And I never said anything about linking federal events with state outcomes. Hardly anyone ever does as most voters are smart enough to realise there are significant differences with the issues involved. I'd dare say that was as clear, back in 1949, as it was in the last decade, where we had Labor state & territory governments everywhere, whilst there was a Coalition federal government. I think you've jumped to a conclusion which I never ever inferred.

Mind you, the NSW Labor govt, which I'm guessing you're refering to in 1949 onwards, got booted out of office after a major dispute with the ETU over conditions & pay in the power stations

Well, I admire your refusal to buy into personality cults. But after much thought I can't help but wonder if your primary influence in this argument has been the intense Chifley-hatred of the diehard Langites in your state's Labor history.

Well again, you're giving far too much credit to Lang. As I said before, I think he was an idiot. You must remember, though, I'm an historian first & foremost & an ALP member second

There's nothing like a good stoush to force one to become a quick adapter.

Especially if it's a good ol' fashioned Labor one... Speaking of which, you should have seen what Michael Costa got up to at the recent NSW ALP conference...

 

[V-J]

One of the reason for the Tories losing was the fact that Churchill waited until after the end of WW2 in Europe to hold an election, due to the Wartime National Govt.

Agree with Fletcher. (I'm watching you, Fletcharhhhhh)

Even assuming that Churchill does a complete about-face from history (he wanted the coalition to continue pretty much as long as possible in OTL, at least until the defeat of Japan - it was Labour who pulled out, which tells you about all you need to know) and calls an election in '44, then there's no persuasive reason for supposing the result would have been any different than the '45 result. Indeed, it may actually have been worse for the Tories.

You're argument is contradictory. On the won hand, Churchill would win on his war record, on the other, the threat to the UK had greatly diminished. Why would Churchill win on his war record any more readily than he lost on it in OTL?

Like I said earlier, the Tories were probably pretty much doomed to some kind of defeat from about mid-1939 onwards. Certainly from about 1943 onwards, the situation was hopeless.

 

[mtg999]

Agree with Fletcher. (I'm watching you, Fletcharhhhhh)

Even assuming that Churchill does a complete about-face from history (he wanted the coalition to continue pretty much as long as possible in OTL, at least until the defeat of Japan - it was Labour who pulled out, which tells you about all you need to know) and calls an election in '44, then there's no persuasive reason for supposing the result would have been any different than the '45 result. Indeed, it may actually have been worse for the Tories.

You're argument is contradictory. On the won hand, Churchill would win on his war record, on the other, the threat to the UK had greatly diminished. Why would Churchill win on his war record any more readily than he lost on it in OTL?

Like I said earlier, the Tories were probably pretty much doomed to some kind of defeat from about mid-1939 onwards. Certainly from about 1943 onwards, the situation was hopeless.

I used the argument that Churchill (if he won) would win on his war record as this was his major strong point (certainly not the Tory handling of the economy pre-war). The reason I pointed out that the threat to the UK had greatly diminished was that in 1940 an election is ASB due to the direct threat but it is not inconceivable (though unlikely) that an election could be called in 1944.

 

[alt_historian]

I used the argument that Churchill (if he won) would win on his war record as this was his major strong point (certainly not the Tory handling of the economy pre-war). The reason I pointed out that the threat to the UK had greatly diminished was that in 1940 an election is ASB due to the direct threat but it is not inconceivable (though unlikely) that an election could be called in 1944.

Yes... but what V-J is saying is you can't have it both ways. What is substantially different about this ATL 1944 election - other than the obvious fact that the European War is still ongoing - which means the Tories will win? Churchill had a great war record (at least in the public eye) - and yet the Tories lost the OTL election. Plenty of people respected him personally as a war leader, but were more concerned about what would happen after the war, and felt that Labour were more committed to building a true 'land fit for heroes'.

If this is post-D-Day, the public know that the war will be over sooner rather than later. They also know - and this was a big draw in OTL - that Labour can be trusted in government. They have shown competence as part of the wartime Coalition; Ernest Bevin was particularly prominent as the Minister for Labour.

