Churchill
Short of a radically different period 1918-38, not to mention a better quick war, you were never going to get a Tory win in '45.
Churchil wins Big In 45?
- Thread starter new statesman
- Start date
Short of a radically different period 1918-38, not to mention a better quick war, you were never going to get a Tory win in '45.
Well I don't want to be rude, so don't take this the wrong way, but having a BA & MA in history, predominately Australian hsitory, not to mention I was doing a PhD about the Whitlam Dismissal (prior to falling seriously ill so alas I never got the chance to finish it), gives me some academic authority to make an informed opinion. But if you want sources, well just grab a couple of Australian History books.
Here's a basic a list of my sources which I own...
General Histories
Bolton, G. The Oxford History of Australia: The Middle Way 1942-1988, Melbourne, 1990
Clarke, M. A Short History of Australia, Fourth Edition, Ringwood, 1995
Crowley, F. (Ed), A New History of Australia, Melbourne, 1974
Molony, J. History of Australia, Ringwood, 1988
Specialist Histories
Alexander, F. From Curtain To Menzies and after, Melbourne, 1973
Daly, F. From Curtin To Kerr, South Melbourne, 1977.
McKinlay, B. The ALP: A Short History of the Australian Lanor Party, Richmond, 1981
McMullin, R. The Light On The Hill, Melbourne, 1991
Now they're just books I own which deal directly with the issue at hand. I've got about a further 50 plus books in my personal library, although they're far more Dismissal related to be honest, although some do touch on Labor/Union relations to some degree. For example:
Mayer, H. & Nelson, H. (Eds) Australian Politics 5, Melbourne, 1980, PP474-484
IIRC it was Communist preferences which decided the OTL 1949 election.
And your sources for rejecting my thesis are what as a matter of interest? It's only fair considering I've showed you mine
BTW I never said it was solely decided by the unions getting back at Labor. I also included the attempt to nationalise the banks as well. Fundamentially, however, I was essentially comparing the differiences between why Churchill lost in 1945 as against why Labor lost in 1949.
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.
By 1944, the immediate threat to the UK which existed in 1940 is gone, but the war is still on. Perhaps Churchill gets more politically savvy in this particular instance and dissolves the National Govt in 44 for instance and decides (as the war is still on naturally) to hold a 'khaki election'.
In a war situation the Tories would certainly win.
Most other nations (which of course have written constitutions defining term limits) have to hold elections during war. There is no reason why if the Tories (as the majority party) wanted an election in 44 that this wouldn't have occured.
This would then give (under 5 year terms) the Conservatives until 1949 to implement welfare state reforms. Under the influence of patrician One Nation Tories (MacMillian etc) who were powerful at the time, most of the OTL reforms would be implemented.
By 49, the experience of a more compassionate Tory govt (compared to pre-war esp), would probably encourage some working-class voters to move toward the Tories, perhaps leading to further terms in office.
By 1944, the immediate threat to the UK which existed in 1940 is gone, but the war is still on. Perhaps Churchill gets more politically savvy in this particular instance and dissolves the National Govt in 44 for instance and decides (as the war is still on naturally) to hold a 'khaki election'.
In a war situation the Tories would certainly win.
Most other nations (which of course have written constitutions defining term limits) have to hold elections during war. There is no reason why if the Tories (as the majority party) wanted an election in 44 that this wouldn't have occured.
This would then give (under 5 year terms) the Conservatives until 1949 to implement welfare state reforms. Under the influence of patrician One Nation Tories (MacMillian etc) who were powerful at the time, most of the OTL reforms would be implemented.
By 49, the experience of a more compassionate Tory govt (compared to pre-war esp), would probably encourage some working-class voters to move toward the Tories, perhaps leading to further terms in office.
Well I don't want to be rude, so don't take this the wrong way, but having a BA & MA in history, predominately Australian hsitory, not to mention I was doing a PhD about the Whitlam Dismissal (prior to falling seriously ill so alas I never got the chance to finish it), gives me some academic authority to make an informed opinion. But if you want sources, well just grab a couple of Australian History books.
DMA, I don't doubt that you have a passion for Oz history, and you probably have more texts at hand than I do, but of the list below I have read Daly and McMullin--and they're both Chifley loyalists who would strongly disagree with the idea of an _electorally significant_ union backlash in 1949 (okay, not Fred, he's passed on.)
Just guessing, but I imagine you see the prosecution of the communist strike leaders on NSW's coalfields during Chif's last term as something of a 'great betrayal'. If that's the case then you're onto something--many leftwing unionists were quite bitter about that, not to mention the use of troops and 'reffos' as 'scabs'.
However, if you want insight into how leftwing unionists held conflicting views about that government--anger at some actions, yet strong support for many other policies--you should read Clyde Cameron's memoirs (rightly or wrongly Cameron, who only died the other day, has become _the_ leftwing primary source for the Chifley years, even if he only served in opposition with the great man.)
