alternatehistory.com

Suppose that after the general election of 1950 (where Labour had been reduced to a very precarious majority) and before that of 1951 (let's assume that it comes about on schedule) Winston Churchill suffers such a serious stroke (he had already suffered a minor one in 1949) that he can no longer function as leader of the Conservative Party, and Eden takes his place. Do the Tories do better or worse than in OTL in the 1951 general election?

On the surface, it would seem that Churchill's immense prestige would be a huge asset to the Tories. But as Harold Macmillan noted in his *Tides of Fortune 1945-1955* (p. 358) "the fact that he was known as a great war leader somehow or other, by a curious confusion of thought, led many people to be persuaded that he would welcome another opportunity of displaying his special qualities." In May Hugh Dalton had declared "If we get Churchill and the Tory Party back at the next election we shall be at war with Russia within twelve months." Most Labour leaders were less crude than this, but managed to create the same impression. (In the constituencies, according to Macmillan, an attempt was made by canvassers to create something like panic, a typical slogan being "Vote Tory and reach for a rifle, Vote Labour and reach old age.") Above all, the *Daily Mirror* in the late summer coined the slogan "Whose finger on the trigger?" which it repeated in its first editorial on the election, saying that this was the supreme issue at stake.

The next phase was described in David Butler, *The British General Election of 1951*, pp. 133-134:

"The *Daily Mirror* did not return to this theme until October 15th; on that day it began a special election feature devoting its second page to election letters from its readers; the first of these was prominently headlined 'The Finger on That Trigger Must Not Itch'. On October 18th it carried a front-page story based on a Paris despatch printed in the New York weekly, *The Nation,* to the effect that Mr. Churchill would deliver a 'peace ultimatum' to Stalin. On October 19th it elaborated the story, again on the front page, under the headline 'What DID Mr. Churchill say in Paris?' while a back page editorial headed 'Ultimatum Talk', while admitting that 'evidence was lacking', gave a warning against putting 'pressure' on Russia and demanded an explanation from Mr. Churchill. The Conservative Central Office issued a statement by Mr. Churchill describing the Paris report as 'completely false', and on October 20th the *Daily Mirror* published this in an almost identical position to its first story under the headline 'I didn't say it, says Churchill'. On the same day its election letters on the second page were grouped under the two headings 'When Labour's Finger Guards the Trigger' and 'Who's Churchill Leading Now?' On October 23rd the election letters were given pride of place in a spread across the two centre pages, and those which posed the war issue were again accorded prominence under the headline 'Whose Finger on the Trigger?' Then on the eve of the election the *Daily Mirror* let itself go. 'Whose Finger on the Trigger?' became a front-page banner headline above photographs of intending Labour voters, 'a cross-section of Britain's workers'. Finally, on polling day itself, the *Daily Mirror*'s front page was devoted to a sensational spread on the same theme which led Mr. Churchill to issue a writ for libel against the newspaper."

Eventually, the *Daily Mirror* made a settlement, paying Churchill's costs, as well as damages which he gave to a charity. But that was several months after the election. Very likely, the attempt to portray Churchill as a warmonger did have some effect. The average swing nationwide to the Tories was only 1.1 percent with the Tories achieving a net gain of 23 seats and Labour a net loss of 20. The Conservatives had a majority of 26 seats over Labour and 17 over all parties combined. According to Macmillan, this result ("It was enough, but just enough") was a disappointment to the Tories:

"We had been confident, judging by the Gallup Poll and from other indications, of obtaining a majority of at least fifty and perhaps more. The swing against us at the end was partly no doubt caused by the normal rally of estranged Labour voters to their own government. But it was largely the result of the bitter onslaught against Churchill on the 'warmongering' issue. 'A third Labour Government or a third world war' had proved a devastating slogan." (*Tides of Fortune,* pp. 360-61)

So again I'd like to ask how well the Tories would have done in 1951 if Eden instead of Churchill had led them. No doubt Eden was of much lesser stature, but Churchill's longtime anti-Bolshevism (despite the World War II alliance), fame as a war leader, and general bulldog persona, did, it seems to me, make it easier to portray him as a "warmonger" than Eden. (Ironically, in May 1953 when Churchill called for British-American-Soviet talks to take advantage of the opportunities he believed Stalin's death had presented, Labour began worrying about Churchill's health, and saying that his likely successors in the Tory Party did not share his commitment to peace...)
Top