 

[Magniac]

The fundamental problem, which is always pointed out in historiography, is the gathering of data to satisfy a scientific model approaching a true science akin to maths or physics. It simply can't be done, as a real historian-scientist would have to go back in time, interview everyone involved in an event, like the 1949 election - all 4.6 million odd voters - so that a true formula can be calculated in order to prove causality (re: David Hume's old thesis). Instead in history we've got access to a very limited amount of information handed down through sources, many of which are questionable regardless who wrote them. Consequentially history is far more like the artform of an investigation. Furthermore those positivists, who wanted to transform history into a science, pretty much reached their peak about 30 years ago & then soon declined. Yet the ones who still remain carry on regardless of the huge weakness in their argument.

1. I was defending my use of the word 'causality' by pointing out how social science terminology has leaked into the general language of debate.
I wasn't getting into high theory.
2. Are you sure you're not confusing the social sciences practiced in this country's unis with the hardcore, data-heavy poli-sci faculties of the United States? They're the ones obsessed with statistical modeling.

As I said, they use the term "probable" in linking the two events. And what do you mean by immoral? I don't think anyone, me included, is talking about the Chifley government as being immoral

After you raised Manning "But-he-had-a-fatal-flaw" Clark as one of these sources you say support your argument I thought it was okay for me to get into this morality ho-ha.

No wonder he is kind over the whole affair. He has a vestured interest in trying to keep the backlash from doing irreparable harm between the unions & Labor, not to mention he is standing for Labor at the very same elections.

But he wasn't kind over the whole affair. And throughout the last years of his life he had a vested interest as an amateur historian in promoting a socialist, heavily union-oriented version of Labor history.

Well nothing surprises me about what South Australia gets up to. More to the point, when has South Australian Labor ever had radicals? I've always got the impression that SA were moderates as politics go regardless of party.

The other thing is, lets face it, NSW is the dominate state as far as Labor goes, with VIC coming second. It always has been & always will be. And you can put that down to population size as much as anything.

Well now I feel justified in accusing you of parochialism.

What historians? Seriously, to suggest that only two union men in all of Australia voted for someone else, because of the 1949 strike break-up, as a completely isolated incident is simply wrong. Voters are voters at the end of the day. More to the point, Menzies had to get votes from somewhere. Now given the swing voters back then were a smaller percentage of the overall population than today, probably around 6%, means to say that Menzies got votes from people who would traditionally vote Labor.

I don't know which is dodgier--your assertion that the unaffiliated vote in 1949 was six percent, or that for this scenario to work everyone of these voters must have swung to Menzies and Fadden.

Now according to the Wiki lists, the Coalition got around a 11% swing in the House. May I point out that overall swing calculations are a tad difficult, given the fact that a whole boatload of new seats were up for grabs, so in actual effect it could be a bit more. But regardless of the actual figure, what's important here is Menzies got at least 5% from traditional Labor voters. Given the high percentage of the workforce being union members back then, it's highly probable that a large number of this 5% were union members.

This is the wiki article you pointed to to support your original assertion that "communist preferences determined 1949"?
The wikipedia article that tells us that the Coalition won 50% of the primary vote to Labor's 46%; with the CPA not listed separately, but I gather under 'other parties'.
(Which means they can't have won more than 1/10th of one percent in HoR voting.)
That speaks for itself.


You remember when I posted that I'd only rely on Adam Carr's figure to settle that particular argument, but that his figures for 1949 were unavailable?
I was giving you an 'out' on that one. Perhaps it's best to not go any further into psephological analysis of 1949.

The thing is, I think, you've miss-understood what I originally meant. So I'll clarify my position. Did the union officials order their members to vote against Labor at the 1949 election? NO. Did individual union members, comprising around 200 000, decide to vote for someone else other than Labor? YES. And that's basically what I've been saying all along.

Your original assertions were very broad, and didn't raise anything in this detail.

