Loyalty to the home country had been worn down somewhat by the war. There were still those who identified strongly with Britain in the Dominions, but I think the general impression was that we had paid our dues, let us do what we want for the moment. That kind of stifled the more Empire/Commonwealth unity minded in the Dominions while those who were less so, saw the changing situation at the end of the war as opportunity to bring about change. Combined with British strength seeming pretty depleted, the Dominions took the opportunity yo distance themselves from Britain and flex their independent muscles a little. To be honest, I doubt Churchill winning in 1945 would greatly change that dynamic. I suppose if Britain was more inclined to work on making the Commonwealth a little more closely tied than OTL, that might be doable.The trouble, much like with Australia, is that the Prime Ministers who happen to occupy office in all the Dominions - save South Africa - in the mid- to late-40s were, OTL, more interested in shaping the transition from Empire to Commonwealth. Perhaps that was a function of the realpolitik of the situation, but, given they were Liberal/Labor/Labour (Can, Aus, NZL respectively) I suspect it was actually more of a conviction than expediency. Interestingly, in each case they were replaced with PMs who radically disagreed with them.
Sidney Holland in New Zealand called himself a "Britisher through and through".
As noted previously, Robert Menzies in Australia described himself as "British to his bootstraps".
John Diefenbaker in Canada vehemently opposed the introduction of the Canadian Maple Leaf flag.
Which is why I'm asking this question regarding the Dominions, I suppose. In OTL, the Liberal/Labor/Labour PMs served concurrently with a Labour government in London who probably agreed with them on most things, including the reform of the Empire. How would they have instead got on with Churchill?
That’s my read on it anyway.