How can we make Winston Churchill a champion of the workers?

[alt_historian]

Winston Churchill - champion of the workers?!?

Sounds absurd I know, but I was taking a look at this over on changingthetimes, and came across the following passage (near the bottom on the page) from a meeting of the Liberal Cabinet in 1924:

But that was nothing as to my amazement when Winston then piped in with not only a statement supporting LG [Lloyd George] on the Gold Standard – something that I know that he has expressed opinions on in the past – but he then made an almost passionate statement saying that something must be done to deal with the situation with regard to the miners.
Apparently Winston was taken down a colliery near Merthyr Tydfil for a morning, and having seen first hand what they go through every day he re-emerged rather pale and with a profound desire to plead their case.
​

This looks like a really interesting idea, and I think it's simply a variation of the old story about FDR. Namely, that Eleanor took him to see how some poor working-class family in New York was living, and he came back out of their flat as above - rather pale and with a determination to make things better for people like them.
I feel if anyone known to us today as an arch-conservative could make such a big political change, it would be Churchill. He wandered all over the political map at one time or another: the only place he didn't go was to the Labour left...

How can we realistically end up with Winston Churchill either: as a 'compassionate Conservative' (but one who really means it); as a Liberal champion of the working classes and their interests; or preferably have him completely change heart, and join the Labour party?
Obviously the above scenario is a possible starting point, but I'd like to see as many other alternatives as we can come up with.

By 'champion of the workers', I do of course intend that he become a supporter of working-class causes (I'll leave you to specify which). I do not mean that he becomes the key patron of a club called "the workers'", or any other smartarse way of getting round the wording of the challenge.

Rules (other than above):
1. No ASBs.
2. No very early life PODs - he must spend a while in Parliamentary politics before this change. None before, say, 1910, which makes him around 35 at least.

Let me know if the whole thing - or any one restriction - is impractical, or even impossible!

 

[Thande]

If Churchill had lived a hundred years before, he would have been. The trouble is that, with the background of the Labour Party and socialism existing then, he was at best somewhat sympathetic, but couldn't be regarded as a champion of the workers (except compared to other Tories).

Of course, if we want to do something really radical, we could have Churchill join the Labour Party

 

[alt_historian]

If Churchill had lived a hundred years before, he would have been. The trouble is that, with the background of the Labour Party and socialism existing then, he was at best somewhat sympathetic, but couldn't be regarded as a champion of the workers (except compared to other Tories).

Of course, if we want to do something really radical, we could have Churchill join the Labour Party

Sure, why not! Exactly as I said above (in probably too lengthy a way). Have Churchill

... either: as a 'compassionate Conservative' (but one who really means it); as a Liberal champion of the working classes and their interests; or preferably have him completely change heart, and join the Labour party?

I don't think of him as any sort of working-man's champion even compared to other Tories - that's why I came up with this challenge in the first place!

 

[Thande]

I don't think of him as any sort of working-man's champion even compared to other Tories - that's why I came up with this challenge in the first place!

Well, people tend to dwell on Tonypandy and not realise how much worse it could have been if someone else had been Home Secretary. The rest of the cabinet were all for sending in the army - it was Churchill who decided to only send a few troops, and make up the bulk of the force from London Met police sent in for the purpose, keeping it civilian. If anyone else had been Home Secretary, it could have been another Peterloo Massacre.

 

[alt_historian]

Well, people tend to dwell on Tonypandy and not realise how much worse it could have been if someone else had been Home Secretary. The rest of the cabinet were all for sending in the army - it was Churchill who decided to only send a few troops, and make up the bulk of the force from London Met police sent in for the purpose, keeping it civilian. If anyone else had been Home Secretary, it could have been another Peterloo Massacre.

Ah, Peterloo - looking at that at the moment for MA.

Cool. If you do have a realistic way of Churchill doing the impossible and converting to Labour, then let's hear it!

There must be someone else who's looked at this thread by now... not that I'm impugning your skills, Thande.

 

[alt_historian]

And yet more bumpage. Surely the idea wasn't that implausible?



Maybe it was. Let me know!