Just because ol' Humphrey is a Marxist doesn't make him right. He is also a supporter of the ALP too IIRC. But leaving his ALP support aside, he makes a lot of claims which I disagree with, whilst other times admittedly he is very astute. Anyway what's this new work of his you've mentioned as I haven't been made aware of it until now?

The most recent edition of his Social Sketches of Australia 1888-2001.
In the forward he mentions the support given him by his 'comrades' in the Socialist Alliance.
I think I'm justified in using him as a non-ALP leftwing source who ignores your theory of a 'great betrayal' during the Chifley years.

I think you're giving far too much credit to Lang for any influence upon my political leanings. Personally I thought Lang was a complete idiot for the antics he carried on with.

I take you at your word. But I feel entirely justified in claiming the theory you advance in this thread is incredibly NSW-centric, founded in the same insular politics that makes a Paul Keating say that Lang was "defacto PM of Australia."

Actually I think it was more about simply a voter backlash rather than anything else. People will do that given human nature. The "communist preferences determined the election" comment I thought was a well known observation of the period in question. It's often used as a piece of Australian political irony where Menzies partly won, thanks to communist preferences, but then he promptly turned around & tried to ban them.

Arrrgh, the 'irony' you reference has got to be about the division of Moreton in 1961.
I explained above how CPA preferences were unimportant in 1949.
(BTW, "people will do that given human nature"? I thought you were a movement-oriented guy.)

It's not unprovable at all. Just go back over the last 100 years at both state & federal levels. Whenever there's a major clash between a Labor government & unions, the Labor government usually loses the next election. That's clearly an historical pattern

And I never said anything about linking federal events with state outcomes. Hardly anyone ever does as most voters are smart enough to realise there are significant differences with the issues involved. I'd dare say that was as clear, back in 1949, as it was in the last decade, where we had Labor state & territory governments everywhere, whilst there was a Coalition federal government. I think you've jumped to a conclusion which I never ever inferred.

Er, you do realise it was the state government that enforced the move against the strikers (with Evatt drafting complimentary federal legislation.)
I imagine your communist/Menzian voting family members decided not to link state events with state outcomes at the subsequent polls.

Mind you, the NSW Labor govt, which I'm guessing you're refering to in 1949 onwards, got booted out of office after a major dispute with the ETU over conditions & pay in the power stations

I googled "NSW industrial dispute government ETU" for the years 1960 through 1965. Nothing.
(Though apparently Cliff Dolan started his ascent to the presidency of the ACTU in 1964. Perhaps he whitewashed this earth-shaking strike out of the history books with the help of the pretend labour historian who succeeded him at that job.)

Especially if it's a good ol' fashioned Labor one... Speaking of which, you should have seen what Michael Costa got up to at the recent NSW ALP conference...

I hold no brief for the ugly treasurer of your state, and I can see how it would be a good thing for that government to listen to it's base.
DMA, I won't be returning to this thread.
I appreciate your good will, but this whole thing is tiring, and as no other Australians on this board have any interest in the topic I'll let it slip.

 

[alt_historian]

Well, thanks for derailing this one onto the fascinating history of the Australian Labour Party...

 

[DMA]

Well, thanks for derailing this one onto the fascinating history of the Australian Labour Party...

We Labor (no 'u' BTW) types make the Democrats, not to mention British Labour, look like amateurs in comparision...

 

[alt_historian]

We Labor (no 'u' BTW) types make the Democrats, not to mention British Labour, look like amateurs in comparision...

Whatever. Far as I can see, it still has nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[Broughtonparkincakes]

To be truthful who gets in 44 or 45 will be kicked out around 50/51 as the grind of rations, awful winters, the collective grief of the war will turn voters against the govt at the time.

But a Churchill win in 44/45 would halt much of those Attlee radical reforms. Which in itsself would the ideal recruiting tool for the Labour Party in a post war crippled by the twin vices of reactionary solutions and grinding economics.

 

[DMA]

Whatever. Far as I can see, it still has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Geee, I was just trying to make a light hearted joke about it.

 

[alt_historian]

Geee, I was just trying to make a light hearted joke about it.

Well done, then...

EDIT: Sorry.