German victory at the Battle of Britain

[NoMommsen]

snip

I tagged you due to being the last commenting on the theme of Halifax. I well know your attitude to this theme but I hope(d) you might know more of the workings and functioning of the unwritten british 'constitution' that might be a founding of Halifax' claim.

Oh, and as 'Wallinista' or possibly better Wallynista I mean WesternALLY-fanboys unable to consider that their 'heros' able to be faulty also ... regardless eventual evidence pointing into such a direction (to be somewhat pointy myself here ).
And No I don't include you into that category. ... you are IMHO too much interested in arguments ;-D

For specific case, @NoMommsen . In the case of Lord Halifax, he said HE could not rule as PM from the Lords. His support in the Commons was "shaky" at best. Nuance matters.

I'm well aware that HE used it as an excuse.
I'm interested if there were any substantial legalistic or 'habitual' reasons of the political workings of Britain to back this claim.

Btw :
Got a source of this "shakyness" of support if he would be supported by

a) the king​

b) the party leader of the leading party in the commons​

 

[McPherson]

What’s a Wallinista?

Wally= western ally.
Wallinista = opposite of a Wehraboo (Wehrboi).

 

[naraic]

Wally= western ally.
Wallinista = opposite of a Wehraboo (Wehrboi).

Oddly I though you were trying to merge wallah and fashionista into a word. I guess you shouldnt really try to be a neologist.

 

[McPherson]

I tagged you due to being the last commenting on the theme of Halifax. I well know your attitude to this theme but I hope(d) you might know more of the workings and functioning of the unwritten british 'constitution' that might be a founding of Halifax' claim.

Oh, and as 'Wallinista' or possibly better Wallynista I mean WesternALLY-fanboys unable to consider that their 'heros' able to be faulty also ... regardless eventual evidence pointing into such a direction (to be somewhat pointy myself here ).
And No I don't include you into that category. ... you are IMHO too much interested in arguments ;-D

I'm well aware that HE used it as an excuse.
I'm interested if there were any substantial legalistic or 'habitual' reasons of the political workings of Britain to back this claim.

Btw :
Got a source of this "shakyness" of support if he would be supported by

a) the king​

b) the party leader of the leading party in the commons​

The Loyal Opposition is good enough, and there are elements within the Conservative Party who loathed him then as much I historically do now.

 

[McPherson]

Oddly I though you were trying to merge wallah and fashionista into a word. I guess you shouldnt really try to be a neologist.

Shift fire. Not me. Other guy. I just supplied the intel.

 

[naraic]

Shift fire. Not me. Other guy. I just supplied the intel.

Oops sorry.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I tagged you due to being the last commenting on the theme of Halifax. I well know your attitude to this theme but I hope(d) you might know more of the workings and functioning of the unwritten british 'constitution' that might be a founding of Halifax' claim.

Fair enough. I imagine (IMHO) that Halifax’s claim would be a backhanded acknowledgement of the weakness of his position and the fact as a Lord he couldn’t operate in the House of Commons therefore would need a staunch loyalist to be his man in the Chamber. He wouldn’t be able to take part in debates, which he probably knew would be frequent, answer questions at PMQs or make statements in the House. All of that would have to be done by a MP on his behalf. When viewed through the prism of May 1940, relying on another man to forcefully put his position wouldn’t necessarily seem an attractive proposition or effective way to lead government. I think it speaks more to the lack of support Halifax knew he had rather than some form of critique of the British “informal constitution”.

And No I don't include you into that category. ... you are IMHO too much interested in arguments ;-D

I’ll... take that as a compliment. I think.

I'm well aware that HE used it as an excuse.
I'm interested if there were any substantial legalistic or 'habitual' reasons of the political workings of Britain to back this claim.

