DBWI: prevent the collapse of the Conservative Party

Once one of the two great parties of state in the UK , regarded by some as the natural party of government, the modern day Conservative Party is a shadow of its former self luck to scrape 50 seats in a general election and effectively locked out of all government positions for decades. Prevent this decline.
 
Well, maybe you could have Winston Churchill (re)join the Conservatives as he considered doing in the 1920s. His leadership of the Liberal Party in the late 1920s and 1930s was effective in wooing moderate Conservatives over to the Liberals.
 
Well, maybe you could have Winston Churchill (re)join the Conservatives as he considered doing in the 1920s. His leadership of the Liberal Party in the late 1920s and 1930s was effective in wooing moderate Conservatives over to the Liberals.

This sounds like it has potential. I agree that there's not really room for two anti-socialist parties in British politics. Crucially, the Conservatives have to avoid discrediting themselves through austerity and appeasement in the 1930s. By the time Chamberlain resigned in 1940, I'd argue the damage to the Conservative Party was already too severe to be repaired. I remember reading that when the MacDonald government fell in '31, there were suggestions that a 'National Government' might be formed to share the burden for the decisions that followed. If such a government could avoid OTL's mismanagement, then the Conservatives could retain their place as Britain's leading anti-Labour party.
 
The decline of the Tories was arguably pre-ordained given the shifting trends in industry and society, but there's one event that might give them a fighting chance if it was averted. Choosing to arm and fund the UVF was always going to be doomed to failure, and there were dissenting voices in the party at the time, it wouldn't be too hard to see the Tories step back from their covert role in the Irish Civil War and in doing so avert the backlash when the UVF started to kill pro-treaty soldiers. Prevent the arms going to the UVF and a different picture might emerge. If they had sat on the sidelines they could have watched Ireland become as much of a quagmire for the Liberals as South Africa had been for them, Asquith wouldn't have been able to defend the failures with retorts about the Opposition supporting terrorists, Churchill wouldn't have been able to ask "Whose side are the Tories on?" during the 1915 election campaign, and instead of a crushing Liberal landslide you might have seen the Tories returning to power were they could have ended the war on their terms and kicked Home Rule into the long grass.

Arguably you could still have had them surviving if the Second Franco-Prussian War hadn't been such a success for the Entente, a lacklustre war effort might alienate middle class opinion towards the Tories in the same way that the war itself alienated a large segment of working class opinion towards Labour. Have the war become a disaster that lasts for years and you have the present crisis be enough to allow people to forget about the two years of bloodletting in Ireland. Although, with Ireland still simmering the Germans doing a bit better might just cause Aquith to point out that the Opposition continued to indirectly harm the war effort. It's a tricky one.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
The decline of the Tories was arguably pre-ordained given the shifting trends in industry and society, but there's one event that might give them a fighting chance if it was averted. Choosing to arm and fund the UVF was always going to be doomed to failure, and there were dissenting voices in the party at the time, it wouldn't be too hard to see the Tories step back from their covert role in the Irish Civil War and in doing so avert the backlash when the UVF started to kill pro-treaty soldiers. Prevent the arms going to the UVF and a different picture might emerge. If they had sat on the sidelines they could have watched Ireland become as much of a quagmire for the Liberals as South Africa had been for them, Asquith wouldn't have been able to defend the failures with retorts about the Opposition supporting terrorists, Churchill wouldn't have been able to ask "Whose side are the Tories on?" during the 1915 election campaign, and instead of a crushing Liberal landslide you might have seen the Tories returning to power were they could have ended the war on their terms and kicked Home Rule into the long grass.

Arguably you could still have had them surviving if the Second Franco-Prussian War hadn't been such a success for the Entente, a lacklustre war effort might alienate middle class opinion towards the Tories in the same way that the war itself alienated a large segment of working class opinion towards Labour. Have the war become a disaster that lasts for years and you have the present crisis be enough to allow people to forget about the two years of bloodletting in Ireland. Although, with Ireland still simmering the Germans doing a bit better might just cause Aquith to point out that the Opposition continued to indirectly harm the war effort. It's a tricky one.
Actually, these factors were not that crucial. The 1920s was characterized by three-party politics. The problem was that the last time they won a GE was in 1931, after the inept first Labour government (which won in 1929 thanks to a historical corruption scandal of the Liberals). They had to rule during the Great Depression and their austerity policies and appeasement stance were extremely unpopular. Hence, in the 1935 general election, Winston Churchill and Lloyd George sealed their fate forever with his New Deal proposal which led to a Liberal landslide.

