Prime Minister Reg Maudling

IOTL, he narrowly lost to Ted Heath in 1965? WI he won, or Powell supported Maudling? Effects on UK politics, Mrs. Thatcher, etc.
 
No UK entry into the common market thats for sure. Might see a reintroduction of capital punishment and also a definitive pro-unionist stance in Northern Ireland, perhaps no direct rule.

Well known for liking more than a tipple of drink, if he has a stressful premiership, then its likely to encourage his later alcoholism. Given what happened to Britain (similar things will happen no doubt to some extent particulary economic), this could led to a very ineffective premiership towards the end.
 
No UK entry into the common market thats for sure. Might see a reintroduction of capital punishment and also a definitive pro-unionist stance in Northern Ireland, perhaps no direct rule.

?? Maudling was not substantially different in almost all of the major areas from Heath; to portray him as some sort of arch, right-wing figure is absolutely mistaken. In fact at the time of '65 Heath was probably regarded as the more right-wing.

Maudling made a bit of a mess of Northern Ireland not because he was some sort of ultra-unionist, but simply because he never understood it as a policy area, and with his laid-back approach to things, never did - ironically, with Maudling not as Home Sec. things will probably go a lot better than OTL, particularly if Hailsham gets the gig. (Assuming of course Maudling can win in 1970)

On Europe, I would agree, but largely because Maudling would simply treat the issue with benevolent neglect by the late sixties/early seventies, rather than voicferous opposition. Without the personal impact of Heath-Pompidou, I suspect we would stay out.

Possible career divergence here in respect of Powell, but I'll have to read up on that and come back. IIRC he was not on fantastic terms with Maudling, but equally Maudling will not neccessarily give him the defence portfolio, which Heath did and which actually resulted in a lot of friction. If Powell stays shadowing transport (which is what he was doing under Home in opposition) then that may lessen Powell's frustration.

Also: would Maudling take a different line on In Place of Strife? in OTL Heath opposed it, with negative consequences down the line.
 
Last edited:
?? Maudling was not substantially different in almost all of the major areas from Heath; to portray him as some sort of arch, right-wing figure is absolutely mistaken. In fact at the time of '65 Heath was probably regarded as the more right-wing.

Maudling made a bit of a mess of Northern Ireland not because he was some sort of ultra-unionist, but simply because he never understood it as a policy area, and with his laid-back approach to things, never did - ironically, with Maudling not as Home Sec. things will probably go a lot better than OTL, particularly if Hailsham gets the gig. (Assuming Maudling can win in 1970)

On Europe, I would agree, but largely because Maudling simply treat the issue with benevolent neglect by the late sixties/early seventies, rather than voicferous opposition. Without the personal impact of Heath-Pompidou, I suspect we would stay out.

Possible career divergence here in respect of Powell, but I'll have to read up on that and come back.

Very true V-J. I would argue that Maudling had the potential to be a more effective PM than Heath, he was far more charismatic and media-savvy. However, his problem was that he lacked the drive and determination that the Premiership demands. He was thought by many to be too lazy to be effective enough for the role.

If he were to become leader, you could potentially see a more sizeable Tory victory in 1970 and perhaps even see the Conservative government lasting for longer as well. Even if they loose their majority, he could potentially sweet-talk the Liberals enough to get them to back him in the event of a hung parliament.

What happens to the Labour Party during this time is unknown, but assuming that the anti-Common Market faction gains power I think that we can butterfly away British membership until at least the mid eighties, if at all.
 
Very true V-J. I would argue that Maudling had the potential to be a more effective PM than Heath, he was far more charismatic and media-savvy. However, his problem was that he lacked the drive and determination that the Premiership demands. He was thought by many to be too lazy to be effective enough for the role.

I don't see that as neccessarily a bad thing though. I suspect that Maudling would have been inherently more willing to delegate, and less of a command-PM than Heath, who was actually quite dictatorial; in particular, Heath buggered up the economy quite heavily through the 'Barber Boom', which is a greatly mis-named phenomenon. Maudling was not a notably successful Chancellor himself, but he later recognised his mistakes from that period, and would have brought economic experience during a difficult time if he became PM in the early seventies.
 
Top