Longest Serving PM

Thomas1195

Banned
How much winning of Gallipoli/no Gallipoli would help Asquith?
At least it would delay or even butterfly away the fall of the prewar Liberal government

Asquith could do 15 years, from 1908-23 if he allowed himself to be sidelined in WW1 and the Liberals win again in 1918.
If he won in 1918, he would have won in 1923 election. No Allied intervention in Russian Civil War, no Chanak, no infamous "a country fits for heroes" (but a real one), or even no Cash of Peerages if he was able to prevent the Liberal split.
 
Attlee's continued leadership after 1951 was partly to keep the party united while Gaitskellites and Bevanites took chunks out of each other. In power this elder statesman gimmick might become a negative with either section or other big names (Morrison and Dalton if he wasn't caught out and forced to resign) wanting 'fresh blood'.

If the Korean War is averted a continued Labour government is very possible and it avoids the Prescription Charge debate which saw Bevanites leave government. This might mean more a united Party but the divisions are still there. Also remember age and exhaustion can often do-in a politician better than any outside schemes. I imagine by 1953 old Clem might have been tired and forced the PLP's hand to pick a successor (at that point he would have been continuously in government for thirteen years and in his seventies), even if the PLP wasn't keen on the idea.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Grey succeeds HCB in 1909. Then just before 1914, he retired to spend time on fishing and bird-watching, leaving the post to Lloyd George.

Lloyd George would serve as PM until he retires, exceeding Walpole.
 
I think Attlee wouldn't last much past 51 maybe 55 he'd have been in government for over 15 years at that point and would doubtless be exhausted not least by Bevan and Gaitskell attaching each other. And I think Lloyd george has a chance but you'd be seeing nearly 15/20 years of liberal government wouldn't there be a swing against them.
 
Grey succeeds HCB in 1909. Then just before 1914, he retired to spend time on fishing and bird-watching, leaving the post to Lloyd George.

Lloyd George would serve as PM until he retires, exceeding Walpole.
Lloyd George opposed increased defence spending up until war broke out in 1914. He became PM OTL at the right time, Asquith and Haldane having done the all heavy lifting. Now the Liberal Imperialists would have forced his hand to some extent and Britain would not have been totally defenceless but they wouldn't have spent as much or done as much as OTL and wouldn't been able to significantly assist in France in the TTL analogue of August/September 1914. Result, a national humiliation. Lloyd George would have had six years in office at maximum. Haldane and Liberal Imperialists would have refused to continue to support him by early 1915. He was unquestionably a more dynamic man than Asquith but would never have got over losing the Great War by Christmas
 
Another possibility is that Major's majority in 1992 is 1 seat, rather than 21 (this would need an 0.89% swing). Kinnock still quits, Smith takes over as per OTL, and dies as per OTL.

Major loses his majority, even with the UUP in 1994, just after Blair takes over as leader. He is defeated in a no confidence vote. The 1994 election is won by Blair.

Blair goes on to win 1998, 2002, 2006. If we butterfly 11th September, and so the Iraq War, then Blair can keep going. The GFC is tougher, but with butterflies 15 years earlier, perhaps it can be averted or made less severe. So let's give Blair 2010 too, before he retires in 2012 or 2013. So perhaps 18-19 years, on a Tony Blair wank?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Lloyd George opposed increased defence spending up until war broke out in 1914. He became PM OTL at the right time, Asquith and Haldane having done the all heavy lifting. Now the Liberal Imperialists would have forced his hand to some extent and Britain would not have been totally defenceless but they wouldn't have spent as much or done as much as OTL and wouldn't been able to significantly assist in France in the TTL analogue of August/September 1914. Result, a national humiliation. Lloyd George would have had six years in office at maximum. Haldane and Liberal Imperialists would have refused to continue to support him by early 1915. He was unquestionably a more dynamic man than Asquith but would never have got over losing the Great War by Christmas
Oh, sorry, I mean Grey retires just before ww1. This means PM Grey and Haldane would be responsible for the prewar buildup. Belgium would be attacked, so DLG would change his position like IOTL.

Not to mention that Grey supported women suffrage, which would benefit Liberal in the long run.
 
Oh, sorry, I mean Grey retires just before ww1. This means PM Grey and Haldane would be responsible for the prewar buildup. Belgium would be attacked, so DLG would change his position like IOTL.

Not to mention that Grey supported women suffrage, which would benefit Liberal in the long run.
Oh sorry, I get you now. But with Grey as PM succeeded by LG in 1914, a different Foreign Minister might not have handled the Germans as badly. The Germans were well aware that Grey was looking for any excuse to jump in on France's side and therefore had no incentive to placate Britain. A more businesslike approach from Lloyd George and with Asquith or Crewe at the FO and the Germans might never have gone into Belgium having solid credible assurances of British neutrality if they stayed out. But without the War, would Lloyd George have lasted more than five years? Electoral fatigue with the Liberals bound to kick in.

If the War had gone ahead, I agree that there would not have been an internal Liberal coup in 1916 but he would have eventually had to go for similar reasons to OTL. So 1914 say -1922/3. Nine years.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Oh sorry, I get you now. But with Grey as PM succeeded by LG in 1914, a different Foreign Minister might not have handled the Germans as badly. The Germans were well aware that Grey was looking for any excuse to jump in on France's side and therefore had no incentive to placate Britain. A more businesslike approach from Lloyd George and with Asquith or Crewe at the FO and the Germans might never have gone into Belgium having solid credible assurances of British neutrality if they stayed out. But without the War, would Lloyd George have lasted more than five years? Electoral fatigue with the Liberals bound to kick in.

If the War had gone ahead, I agree that there would not have been an internal Liberal coup in 1916 but he would have eventually had to go for similar reasons to OTL. So 1914 say -1922/3. Nine years.
Well, the Imperialists wing is smaller than the radicals and now have lost Grey. Also, "he keeps us out of war" had proven to be an effective strategy IOTL in the US, especially if news about trench warfare reaches British electorate.
 
What trench warfare is this? Germans would have taken Paris in 1914 (von Kluck's Turn - OTL the BEF stopped it at enormous cost to the Army of 1914) and then fought a mobile war to the East. Imperialists are smaller than the radicals in number yes but include a lot of the best talent -and you can straddle both (e.g. Haldane or McKenna). And the big reforms have already been introduced.
 
Top