Death of Churchill in 1922?

Hey Guys,

In 1922 Churchill had to have an appendicectomy during the campaign of the general election. This led to his loss of the seat due to his lack of campaigning for the obvious health reasons. Two years later, he gained a seat in Epping and became a Conservative, Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the strongest supporters of free-trade within the Conservative party and obviously Prime Minister, twice.

But, what if in 1922 Winston Churchill died of Appendicitis? Might a different Conservative not take the advice of the Bank of England and choose not to go back to the gold-standard? Thus not allowing a General Strike of 1926 to occur and potentially not allowing numerous lower-class citizens to vote for Labour from any potential effects of the strike? Also, without a strong vocal-advocator of Free-Trade such as Winston Churchill, might we see permanent/more effective tariff-reforms go ahead under Baldwin?

Of course, the one that will likely be peoples main focus here, is what about the premiership after Neville Chamberlain resigns in 1940? Who would take over as Prime Minister? Would it be Lord Halifax, whom in OTL was a more likely candidate than Churchill? What effects would this have on the war effort?

Also, if you don't think many of the events above would've had much of an effect on a Timeline and it would be comparatively similar to OTL, then what of what would have been Churchill's second term in office? Who would be PM then? Anthony Eden, or another Conservative? Would the Conservatives even win, or would Attlee gain a second term in office?
 
Halifax, probably. He had a massive share of support of the Conservative Party in 1940 as is. Could possibly have taken the position, but deferred to Churchill.

Or if you assume that the crisis of May 1940 is butterflied away, then likely Halifax takes it that November, when Chamberlain passes.

And if Halifax proves the hero of the British war effort, then possibly he makes a comeback in 1951.

Also likely also that Attlee never wins in 1945, as well, if Halifax doesn't press efforts against the USSR in the same way as Churchill did - letting Labour position the Tories as warmongers.
 
Halifax, probably. He had a massive share of support of the Conservative Party in 1940 as is. Could possibly have taken the position, but deferred to Churchill.

Or if you assume that the crisis of May 1940 is butterflied away, then likely Halifax takes it that November, when Chamberlain passes.

And if Halifax proves the hero of the British war effort, then possibly he makes a comeback in 1951.

Also likely also that Attlee never wins in 1945, as well, if Halifax doesn't press efforts against the USSR in the same way as Churchill did - letting Labour position the Tories as warmongers.

How does a peer serve as PM when he cannot be present for Question Time in the House of Commons? This has been given as the primary reason why no Peer has been considered as a serious candidate for the job since 1867.
 
UT: I guess Disraeli, Salisbury, and Rosebery don't count. ;) In those days (pre-Parliament Act 1911) the Lords was a co-equal to the Commons, if not greater in power. The DPM or deputy minister (in the case of a Great Office of State) would take questions in the Commons. Worst-case, arrangements can be made for them to appear when necessary. Besides, with Salisbury's "I am God" attitude, you wouldn't want him mugging for the cameras.
 
In those days (pre-Parliament Act 1911) the Lords was a co-equal to the Commons, if not greater in power.

Not really. You have to go back well before the 1832 Reform Act before you can say the Lords had more power than the Commons. By then the superiority of Commons was well established.
 
The Lords could still veto anything they didn't like (Home Rule anyone?), unless you went nuclear and stuffed it with your own partisans, as occurred in 1911 IOTL. Also- the Big Four, namely the PM, FS, HS and Chancellor were usually from the Lords, so you'd never hear them in the Commons. I'd expect questioning to be more... civilized in the Lords than in the Commons, so understandable.
 
How does a peer serve as PM when he cannot be present for Question Time in the House of Commons? This has been given as the primary reason why no Peer has been considered as a serious candidate for the job since 1867.

The 14th Earl of Home (Alexander Douglas-Home) is the last member of the House of Lords to be appointed Prime Minister - in 1963.

He decided to renounce his peerage, then fought and won a by-election to become a member of the House of Commons.
 
Originally posted by TheNordicBrit
In 1922 Churchill had to have an appendicecotomy during the campaign at the general election. This led to the lose of his seat due to the lack of campaigning for obvious health reasons.

Churchill did not lose his seat in the double-member Dundee constituency because he couldn't campaign for health reasons. In fact he came fourth behind his fellow National Liberal. The result was:

E. Scrymgeour (Socialist Prohibition Party) 32,598
E.D. Morel (Labour) 30,292
D.J. Macdonald (National Liberal) 22,244
Winston Churchill (National Liberal) 20,466
R.R. Pilkington (Liberal) 6,681
Willie Gallacher (Communist) 5,986

Churchill was defeated because of the large nationwide swing from National Liberal to Labour.

With no Churchill, Neville Chamberlain would probably have been Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1924-1929 Baldwin government. I think he would have returned Britain to the gold standard as it was contemporary economic orthodoxy.

Alfred Duff Cooper is a possibility for appointment as First Lord of the Admiralty on 3 September 1939 instead of Churchill. Duff Cooper had that post from May 1937 to October 1938 when he resigned over Munich.

Halifax would be the most likely to take over as Prime Minister when Neville Chamberlain resigned on 10 May 1940. But if he didn't possibilities are Eden, Duff Cooper, or one man who is now virtually unknown: Sir John Anderson, the Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security.

Anderson was not officially a Conservative. He was elected as a National MP for the Combined Scottish Universities in February 1938. He was a distinguished civil servant. Among his senior appointments was that of Governor of Bengal from 1932-1937. Here is his biography: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/30409 . I expect he would have been acceptable to the Labour party, probably more so than Eden or Duff Cooper.

Pursuing the idea of an Anderson premiership from 10 May 1940, presumably he would not have become leader of the Conservative Party, on the resignation of Chamberlain in early October 1940. Possibilities are Eden, or Sir Kingsley Wood, who died in 1943.

Labour would have won in 1945 by a landslide whoever was Prime Minister and/or leader of the Conservative party.

Originally posted by RogueBeaver
Also - the Big Four, namely the PM, FS, HS and Chancellor were usually from the Lords.

Before the Parliament Act 1911 most Home Secretaries were in the Commons, from 1873 they all were. If by Chancellor is meant Chancellor of the Exchequer then they were invariably in the Commons. If Lord Chancellor is intended, they were always in the House of Lords, but they were not one of the Big Four, at least not from the 18th century.
 
Top