If it's just your opinion that the Curtin and Chifley goverments were engaged in political apostasy, then fine. That's entirely subjective. It's your right to think that.
But I don't see how you can legitimately argue that that was either the popular opinion in 1949 or the opinion of mainstream history written since then that analyses the reasons for that year's federal election results.
(Revisionist history, and the merits thereof, is another matter.)
Anyway, I think we should just agree to disagree.
I know I feel guilty for helping to hijack a thread that was originally about something or other... Churchill?
Here's a basic a list of my sources which I own...
General Histories
Bolton, G. The Oxford History of Australia: The Middle Way 1942-1988, Melbourne, 1990
Clarke, M. A Short History of Australia, Fourth Edition, Ringwood, 1995
Crowley, F. (Ed), A New History of Australia, Melbourne, 1974
Molony, J. History of Australia, Ringwood, 1988
Specialist Histories
Alexander, F. From Curtain To Menzies and after, Melbourne, 1973
Daly, F. From Curtin To Kerr, South Melbourne, 1977.
McKinlay, B. The ALP: A Short History of the Australian Lanor Party, Richmond, 1981
McMullin, R. The Light On The Hill, Melbourne, 1991
IIRC it was Communist preferences which decided the OTL 1949 election.
The only online source I'd trust to settle this question is Adam Carr's _Psephos_ and it Australian election archives--unfortunately the pages displaying '49's results are unavailible.
Errr, no.
The great wartime victor goes to the polls and gets hammered. I he was seen as taking the nation to the polls whilst the threat from the axis powers still existed, on the back of the Tory government which was reeling pre-war(and people do have memories) and the fact he would be seen as splitting the national unity in a moment of crisis would ensure the Tories get hammered.
Not nearly to the same extent as in OTL should this happen. People would also remember "homes fit for heroes."
And your sources for rejecting my thesis are what as a matter of interest? It's only fair considering I've showed you mine
People like Day, McMullin, MacQueen, several other biographies of political and media figures, various collections of essays--I might as well say that my sources are/is the entire Curtin and Chifley history industry. Seriously, it's a cottage industry.
I'm almost ashamed to say that all I've done is repeat the received wisdom.
BTW I never said it was solely decided by the unions getting back at Labor. I also included the attempt to nationalise the banks as well. Fundamentially, however, I was essentially comparing the differiences between why Churchill lost in 1945 as against why Labor lost in 1949.
Yes, nationalisation is the key. And petrol rationing--which is too uncomfortably like... But If you excuse me I think I'll retire from this thread. Then I can figure out how to type in this format.
Mr. Churchill's Declaration of Policy to the Electors
I had hoped to preserve the Coalition Government, comprising all Parties in the State, until the end of the Japanese war, but owing to the unwillingness of the Socialist and Sinclair Liberal Parties to agree to my proposal, a General Election became inevitable, and I have formed a new National Government, consisting of the best men in all Parties who were willing to serve and some who are members of no Party at all. It is a strong Government, containing many of those who helped me to carry the burdens of State through the darkest days and on whose counsel and executive ability I have learned to rely.
We seek the good of the whole nation, not that of one section or one faction. We believe in the living unity of the British people, which transcends class or party differences. It was this living unity which enabled us to stand like a rock against Germany when she over-ran Europe. Upon our power to retain unity, the future of this country and of the whole world largely depends.
Britain is still at war, and must not turn aside from the vast further efforts still needed to bring Japan to the same end as Germany. Even when all foreign enemies are utterly defeated, that will not be the end of our task. It will be the beginning of our further opportunity - the opportunity which we snatched out of the jaws of disaster in 1940 - to save the world from tyranny and then to play our part in its wise, helpful guidance.
Having poured out all we have to beat the Germans, holding nothing back, we must now take stock of our resources and plan how the energies of the British people can best be freed for the work that lies ahead.
This is the time for freeing energies, not stifling them. Britain's greatness has been built on character and daring, not on docility to a State machine. At all costs we must preserve that spirit of independence and that "Right to live by no man's leave underneath the law".
I had hoped to preserve the Coalition Government, comprising all Parties in the State, until the end of the Japanese war, but owing to the unwillingness of the Socialist and Sinclair Liberal Parties to agree to my proposal, a General Election became inevitable, and I have formed a new National Government, consisting of the best men in all Parties who were willing to serve and some who are members of no Party at all. It is a strong Government, containing many of those who helped me to carry the burdens of State through the darkest days and on whose counsel and executive ability I have learned to rely.
We seek the good of the whole nation, not that of one section or one faction. We believe in the living unity of the British people, which transcends class or party differences. It was this living unity which enabled us to stand like a rock against Germany when she over-ran Europe. Upon our power to retain unity, the future of this country and of the whole world largely depends.