Nothing legal as far as I’m aware. A Lord is forbidden from speaking in the Chamber of the House of Commons (apart from maybe as a guest? I could be misremembering that, though) which makes it impractical in day to day governance with the newer debate heavy politicking in the newspaper age. “The Prime Minister answered the question after the debate had finished, once it had been relayed to him, which unfortunately contradicted the answer given by the minister at the time...” that kind of thing?

Btw :
Got a source of this "shakyness" of support if he would be supported by

a) the king​

b) the party leader of the leading party in the commons​

The leader of the leading party in the commons being the Conservatives? Being Chamberlain? Who supported Churchill’s position from the 28th May onwards?

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

As far as I know, there is no reason why, under the current emergency, the House of Commons could not pass a bill permitting minister's of His Majesty's government appearing to speak for the government in the House regardless of their position (MP, Lord or even an unelected post). If the nation's "survival" is at stake they could do it.

What that means is that in May 1940 there was no great sweep of support for Halifax as PM, certainly not enough to break parliamentary rules for. After all, the Conservatives were willing to form a government with Socialist & trade union leaders. If there was a groundswell of parliamentary & public support for Halifax then he would have been made PM come hell or high water. There was no such support. The only alternative to Chamberlain that would be accepted, however grudgingly on most sides, was Churchill.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

As far as I know, there is no reason why, under the current emergency, the House of Commons could not pass a bill permitting minister's of His Majesty's government appearing to speak for the government in the House regardless of their position (MP, Lord or even an unelected post). If the nation's "survival" is at stake they could do it.

What that means is that in May 1940 there was no great sweep of support for Halifax as PM, certainly not enough to break parliamentary rules for. After all, the Conservatives were willing to form a government with Socialist & trade union leaders. If there was a groundswell of parliamentary & public support for Halifax then he would have been made PM come hell or high water. There was no such support. The only alternative to Chamberlain that would be accepted, however grudgingly on most sides, was Churchill.

Could Chamberlain have kept on in his role for any significant amount of time? I know that he might not have lived long due to (bladder cancer?)

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Could Chamberlain have kept on in his role for any significant amount of time? I know that he might not have lived long due to (bladder cancer?)

A better performance - or handling of the performance - in Norway would be the obvious, IMO. A better Norway Campaign would probably mean there would be no Norway Debate. That would allow Chamberlain to survive longer, but how long is conjecture as it depends on how much you believe his illness affected the latter stages of his Premiership.

 

[NoMommsen]

As far as I know, there is no reason why, under the current emergency, the House of Commons could not pass a bill permitting minister's of His Majesty's government appearing to speak for the government in the House regardless of their position (MP, Lord or even an unelected post). If the nation's "survival" is at stake they could do it.

What that means is that in May 1940 there was no great sweep of support for Halifax as PM, certainly not enough to break parliamentary rules for.
...

As a first :

What "rules" do you talk about ? ... rather new to me that there were (or are) any such rules with juridical weight (aka written "laws")​

I wonder if it would be even necessary to do so.
However, passing a bill in the commons as well as the lords (who often enough in british history had from time to time kind of an "own" life apart from party politics) ... would require quite some time.
Maybe something else might be possible :

Couldn't the King renounce or suspend the peerage ? ... maybe only for some time ? ... kinda "leave" or "holiday" of peerage ? ... or due to the extraordinary circumstances of the "National Emergency" (of war) at hands ?​

Then it would be certainly not too problematic to find a 'safe' Tory-constituency its actual MP resigning and Halifax gets through at the following by-election, getting that way his seat in the commons.​

After all, the Conservatives were willing to form a government with Socialist & trade union leaders. If there was a groundswell of parliamentary & public support for Halifax then he would have been made PM come hell or high water. There was no such support. The only alternative to Chamberlain that would be accepted, however grudgingly on most sides, was Churchill.

Hmmm the wiki article @McPherson kindly linked to sounds further down quite different. To quote the most... 'outstanding' comment :

As Lord Beaverbrook said, "Chamberlain wanted Halifax. Labour wanted Halifax. Sinclair wanted Halifax. The Lords wanted Halifax. The King wanted Halifax. And Halifax wanted Halifax." Only the last sentence was incorrect, however; Halifax did not want to become Prime Minister.