Frankly, their handling of the Great Depression had shown that they fully deserved their demise. Their continued existence would have slowed down social progress by decades.
 
What do people think about a potential recovery based on a better Conservative resurgence in the 50s? They were pretty close to becoming the opposition in 57.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
What do people think about a potential recovery based on a better Conservative resurgence in the 50s? They were pretty close to becoming the opposition in 57.
Well, that's the best they could achieve. Note that the 1950s was the peak of the Keynesian era. And in the 1957 election, they looked stronger than they actually were because it was a Liberal landslide with over 420 seats.

They could not even become Opposition during the 1980s, a period in which a Conservative Counterrevolution led by Reagan in the US.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Arguably you could still have had them surviving if the Second Franco-Prussian War hadn't been such a success for the Entente, a lacklustre war effort might alienate middle class opinion towards the Tories in the same way that the war itself alienated a large segment of working class opinion towards Labour.
Have the Ottoman Campaign 1915 a disaster instead of a success. Besides, an earlier POD is to have Haldane, who was accused of being pro-German but retained his position in the War Cabinet, removed from the Cabinet.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, maybe you could have Winston Churchill (re)join the Conservatives as he considered doing in the 1920s. His leadership of the Liberal Party in the late 1920s and 1930s was effective in wooing moderate Conservatives over to the Liberals.
Have Churchill shift more to the right and hence leading to the mass defection of the Radicals to Labour. This would effectively destroy the Liberals, which relied on its Radical wing. IOTL, he created a platform which was appealing to both wings, especially when he was able to persuade the business community to agree with stuff like education and public health reforms.
 
Have Churchill shift more to the right and hence leading to the mass defection of the Radicals to Labour. This would effectively destroy the Liberals, which relied on its Radical wing. IOTL, he created a platform which was appealing to both wings, especially when he was able to persuade the business community to agree with stuff like education and public health reforms.
Surely the key would be to prevent FE Smith (Lord Birkenhead) and his key allies squelching the attempted coup by the short lived 1922 Committee. By the time the Conservatives first split between pro and LLoyd_George factions after the 1924 election the party had lost too much ground. The continuing disputes were patched over in the face of the 1929 Labour Government, but came back to haunt the Tories after their remaining centre-left MPs finally went full-bore coalitionist in the face of the ineptness of the Chamberlain government. The division between National Conservative and Conservative was fatal, in a way that the division between Liberal and Liberal Unionist had not been.
 
It would probably have to be before the 60s by which time there was a somewhat stable two party system despite occasional mini revivals for the Tories such as in the 80s. Perhaps have the Liberals be more like Labour in regards to the Empire and India, such as the adoption a position of India gaining Dominion status could push him back to the Tories?
 
This is technically an "AHC" but whatever.

Another commentator beat me to it, but this has been discussed earlier here, and political historians usually hold that the key event was a meeting of Conservative MPs in 1922 to discuss continuing to support Lloyd George as Prime Minister. The Conservatives could have formed a government on their own. Instead there was the creation of the "National Party" formed by the elements of the Liberal and Conservative Parties that supported Lloyd George. By the way, legally the "Conservative Party" started by the dissidents was technically a new party, and the National Party the successor to the Conservative Party, not an unimportant point as the National Party got the Conservative Party resources, not least its funds. On the other hand the Asquithian Liberal Party legally continued the pre- World War I Liberal Party. As a new party, the Conservative Party always had long odds of wining or even coming in second in an election.