Britain is still at war, and must not turn aside from the vast further efforts still needed to bring Japan to the same end as Germany. Even when all foreign enemies are utterly defeated, that will not be the end of our task. It will be the beginning of our further opportunity - the opportunity which we snatched out of the jaws of disaster in 1940 - to save the world from tyranny and then to play our part in its wise, helpful guidance.
Having poured out all we have to beat the Germans, holding nothing back, we must now take stock of our resources and plan how the energies of the British people can best be freed for the work that lies ahead.
This is the time for freeing energies, not stifling them. Britain's greatness has been built on character and daring, not on docility to a State machine. At all costs we must preserve that spirit of independence and that "Right to live by no man's leave underneath the law".
THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND COMMONWEALTH
We shall base the whole of our international policy on a recognition that in world affairs the Mother Country must act in the closest possible concert with all other parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire. We shall never forget their love and steadfastness when we stood alone against the German Terror. We, too, have done our best for them. The prowess of the Indian Army must not be overlooked in the framing of plans for granting India a fuller opportunity to achieve Dominion Status We should remember those friends who stood by us in our hour of peril, and should be ever mindful of our obligations towards minorities and the Indian States.
The arrangements made in war for constant mutual consultation with the Dominions and India on all matters of joint interest must be perfected in peace. In particular, the whole subject of Imperial defence must be reviewed in relation to our world responsibilities and to modern weapons. Mutually convenient arrangements must be made to foster Imperial trade.
Movement of men and women within the Empire must be made easier. A two-way traffic should grow. Those who wish to change their homes should be enabled to carry their national insurance rights with them wherever they go. Imperial ties should be knit together by closer personal contact and understanding.
Our record in colonial government is unsurpassed. Our responsibility to the Colonies is to lead them forward to self-governing institutions; to help them to raise their standards of life by agricultural advance, the application of science and the building up of local industries; to improve conditions of labour and of housing, to spread education, to stamp out disease and to sustain health, vigour and happiness. The policy laid down in the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts must be keenly pressed forward. The resources of the Empire need to be developed for the benefit of all its many peoples.
We shall base the whole of our international policy on a recognition that in world affairs the Mother Country must act in the closest possible concert with all other parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire. We shall never forget their love and steadfastness when we stood alone against the German Terror. We, too, have done our best for them. The prowess of the Indian Army must not be overlooked in the framing of plans for granting India a fuller opportunity to achieve Dominion Status We should remember those friends who stood by us in our hour of peril, and should be ever mindful of our obligations towards minorities and the Indian States.
The arrangements made in war for constant mutual consultation with the Dominions and India on all matters of joint interest must be perfected in peace. In particular, the whole subject of Imperial defence must be reviewed in relation to our world responsibilities and to modern weapons. Mutually convenient arrangements must be made to foster Imperial trade.
Movement of men and women within the Empire must be made easier. A two-way traffic should grow. Those who wish to change their homes should be enabled to carry their national insurance rights with them wherever they go. Imperial ties should be knit together by closer personal contact and understanding.
Our record in colonial government is unsurpassed. Our responsibility to the Colonies is to lead them forward to self-governing institutions; to help them to raise their standards of life by agricultural advance, the application of science and the building up of local industries; to improve conditions of labour and of housing, to spread education, to stamp out disease and to sustain health, vigour and happiness. The policy laid down in the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts must be keenly pressed forward. The resources of the Empire need to be developed for the benefit of all its many peoples.
Actually Daly mentions the union issues in passing, but firmly blames everything on Jack Lang for the 1949 defeat whilst ignoring the rest. So take that as you will.
McMullin again mentions it, with more detail, but is more than happy to move on to other topics.
Bolton, though, certainly links the miner's strike with the 1949 defeat in both his Oxford volume & his chapter in A New History of Australia - although he uses the qualifier "probably". Again Molony links the strikes in helping Labor be defeated in 1949.
Well that was certainly the nadir of relations. But the seeds for the 1949 miners strike had started in 1945 thanks to some three stage plan established by the ACTU which, coincidentally, the Labor government back then pretty much supported. But yes, sending in the troops, in order to break the strike, was the last straw.
Well that'd be handy, but I've got family insight. My dad & both grandfathers, although none of them where involved with the actual coal miners strike(s), were all good union men when it happened. And apart from my dad, who still vated Labor, one grandfather voted for the Liberals & the other voted Communist. Now I know that's "subjective", but nevertheless I'm a trained historian who has the necessary skills to handle oral history & the like, although I will admit it isn't my strong suit as history research goes.