Nevertheless these notions of support for Halifax as well as such on this site are all well sourced.
What are sources for the opposite the lack of supportas stated ?

 

[Cymry-Korean]

A better performance - or handling of the performance - in Norway would be the obvious, IMO. A better Norway Campaign would probably mean there would be no Norway Debate. That would allow Chamberlain to survive longer, but how long is conjecture as it depends on how much you believe his illness affected the latter stages of his Premiership.

I mean the man did die less than half a year later. I assume that it must have affected his time in office in some major ways.

Though whether those major ways included his policy of appeasement I don't think it's possible to know.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

As far as I know, there is no reason why, under the current emergency, the House of Commons could not pass a bill permitting minister's of His Majesty's government appearing to speak for the government in the House regardless of their position (MP, Lord or even an unelected post). If the nation's "survival" is at stake they could do it.

What that means is that in May 1940 there was no great sweep of support for Halifax as PM, certainly not enough to break parliamentary rules for. After all, the Conservatives were willing to form a government with Socialist & trade union leaders. If there was a groundswell of parliamentary & public support for Halifax then he would have been made PM come hell or high water. There was no such support. The only alternative to Chamberlain that would be accepted, however grudgingly on most sides, was Churchill.

I also think that if there was such a groundswell of support it would have been difficult for Halifax to decline.

 

[McPherson]

What are sources for the opposite the lack of supportas stated ?

Hmmm.

Article.

In a similar slightly later case, FDR had a dud admiral who had totally screwed up the United States Navy as Chief of Naval Operations, but who had such "political clout" and friends that he could not be either put on half pay, beached or be courts martialed for the serious harm he did. That clown, FDR solved, by appointing and promoting him into a liaison post to the Royal Navy in London, with the understanding that his British hosts would "entertain" Harold Stark as he "represented" the USN to the British.

That has been my (jaundiced) view as to how Churchill handled Halifax. YMMV and it probably should. .

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Hmmm.

Article.

In a similar slightly later case, FDR had a dud admiral who had totally screwed up the United States Navy as Chief of Naval Operations, but who had such "political clout" and friends that he could not be either put on half pay, beached or be courts martialed for the serious harm he did. That clown, FDR solved, by appointing and promoting him into a liaison post to the Royal Navy in London, with the understanding that his British hosts would "entertain" Harold Stark as he "represented" the USN to the British.

That has been my (jaundiced) view as to how Churchill handled Halifax. YMMV and it probably should. .

I'm a bit curious what informs your obvious negative opinion on Halifax? To my knowledge he wasn't all that sympathetic to the Nazis and wasn't in one of the many clubs where aristocratic fascist supporters gathered. He also supported the guarantee with Poland. For sure he was probably about as sympathetic as an average aristocrat (not at all), but I get the feeling I'm missing something.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I also think that if there was such a groundswell of support it would have been difficult for Halifax to decline.

Obviously. That kind of goes without saying. I very much doubt Halifax would've turned down being PM if everyone was clamouring for him to be so.

But the point of the May Crisis (which many on here seem to miss - or ignore) is that there was no such groundswell of support for Halifax’s position. Look at the language in the Norway Debate. Not a host of arguments for ending the War as soon as possible, or even for looking for a way out eventually, or for a more nuanced strategy that may be open to negotiation. The majority of statements were in favour of a more vigorous prosecution of the War and carefully avoiding blaming Churchill for what had happened so far. Even though one could say Churchill could (should?) shoulder a fair amount of blame for what was a largely naval campaign. The signs were all there. Parliament wanted to fight harder and many (most?) thought Churchill was the man to lead it.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

That has been my (jaundiced) view as to how Churchill handled Halifax. YMMV and it probably should. .