Churchill never considered joining the Conservative Party. It was a surprise when he opted for the Liberal Party over the Nats. And also Chamberlain, like much of the National Party leadership, originally was a Liberal. But the Conservative Party formed from the split was always considered to be a fringe and reactionary element and something of a joke, though granted opposition to the European Community and Union later gave it a lease on life, and it was always very different from the Conservative Party of Disraeli and Salisbury.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Surely the key would be to prevent FE Smith (Lord Birkenhead) and his key allies squelching the attempted coup by the short lived 1922 Committee. By the time the Conservatives first split between pro and LLoyd_George factions after the 1924 election the party had lost too much ground. The continuing disputes were patched over in the face of the 1929 Labour Government, but came back to haunt the Tories after their remaining centre-left MPs finally went full-bore coalitionist in the face of the ineptness of the Chamberlain government. The division between National Conservative and Conservative was fatal, in a way that the division between Liberal and Liberal Unionist had not been.


This is technically an "AHC" but whatever.

Another commentator beat me to it, but this has been discussed earlier here, and political historians usually hold that the key event was a meeting of Conservative MPs in 1922 to discuss continuing to support Lloyd George as Prime Minister. The Conservatives could have formed a government on their own. Instead there was the creation of the "National Party" formed by the elements of the Liberal and Conservative Parties that supported Lloyd George. By the way, legally the "Conservative Party" started by the dissidents was technically a new party, and the National Party the successor to the Conservative Party, not an unimportant point as the National Party got the Conservative Party resources, not least its funds. On the other hand the Asquithian Liberal Party legally continued the pre- World War I Liberal Party. As a new party, the Conservative Party always had long odds of wining or even coming in second in an election.

Churchill never considered joining the Conservative Party. It was a surprise when he opted for the Liberal Party over the Nats. And also Chamberlain, like much of the National Party leadership, originally was a Liberal. But the Conservative Party formed from the split was always considered to be a fringe and reactionary element and something of a joke, though granted opposition to the European Community and Union later gave it a lease on life, and it was always very different from the Conservative Party of Disraeli and Salisbury.


Those factors above were massively overstated. Apart from the Coalition Liberals, only a handful of National Conservatives (Austen Chamberlain for example, but not Neville) went to the Liberals. The two factions united in 1929 and narrowly won the 1931 election after a lousy Labour government, while the Liberals still suffered from the 1928 charge for corruption under Rosebery. The key ones were the way they handled The Great Depression and appeasement politics, which allowed Lloyd George to decimate them with his New Deal manifesto in 1935 general election.

The Home Rule crisis also caused problems for the Tories during the 1915 khaki election, as their arm support to UVF were exposed, allowed Churchill to asked "Whose side are the Tories on?" during the 1915 election campaign, resulting in a crushing Liberal landslide. Even in the later Coalition, the number of Lloyd George Liberals were nearly as many as the number of Tory MPs (not to mention the Asquith Liberals, so the event in 1922 was overstated.
 
Last edited:
Those factors above were massively overstated. Apart from the Coalition Liberals, only a handful of National Conservatives (Austen Chamberlain for example, but not Neville) went to the Liberals. The two factions united in 1929 and narrowly won the 1931 election after a lousy Labour government, while the Liberals still suffered from the 1928 charge for corruption under Rosebery. The key ones were the way they handled The Great Depression and appeasement politics, which allowed Lloyd George to decimate them with his New Deal manifesto in 1935 general election.

The Home Rule crisis also caused problems for the Tories during the 1915 khaki election, as their arm support to UVF were exposed, allowed Churchill to asked "Whose side are the Tories on?" during the 1915 election campaign, resulting in a crushing Liberal landslide. Even in the later Coalition, the number of Lloyd George Liberals were nearly as many as the number of Tory MPs (not to mention the Asquith Liberals, so the event in 1922 was overstated.
hmm maybe, but I was taking my cue from John Campbell's masterly biography of FE, republished in the Faber Finds series, which also examines the partial return of the Liberal Unionists after the ending of Ireland as a vote winner for English (and Scottish) unionists..
 

Thomas1195

Banned
hmm maybe, but I was taking my cue from John Campbell's masterly biography of FE, republished in the Faber Finds series, which also examines the partial return of the Liberal Unionists after the ending of Ireland as a vote winner for English (and Scottish) unionists..
Anyway, they deserved this, after all the things they had done when they had their last chance during the 1930s. Their fate was finally sealed when Neville Chamberlain resigned and defected to Liberals.

In 1945, they even opposed the Liberals' Beveridge Reports on the ground of ideology. Well, they only won 10 seats in 1945 election.
 
Top