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?