Our representative would therefore require at this stage tact, helpfulness but above all things, no “urge” which might defeat its own ends, If this interpretation is correct & it sounds plausible why send a 16” gun when a 12” or 14” might suffice, especially if in sending a 16” you weakened the main ship’s armament.

I loved that quote. Talk about a backhanded compliment.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Obviously. That kind of goes without saying. I very much doubt Halifax would've turned down being PM if everyone was clamouring for him to be so.

But the point of the May Crisis (which many on here seem to miss - or ignore) is that there was no such groundswell of support for Halifax’s position. Look at the language in the Norway Debate. Not a host of arguments for ending the War as soon as possible, or even for looking for a way out eventually, or for a more nuanced strategy that may be open to negotiation. The majority of statements were in favour of a more vigorous prosecution of the War and carefully avoiding blaming Churchill for what had happened so far. Even though one could say Churchill could (should?) shoulder a fair amount of blame for what was a largely naval campaign. The signs were all there. Parliament wanted to fight harder and many (most?) thought Churchill was the man to lead it.

Yeah, I agree with you. I was just saying that to those who are supposing that his decline was the only reason he didn't succeed Chamberlain.

 

[McPherson]

I'm a bit curious what informs your obvious negative opinion on Halifax? To my knowledge he wasn't all that sympathetic to the Nazis and wasn't in one of the many clubs where aristocratic fascist supporters gathered. He also supported the guarantee with Poland. For sure he was probably about as sympathetic as an average aristocrat (not at all), but I get the feeling I'm missing something.

I'm an anti-imperialist. And while he smoozed well in Washington as he was instructed by the crown governement, previously he made friends with 'the wrong crowd".

Lord Halifax, the leader of the House of Lords, shared Chamberlain's belief in appeasement. In 1936 Halifax visited Nazi Germany for the first time. Halifax's friend, Henry (Chips) Channon, reported that: "I had a long conversation with Lord Halifax about Germany and his recent visit. He described Hitler's appearance, his khaki shirt, black breeches and patent leather evening shoes. He told me he liked all the Nazi leaders, even Goebbels, and he was much impressed, interested and amused by the visit. He thinks the regime absolutely fantastic, perhaps even too fantastic to be taken seriously. But he is very glad that he went, and thinks good may come of it. I was riveted by all he said, and reluctant to let him go." (20)

Halifax later explained in his autobiography, Fullness of Days (1957): "The advent of Hitler to power in 1933 had coincided with a high tide of wholly irrational pacifist sentiment in Britain, which caused profound damage both at home and abroad. At home it immensely aggravated the difficulty, great in any case as it was bound to be, of bringing the British people to appreciate and face up to the new situation which Hitler was creating; abroad it doubtless served to tempt him and others to suppose that in shaping their policies this country need not be too seriously regarded." (21)

Nice ex-post facto alibi, there. (Italics... mine.).

Americans did not actually warm up to him all that well, especially the isolationists of the period. It must be remarked that Halifax had his mission and his orders, but even his "friends" on this side of the big pond were wary of him.

Untrustworthy, as his nickname "Holy Fox" implies.

 

[CalBear]

as well as @Stenz , @Anglocalvinist67 , @spkaca and all the numerous 'Wallinistas' around this board :


Aside from Halifax seemingly not wanting to become Prime Minister for whatever reasons the argument of "can't rule from the House of Lords" sounding very much as an excuse. An excuse only too often and too easily parroted as it IMHO seems instead of founded reasoning.

How 'impossible' was it actually for Halifax to work and act as Prime Minister, when several highranking seasoned contemporary british politicians including i.e. the actual Prime minister Chamberlain and - not to forget - the King himself seemed it a sound and feasable possibility ?
... with actually only Halifax 'stressing' this point of his membership in the House of Lords as a hinderance during the duscussions leading to the Churchill War Ministry on 10th May 1940 ?

Well, that's a week on the beach for calling people out for the express reason of insulting them (have to admit I'd not see that term before, but since you clearly see ii as an insult, who am I to question).