 

[Communist Wizard]

Maybe Winstoon will turn communist, and we will have the British Socialist Union, fighting the evil capitalist fascists alongside their Russian comrades! MWAHAHAHAHA!

I like the idea, anyways. Would this lead to warmer relations between Russian and GB (than OTL)?

 

[carlton_bach]

Churchill wasn't exactly stupid, so it might be the idea to give him a practical reason to do this. You could have him champion a Bismarckian policy of giving the working man some benefits in order to take away the economic appeal of Labour. IIRC he wasn't unhappy with the 'land fit for heroes' idea. Have him develop the conxcept further in the twenties and we see him speaking for workers' health insurance, pensions, health and safety etc. because "if we continue to shamefully withhold from these men what is their due, the Socialists shall overwhelm us and take all that is ours".

 

[Berra]

Low taxes for the workers.

 

[Fabilius]

Low taxes for the workers.

Did workers pay any taxes back then

 

[carlton_bach]

Did workers pay any taxes back then

Plenty. The indirect tax/tariff burden was still quite significant.

That said, I don't think Churchill was a low-tax conservative. He was quite attached to fiscally irresponsible things like the 'New Empire'.

 

[alt_historian]

Churchill wasn't exactly stupid, so it might be the idea to give him a practical reason to do this. You could have him champion a Bismarckian policy of giving the working man some benefits in order to take away the economic appeal of Labour. IIRC he wasn't unhappy with the 'land fit for heroes' idea. Have him develop the conxcept further in the twenties and we see him speaking for workers' health insurance, pensions, health and safety etc. because "if we continue to shamefully withhold from these men what is their due, the Socialists shall overwhelm us and take all that is ours".

Hey, I like that idea. So would it be best, in that case, for him to stay a Liberal? Well, I mean 'stay a Liberal once he actually joins them'...
The reason I bring that up is due to the actions of people like Asquih, specifically things like the introduction of national insurance, and some healthcare legislation. Then there's the "People's Budget", of which Churchill was apparently a major supporter.

So maybe all this is not so implausible, if we give him the right reason?

 

[alt_historian]

Hey, I like that idea. So would it be best, in that case, for him to stay a Liberal? Well, I mean 'stay a Liberal once he actually joins them'...
The reason I bring that up is due to the actions of people like Asquih, specifically things like the introduction of national insurance, and some healthcare legislation. Then there's the "People's Budget", of which Churchill was apparently a major supporter.

So maybe all this is not so implausible, if we give him the right reason?

Hmm, I wonder who this mysterious "Asquih" fellow was...

Anyone else have something to say? I'm trying to work out when J.M. Keynes was thinking up his ideas...

 

[Electric Monk]

You could have the 1930s Conservative Party be more attached to Disraeli's One-Nation Conservatism (and not in the lip service we'll keep the welfare state of OTL).

Although Disraeli got boiled down to 'more government including welfare' by and large his ideas were far more interesting than that. Google One-Nation Conservatism, Red Toryism, and the related links (conservative communitarism, for instance) for more info.

It's a conservative take on socialism, in some senses, including a focus on the poor (via a sense of noblesse oblige) in an alliance with the rich/powerful against the uncaring capitalist laissez-faire middle class.

 

[stevep]

Plenty. The indirect tax/tariff burden was still quite significant.

Not tariffs. Britain didn't have any until ~1931 and then a lot lower than most other countries. However there were still indirect taxes and probably at least some involvement in income tax.

That said, I don't think Churchill was a low-tax conservative. He was quite attached to fiscally irresponsible things like the 'New Empire'.

It depended on what cabinet role he had. At the Admiralty and as PM later he could be pretty reckless. As Chancellor in the 20's he was the one who put us back on gold at the pre-war rate, at the demand of the bankers and also introduced the notorious 10 Years Rule.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Hmm, I wonder who this mysterious "Asquih" fellow was...

Anyone else have something to say? I'm trying to work out when J.M. Keynes was thinking up his ideas...

I think he started thinking about such things shortly after WWI. Was fairly well developed by the late 20's when it was the basis of the Liberal programme for the economy.

