Just finished reading up on this TL - it's really good! I've enjoyed learning about various Labour figures of the 50s, for example I had never heard of Alfred Robens until I read this TL. Looking forward to seeing more in the fullness of time :extremelyhappy:

This TL certainly illustrates that if Labour had been able to last a full 4-5 year term from 1950, with the economic recovery there wouldn't be much to stop them winning again and again. I wonder if there is a Tory equivalent in this TL to 'Must Labour Lose?'.

Overall is the economy in more or less the same shape as OTL, or perhaps in a better condition?

Noting that you've planned out this TL and intend to go into the 2010s, will you be creating fictional characters to replace those OTL figures who were born after the POD? Not that I mind either way, I just find it interesting how different writers approach this kind of thing.
Thanks very much!

There was a generation of up-and-coming Labour people who never had a chance of high office because of Labour's long period in the political wilderness in the 50s and 60s, Robens, Marquand and Younger all would have been in a Labour cabinet, instead they got fed up and left politics.

I'm revising some of it at the moment, and have plans of how tory politics would develop in opposition.

With a POD only 70 years ago ill be sticking with OTL people. I will be coming back to this TL at some point this week taking things into the 1960s
 
I'm revising some of it at the moment, and have plans of how tory politics would develop in opposition.

R.A. Butler having his hands on a party as frustrated with constant defeat as the Conservatives must be at this point sounds like a fertile field for an interesting new conservatism to emerge.

The economic and geostrategic implications of what you've written are interesting. Though I do wonder if the British would really withdraw from "East of Suez" in this scenario. If Britain is focusing more on a Commonwealth strategy and hasn't blundered into the Suez crisis, I suspect Britain would still have something stationed in the Indian Ocean so that they are better able to maintain their alliance with the various independent Commonwealth members that are on the Indian Ocean. Especially since Britain's influence in the Persian Gulf region was so important to the geostrategy adopted under the Atlee government (basically, rebuilding British imperial power on the oil of the Persian Gulf, backed up by the financial infrastructure of London).

In any case, Labour prioritizing long-term investment and education is going to lead to a much more powerful British economy in about a generation.

fasquardon
 
For anyone watching this thread i'm updating and re-doing this TL, without the wikiboxes, here:

 
Thanks!

The 1950/51 manifestos had little mention of further public ownership, as coal/rail/electricity/gas were all nationalised by the first Attlee govt, Iron and Steel nationalisation was legislated for in 1949 and came into effect in 1951 (an effect of the Attlee government implementing virtually its entire manifesto in one parliament). The only explicit industry to be brought into public ownership - mentioned in the 1951 manifesto - was the sugar industry, and considering that industry was relatively small I've neglected to mention it, may add that in in a later edit.

Rationing situation will be mentioned in the next couple of updates, dealing with the mid/late 1950s.
Think Morrison would have won in 1953.
 
Top