"No Comment" British 1947 POD

On his way to give the 1947 autumn Budget Speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Dalton, made an off-the-cuff remark to a passing journalist about details of his planned speech. Before he could make his announcement, the details were already spreading in the press. For leaking a Budget secret, Dalton was forced to resign. Although he would return to government the next year, the incident ended Dalton's political career, his post for the rest of Attlee's Labour Ministry to be the non-portfolio Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Dalton was an important figure in both Government and Labour policy. He was the father of the 'Revisionist' right-wing of the party and took great lengths to mentor young MPs he deemed of exceptional character. These included Hugh Gaitskell, Anthony Crosland and James Callaghan amongst others. His absense not only weakened the influence of his ideas and his 'students' but saw left-wing forces grow in power. Most notably the Exchequer was given to Stafford Cripps, a pro-Stalin hardline technocrat who tightened rationing even further and epitomised the heartless bureaucrat, becoming the central hate figure of the Government.

But what if Dalton had kept his mouth shut?

Given the odd result of the 1951 General Election, could a more liberal economy win Labour a full second term? If so I believe the beginning of post-war recovery that saw over a decade of Conservative government would rub off on Labour instead (a lot of the improvements under Churchill-Eden-Macmillan were laid down by Attlee). Also Dalton's presence would be a huge boon to the right against a resurgent left, which would be weakened purely by the retention of power. He and Bevin were the key figures of the right before Gaitskall, if Attlee steps down in around 1952-3 they would be a formidable troika. Cripps was being eclisped by Nye Bevan on the left and Morrison was never terribly popular outside London party members, plus he was pretty centrist in the party.

I'm not sure who would take Number 10 in such circumstances. Dalton was a more 'traditional' Oxbridge intellectual figure, but Bevin has massive support in the TUC due to his working-class, 'labourist' anti-communist, hawk background. However would 1950s Britain be more keen on the professor or the union boss? Morrison had been keen on Bevin taking over in the late 40s but Bevan hated his bullish approach to the military and foriegn affairs.

I have ideas regarding changes in a 50s Labour Government (Suez, Germany, Cold War, Economy) but wondered what people think of the basic idea?
 
I think its actually a great POD and am surprised that no one came up with it, on other effect is that further down the line the Labour party will be less obsessed with "finishing" Atlee's work.
 
I'd agree with that, if the Revisionists took hold of the Party while in power I'd imagine it would be seen as more of a continuation of Attlee's work than a break with it.

Also when Wilson took hold and span nationalisation as the scientific, almost apolitical approach to the economy he cemented super-statist ideals as the centre of the party. Part of the reason the SDP eventually broke off, the right-wing had moved from being a major faction to the 'lunatic' fringe faction within Labour.

I just remembered this tiny event and saw it as an obvious POD. Labour was pretty unique in (major) Western social democratic parties in that it failed to modernise and when the neo-liberal 'revolution' took place took a nose-dive unlike any other. Stronger revisionists led by Dalton might stand more of a chance.
 
It was inevitable that the landslide Labour majority of 1945 would have been slashed in the February 1950 general election. But whether Dalton staying at the Exchequer would have given Labour an adequate majority for a five year term, say 20 to 30 seats, (compared to 5 in OTL) would have depended to a large extent on Dalton's policies as Chancellor after his budget in November 1947.

Let's assume that the Labour government is re-elected in February 1950 with a good working majority. Attlee keeps Dalton at the Exchequer until March 1951 when he replaces Bevin at the Foreign Office. Gaitskell is promoted to Chancellor. Bevin died in 1951 and Cripps in 1952.

In this scenario the next general election is in October 1954. Would Churchill still be leader of the Conservative Party or would he have resigned sometimes in the previous four years in favour of Anthony Eden, his heir apparent? If the Tories win that election with a working majority and Eden becomes Prime Minister, presumably Suez still happens as in OTL, Eden resigns and Harold Macmillan becomes Prime Minister in January 1957 as in OTL.

Attlee might have continued as leader of the Labour Party until after Churchill's 80th birthday celebrations on 30 November 1954. Labour being in power for three years longer than in OTL would have given opportunity for men who were junior ministers in 1951 to be promoted to the cabinet. Assuming that Aneurin Bevan and Harold Wilson resign from the cabinet in April 1951 over health charges as in OTL, would one or both of them return to the cabinet in the next three and a half years?

I think it is probable that if Bevan and Gaitskell would have contested a Labour leadership election in December 1954 and Gaitskell would have won.
 