Well we're getting into a histrography argument here. When you call me being "subjective", I call it being a trained historian conducting a disciplined academic critical analysis involving numerous sources including both oral & written history. More to the point, I've indicated my sources supporting my position, which aren't at all revisionist history, but rather mainstream sources. Fundamentially, however, when it comes to history, we're all subjective.
Fair enough. BTW don't worry about derailing or hijacking a thread around here as it happens all the time
And welcome to AH.Com Well that may get you the Communists votes, but I don't think you can conclusively settle "the question" so to speak. Anyway, Wiki has the 1949 results including those for the Communists (albeit only for the Senate) here
And with that I'm off to bed...
Last edited:
OUR PURPOSE
Ours is a great nation and never in its history has it stood in higher repute in the world than today. Its greatness rests not on its material wealth, for that has been poured out in full measure, nor upon its armed might, which other nations surpass. It has its roots in the character, the ability, and the independence of our people and the magic of this wonderful island. British virtues have been developed under the free institutions which our fathers and forefathers struggled through the centuries to win and to keep. We of this generation are trustees for posterity, and the duty lies upon us to hand down to our children unimpaired the unique heritage that was bequeathed to us. This is a country built on family life. War and separation have strengthened, not impaired, the love of home. The children must always come first. The Education Act, school meals, family allowances, all show that Parliament is realising that. Family life is a precious asset to be defended at all costs.
We are dedicated to the purpose of helping to rebuild Britain on the sure foundations on which her greatness rests. In recent generations, enormous material progress has been made. That progress must be extended and accelerated not by subordinating the individual to the authority of the State, but by providing the conditions in which no one shall be precluded by poverty, ignorance, insecurity, or the selfishness of others from making the best of the gifts with which Providence has endowed him.
Our programme is not based upon unproved theories or fine phrases, but upon principles that have been tested anew in the fires of war and not found wanting. We commend it to the country not as offering an easy road to the nation's goal but because, while safeguarding our ancient liberties, it tackles practical problems in a practical way.
Ours is a great nation and never in its history has it stood in higher repute in the world than today. Its greatness rests not on its material wealth, for that has been poured out in full measure, nor upon its armed might, which other nations surpass. It has its roots in the character, the ability, and the independence of our people and the magic of this wonderful island. British virtues have been developed under the free institutions which our fathers and forefathers struggled through the centuries to win and to keep. We of this generation are trustees for posterity, and the duty lies upon us to hand down to our children unimpaired the unique heritage that was bequeathed to us. This is a country built on family life. War and separation have strengthened, not impaired, the love of home. The children must always come first. The Education Act, school meals, family allowances, all show that Parliament is realising that. Family life is a precious asset to be defended at all costs.
We are dedicated to the purpose of helping to rebuild Britain on the sure foundations on which her greatness rests. In recent generations, enormous material progress has been made. That progress must be extended and accelerated not by subordinating the individual to the authority of the State, but by providing the conditions in which no one shall be precluded by poverty, ignorance, insecurity, or the selfishness of others from making the best of the gifts with which Providence has endowed him.
Our programme is not based upon unproved theories or fine phrases, but upon principles that have been tested anew in the fires of war and not found wanting. We commend it to the country not as offering an easy road to the nation's goal but because, while safeguarding our ancient liberties, it tackles practical problems in a practical way.
It was too late to 'keep India' even with Churchill in power, the agreements had already been made to let it go independant.
For elsewhere in the empire though...things could be nasty.
Rather than a labour government which encourages the development of local democracy and the route to eventual nationhood you have the tories forcing pro-independance people into more extreme elements.
Most interesting and where things could go well though is relations with the soviets. I doubt Churchill would have been anything like friendly to them quite unlike labour.
For elsewhere in the empire though...things could be nasty.
Rather than a labour government which encourages the development of local democracy and the route to eventual nationhood you have the tories forcing pro-independance people into more extreme elements.
Most interesting and where things could go well though is relations with the soviets. I doubt Churchill would have been anything like friendly to them quite unlike labour.
The Japanese war was not going to threaten mortally th UK. The German war was. Once the European war ended it was right an election should be called.
If Churchill wins in 1945, maybe UK economy would recover faster and UK would still military superpower (behind US and USSR) and Churchill would continue his term as PM until 1955 the same as in OTL.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough. BTW don't worry about derailing or hijacking a thread around here as it happens all the time
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.
JS
Very unlikely. The economy was in a hell of a state after ~6 years of total war and also the handicap economically of the L-L terms applied to Britain. It needed a long period of investment in recovery and after the US pulled the plug that was always going to be a long and hungry road. OTL most reports are the country was finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel when the Korean war added a new burden. Then the Tories got in with a government fuelled largely by frustration at the long period of deprivation and controls gained the benefits and scrapped a lot of the mechanisms that enabled the limited recovery.
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.
Steve