Labour in office at the outbreak of WW2

WI Chamberlain had called and lost an election in the Spring or summer of 1939.

Atlee would be Prime Minister. He might have declared war a few hours earlier than in OTL.

What else would be changed.

I assume that at some stage there would be a coalition government, probably after the fall of France, unless that is butterflied away.
 
Would Labour get in though? I never understood why an election wasn't called before May 1940. Usually in times like that, the incumbents get reelected, specifically in the US and Canada that year, where both King and FDR won landslides.
 
I am not saying it is likely but I am still wondering what might happen. I guess some scandal during the election campaign.
 
Remember, at the time the ideological differences were less pronounced than they are today. Baldwin was a One National IIRC, but clearly a fiscal conservative. Chamberlain was hardly a Tory, he always used the term "Unionist" (never "Conservative") and his expansion of the welfare state in Health suggest that he was quite liberal for the party. Attlee was a pragmatic socialist IMO.
 
In the 11 by-elections from January to August 1939 in seats where Conservative and Labour where in first or second place, there was an average swing from Conservative (and other parties supporting the so-called 'National' government) to Labour of 4.1%. In the 4 by-elections where Conservative and Liberal were in first and second place, the average swing from Conservative to Liberal was 4.8%. The Westminster, Abbey by-election on 17 May was a straight fight between Conservative and Independent Progressive. It was held by the Conservatives with a drop of 10.1% in their vote compared with the 1935 general election which was a straight fight between Conservative and Labour.

In the 1935 general election Conservatives polled 53.7% of the national vote to 37.9% for Labour. So Labour would need in the region of a 6 to 7 percent swing to win an majority of seats in the House of Commons. In the 1945 general election there was a national swing of 11.6% from Conservative to Labour.

However the Oxford by-election on 27 October 1938 and the Bridgwater by-election of 17 November 1938 were straight fights between Conservative and Independent Progressive candidates supported by Labour, Liberal and some anti-appeasement Tories. In Oxford the Tories held the seat but with a drop of 6.7% compared with 1935. Bridgwater was gained by the Independent Progressive candidate with a fall of 10.1% in the Tory vote.

So in a general election in the spring or summer of 1939 an anti-Chamberlain alliance of Labour, Liberal, dissident Tories( such as Churchill, Duff Cooper, Eden, Macmillan, Brendan Bracken, Robert Boothby) and left-wing independents could win a majority in the House of Commons. With Labour as the largest party in that alliance, Clement Attlee becomes Prime Minister. He forms a coalition government of Labour, Liberal and dissident Tories. He appoints Churchill to his cabinet, and probably Duff Cooper and/or Eden.
 
Chamberlain was popular for avoiding war over Munich and might still be riding on a wave of popularity. However Hitler's annexing of the rest Czeckoslovakia might have opened up the publics eye. However assuming Chamberlain narrowly lost then war would have been declared in September 1939 and the only difference initially might have been fire bombing the Black Forest which the Cabinet had rejected.

The phoney war continues possibly without any plans to assist Finland and invade Norway. This means that Attlee misses the bus and pretty soon a coalition is formed probably drawing Churchills in as First Lord. There is probably a smaller faction for peace negotiations in the cabinet but there are dangers of the Tory benches from people out of office
 
Remember that the Labour politicians of the day was amongst the foremost proponents of unilateral disarmament, appeasement and pacifism in the run up to the war. A Labour government may well lead to no war for Britain, as they may well see principle and domestic social concerns as more important than anti-fascism.
 
Major Attlee's battalions

Remember that the Labour politicians of the day was amongst the foremost proponents of unilateral disarmament, appeasement and pacifism in the run up to the war. A Labour government may well lead to no war for Britain, as they may well see principle and domestic social concerns as more important than anti-fascism.

Not entirely correct Lansbury was effectively removed from office for his extreme pacifism arousing the anger of Enrnest Bevin in particular. Attlee had himself served in the trenches and by 1937 Labour was opposing appeasement and Attlee had the British battalion in the Intrernational Brigade named after him in his honour for visting the British volunteers in Spain. In September 1939 the Hitler-Stalin Pact resulted in some on the far left in Britain suddenly denouncing the war as an imperialist war a bit like the far left over the Falkands. A handful of Labour M.Ps may have taken that line along with arch appeasers like Dick Stokes but the bulk of the party would support the war.

Labour may have offered India independence after the war and recieved more support from India but the Congress Party would be sceptical after the experience of World War 1 where Gandhi had supported the war expecting indidepence. Indian independence may have caused problems in keeping Churchill on board but any opposition would have been on the grounds of not pursuing the war hardc enough. The attack on the French fleet may not have taken place with negotiations winning out in the long run but this may have had adverse affects in the USA regarding Britains resolve
 
It is conceivable that Attlee could have ended up as PM after a 1939 general elections, but very unlikely that it would have been at the head of a majority Labour government;

Labour was as dis-united as the National government during this period with Stafford Cripps and Anuerin Bevan along with a number of other Labour MPs at odds with their party, principally regarding the best means in which to defeat the government at a 1939 election. Cripps and Bevan supported a Popular Front which aimed to get Labour and Liberals (plus Communists etc) to co-operate by electoral alliances or joint candidatures. Cripps reasoned that Labour was not capable of winning on its own.

Depending on the exact timing of the 1939 election, the Labour and Liberal parties may have had to face up to the fact that at a local level the Popular Front idea was organically happening.

So Attlee, if PM, would have probably needed to form a coalition as soon as he snogged paws.

Even with a Labour majority, I suspect that the pragmatic Attlee would have been more willing to bring into his government members of other parties far sooner than either Asquith or Chamberlain did.
 
IIRC some UK members said that the Tories were losing by-elections with massive swings in '38-9 despite having an overall majority of 72. That was apparently why Chamberlain made leftward turns domestically. So is it possible for a Labour or Tory minority government in late 1939? Any period polling sources?
 
I believe that Chamberlain was planning an early election for September 1939 but the war got in the way.

Essays in labour history, 1918-1939by Asa Briggs gives insight into Labour problems of the time.

Just about every by-election in 1938-39 saw a swing away from the Conservatives although usually it was a swing of under 10%, so hardly massive.

Period polling sources were in their infancy; Gallup started doing regular polling in 1938 but methods were unreliable so by-elections were probably still the greatest indicator.

5 seats were lost in 1938 and 3 in 1939, which was not many in those days when by-elections seemed to occur evey month. All 8 were lost in two-way contests.
 
Please make it clear...

Would Labour get in though? I never understood why an election wasn't called before May 1940. Usually in times like that, the incumbents get reelected, specifically in the US and Canada that year, where both King and FDR won landslides.
Dear Sir, you say you are knowledgeable about american politics. Your
entry implies somewhat that US elections are called not cyclical. Dear God,
I wish that they could be called. If we had a parliamentary system
the Texas Fool would have been gone as soon as the last empty "WMD"
container was found.
In 1940, the Republicans were the party of isolationism. Every
Republican of note wanted to let England fall. But, they had the misfortune
of having their convention in June. They were banging gavels when Paris
fell. The country was scared. They had to find an interventionist candidate,
no mean feat for them. Hence, Wendell Willkie.
Or did I misunderstand and have just been wasting everyone's time esp.
mine?:eek:
 
Last edited:
Top