I am not honestly sure how long Atlee would survive politically ITTL. Dalton, Cripps and Morrison were natural intriguers and once Bevin goes, and with a smaller majority, things might get hairy. A lot depends, I would imagine, on what people think 1950 means politically. Is Dalton blamed, or praised for turning the economy around?

Churchill would have been gone by 1954/1955 - the electorate would have said 'no thanks' twice in a row and he's getting long in the tooth. Not sure if it would be immediate, but if not it would be an accumulation of his bad health and Eden et al finally getting restive over the issue.

There's nothing whatsoever which demands that Labour lose in 1955 ITTL - we're in the habit of thinking of a large initial majority for a government which is beaten down at every other election. But the Tories increased their small 1951 majority at both subsequent elections. If Atlee had gone/been forced out by this stage for a younger successor - Gaitskell presumably - the economy had picked up, then Labour would been in a pretty good position for a third term.

But it depends on a lot of variables - minimal Labour infighting, no big foreign policy disasters, Labour renewing itself for the fifties, the state of the economy etc. Eden would be highly formidable electorally and a tough opponent for whoever was in charge.
 
Last edited:
Some interesting points. Personally I think Attlee would step down of his own free will (if given a chance) around 52-53, he was an administrator, getting old and he strikes as someone who would step aside for young blood after his almost 20 years as Leader. On Dalton, Morrison and Cripps: I think if the Korean War still kicks off and Dalton followes public opinion to an extent, namely relaxing rationing etc. I can't see Cripps, the hard-nosed Stalinist that he was and still as President of the Board of Trade maintaining much clout. By the 50s hes pretty ill and old himself so I can't see him having much influence.

Morrison was always seen as the crown prince just waiting for Attlee to croak. However at the same time he was relatively aloof with other MPs, so say Dalton were to stand, who was great at repoiring with the working-class MPs, building his contacts, he'll probably get more votes IMO. Though who knows what events and trends he would have to play with. If left-right tourmoil plagues the party during a leadership contest the hawkish Morrison might wing it as the centre 'compromise' candidate. But then looking at OTL he stood in 1955 after Attlee stepped down and was bottom of the polls so Im doubtful over his chances but its not inconcievable.

I doubt Dalton would be hailed as a hero for a successful 1950 election but given his powerbase I think he'd survive and if things pick while his still there, well Number 10 might be calling. Really although Gaitskell is waiting in the wings I think Dalton might succeed Attlee. The PM will be surrounded by wolves without Bevin about but Cripps is isolated and I think Dalton might forgo his occassional alliances with Morrison if he thinks he can win out in the long run. Gaitskell will be Dalton's backup and guaranteed the Exchequer (I'd imagine when Cripps leaves, the Board of Trade will be his rather than Wilson's thanks to Dalton's influence). Oddly old Dalton might be perfect for Labour renewal. He was fond of young talent and he might fill Cabinet with plenty of them. Still I'm not discounting Morrison or a possible left-right split in how things might fair post-Attlee.

On the Tory front, Eden and co. had the irritation of having a pretty inactive, ancient leader who thanks to his legacy they couldn't topple lest they face a massive public and grassroot party backlash. After a second defeat however I think Churchill would be inclined to step down and pressure from his lieutenants would be as blatant as they could get away with, so say around 1953 he steps down, Eden the obvious successor unless he breaks his neck or is caught assaulting a pensioner. That said I'm intrigued about the great modern Tory What-If of Rab Butler? Say you have a more moderate Labour Party, but more importantly successful one, would Butler become a key figure in promoting Tory renewal and social conscience. Although IOTL the Tories proved their commitment to the post-war consensus, here they haven't got the chance yet so the likes of Rab are key.

Partly on the same thread, I agree with VJ a Labour 3rd term isn't impossible. I think whoever is in office during a 50s resurgence will get a lot of kudos and Labour having been in since 1945 might get a lot based on the image that they're getting the job done, whereas the 20s Tories failed on the post-war front. So if Eden leaves at some point Rab might be pushed into the limelight. Part of me is thinking about Eden losing a 54-55 election, Macmillan orcestrating a coup and getting sticky fingers for it, only for the clean but hardly ruthless Rab taking centre stage. A bit Thatcher-Major possibly but its an idea.

On Suez, alot depends on not only the Officers' Coup going down but internal politics of the junta seeing Nassar rise to the top if it does.
 
Top