If you could keep Churchill in the Liberals, in fairly close relation to L-G and Keynes you could possibly maintain some radical element as they respond to the growth of socialism. Would probably have to change either his determined support of free-trade [very difficult] and keep the Liberals as a major force in British politics, preferably decisively defeating Labour as the left wing alternative in the late 20's-early 30's.

He doesn't have the brains to be a Bismarck but might, if it was explained to him properly, support something like his policies in imperial Germany, including decent working conditions, education, health care and the like. If he happened to be say the Home Secretary and supported such policies in a Liberal led government that brings Britain out of the depression then he might be given such a title.

Steve

 

[jkay]

Sounds like OTL to me

Er, that sounds like OTL. Early in his career,he shifted to the Liberals to support safety-net type stuff.

Later, after he was fired following Gallipoli, he spent time as an officer near the front lines, was one of the few who spent plenty of time looking in on his troops, and spoke up in Parliament about their plight, how segregated they were from their officers, and how this was causing plenty of problems, including of being clueless on why the aggressive attacks they kept throwing them into weren't working (like himself at Gallipoli, far, far out of his sight).

IMHO, one reason he didn't like Labour was because he WAS for the working man - he knew they'd do better both working for and buying from competitive markets than from a gummint monopoly, and could see that, though unions did plenty of good, that they needed watching too, and the working man sometimes needed protection from them, too.

Really, IMHO, where he could use some additional caring is when he's been PM awhile - he grew careless and arrogant.

 

[alt_historian]

Interesting stuff, people...

You could have the 1930s Conservative Party be more attached to Disraeli's One-Nation Conservatism (and not in the lip service we'll keep the welfare state of OTL).

Although Disraeli got boiled down to 'more government including welfare' by and large his ideas were far more interesting than that. Google One-Nation Conservatism, Red Toryism, and the related links (conservative communitarism, for instance) for more info.

It's a conservative take on socialism, in some senses, including a focus on the poor (via a sense of noblesse oblige) in an alliance with the rich/powerful against the uncaring capitalist laissez-faire middle class.

Yeah... I know what One-Nation conservatism is. Churchill just never struck me as the Ted Heath type.

 

[Jape]

IMHO, one reason he didn't like Labour was because he WAS for the working man - he knew they'd do better both working for and buying from competitive markets than from a gummint monopoly, and could see that, though unions did plenty of good, that they needed watching too, and the working man sometimes needed protection from them, too.

If he was to cross the floor during the 1920's or around the Depression, the Labour Party beyond its intentions and ideology was a very orthodox British political party. Indeed, during the Depression the Liberals were more radical in their Keynesian economic plans than Labour, who stuck to the idea of balanced budgets and Free Trade.

So a Labour Churchill isn't ridiculous, after all Baronet Oswald Mosley was pretty much handed a Tory seat in 1918 thanks to family connection and yet 10 years later he was happily writing up radical economic plans for Labour, constantly hopping round to get a seat that would take him. If Churchill views the Labour Party as the way to achieve his aims ie the Libs are dying and the Tories dont seem to care, I doubt he'd give toss about the colour of his rosette.

If you want a Liberal Churchill, you'd need some major butterflies not to see the Liberals sink. They have a lot stacked against them, beyond splits over trade, Labour was a fresh alternative, namely by the (still) Edwardian standards of the 1920s they actually had working men in Parliament, a revelation! While the Libs increasingly came off as overly 'paternal' to the lower classes. I know thats simplistic but was a major factor, hell even claims of Bolshevik coups in the making didnt stop Labour leap-frogging the Libs at every election.

A Social-Tory Churchill is the easiest route but from a Turtledovish 'fun' ATL perspective, a Labour Winnie is obviously the most tempting. That said, I quite doubt he'd become PM in such a world. Despite the iconic role WWII let him play, he was a pretty unsophisticated politican and Labour would probably love to parade him around as yet another Tory defector, probably even give him the War Office or maybe even the Home Office or Exchequer, but a bullbog ex-Conservative is hardly the posterboy you want for a young Party of the people

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

If you have some kind of "Britain loses WWI" then Churchill could rise as a revanchist-nationalist leader championing some kind of corporatist thing. But I see him more in the role of machine gunning workers while saying "The General Strike will end the state, or the state will end the General Strike".