The Bulldog Fights On: A British Politics TL

Part I: The 1945 General Election
In this TL, Winston Churchill and the Conservatives win the 1945 general election, after several PODs during the Second World War.

When the book 'Guilty Men' was published in TTL, it recognised that the Opposition parties were just as in favour of appeasement as the National Government, and so many figures in the Labour Party appeared in the book alongside the members of the National Government who were in the book IOTL. Consequently, the public perception was that both sides were in favour of appeasement, and that who was to blame for it was no longer a political issue, as Churchill, who had been opposed to appeasement from the start, was Prime Minister, and the politicians who were in favour of it were quickly withdrawing from public life.

The Conservatives ensured that their constituency organisations did not fall into disrepair during the Second World War, while the war itself went the same as OTL. This means that the following by-elections went differently to OTL:
  • Cambridge University (1940) - Conservative hold
  • Newcastle North (1940) - Conservative hold
  • Grantham (1942) - Conservative hold
  • Wallasey (1942) - Conservative hold
  • Rugby (1942) - Conservative hold
  • Maldon (1942) - Conservative hold
  • Belfast West (1943) - Ulster Unionist hold
  • Eddisbury (1943) - Conservative hold
  • Skipton (1944) - Conservative hold
  • West Derbyshire (1944) - Conservative hold
  • Combined Scottish Universities (1945) - Liberal National hold
Holding these constituencies gave a significant boost to the Conservatives and this, combined with the constituency organisations being maintained and up to date, means that the Conservatives in TTL were more confident entering the 1945 general election. In addition to this, Churchill also decided to contest Epping once again, rather than Woodford, as the threat of losing his constituency was less due to the Conservatives’ renewed electoral fortunes - while this affected the election outcome very little, it certainly gave a morale boost to the Conservatives, as it demonstrated that their leader was confident of victory.

During the 1945 election campaign, the Conservatives put greater emphasis on their commitment to implementing the Beveridge Report, and emphasised their commitment to a 'Four Year Plan' to reform post-war Britain, including a major house building project. In addition to this, the Labour campaign encountered more problems then OTL, as many politicians, economists and journalists questioned the feasibility of implementing the Beveridge Report while the UK was still in recession - this damaged Labour's credibility. In contrast, Churchill's view, that the Beveridge Report would be implemented once the economy was in a more healthy state, received greater support, and so the electorate decided that this would be the most sensible method of implementing the Report.

With all these factors in place, the 1945 general election resulted in the following outcome:

upload_2017-4-3_17-51-29.png

Having secured a third consecutive victory for the Conservatives (a landslide victory, too), Winston Churchill was able to accept King George VI's invitation to form a Government, and began his second term as Prime Minister.
 
Last edited:
A swing to the conservatives? I don't want to say it's impossible, but...

You seem to be going from position that the reason Labour won a landslide was because the conservatives fought a poor campaign, when the truth is probably more that people quite wanted a labour government.
 
A swing to the conservatives? I don't want to say it's impossible, but...

You seem to be going from position that the reason Labour won a landslide was because the conservatives fought a poor campaign, when the truth is probably more that people quite wanted a labour government.

I think that a swing to the Conservatives is perfectly plausible given, in this timeline, their commitment to the Beveridge Report is more clearer and is emphasised more in the campaign (which party would implement the Report was a deciding factor for most voters).
 
I think that a swing to the Conservatives is perfectly plausible given, in this timeline, their commitment to the Beveridge Report is more clearer and is emphasised more in the campaign (which party would implement the Report was a deciding factor for most voters).

I'm not entirely convinced. Enough people around remembered the Depression, and quite simply didn't trust the Conservatives to deliver on promises about welfare.

OTL, the Labour Party went from 38.0% to 47.7% of the popular vote, while the Conservatives went from 47.8% to 36.2%. You're not going to swing what was greater than a 20 point swing to Labour to a 5 point swing to the Conservatives with a blithe "better constituency organisation and promises to institute Beveridge".

Churchill's broadcast in March 1943 basically said "We will only institute Beveridge as and when we can afford it, and it will be a minimum of 4-6 years before we even start looking at it." Throughout 1944, the Conservatives voted against implementation of much of the report, and in particular, against the founding of the NHS. If they say during the election campaign of 1945 that they support the Beveridge report, you'll be hard pushed to find anyone in the country who will believe them. Your POD is going to have to be before March 1943, and will probably need to be before the General Strike.

"Their commitment to the Beveridge Report is more clearer" is a non-starter. First, they've actually got to have any sort of commitment beyond killing it off. Then they've got to be believed. Those are two tough asks.
 
Part II: Early Domestic Decisions
When the results of the 1945 general election were announced, Churchill and many key figures in the British Government were still attending the Potsdam Conference, which would determine how defeated Germany would be administered. Eventually, the Big Three (Churchill, Truman and Stalin) came to an agreement, and so the conference concluded on August the 2nd 1945. The following month, the Second World War officially came to a close, as Japan agreed to unconditional surrender.

However, Churchill was wary of the new global arrangement – the Soviets had bypassed their agreements with the Western Allies at Yalta, and had installed a communist government in Poland, without a single discussion with the Polish Government-in-exile. In addition to this, all of Eastern Europe, bar Greece, were becoming Soviet satellite states. The Prime Minister knew that this Soviet bloc posed a threat to global peace, and so, when addressing the House of Commons in early 1946, Churchill warned of the dangers of the Soviets, and advised the Western Allies to stick together in the post-war world. The highlight of Churchill’s speech came when he declared:

‘From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in some cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.’

Later in the year, Churchill met with President Truman, to discuss how the British Empire and the United States could combat the Soviet threat. Yet, before that is discussed, it is worth looking at the early domestic decisions of Churchill’s second administration.

At the end of the Second World War, the UK, although triumphant, was in a dire economic position. In 1945, economic growth was -4.6%. Thus, John Anderson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had a significant amount on his plate to deal with. For the 1946 Budget, Anderson announced numerous measures to deal with the UK’s economic woes, such as the removal of economic controls imposed during the war, the privatisation of the coal industry and a reduction in taxation, so as to stimulate productivity. Anderson’s economic policies, began to take effect, as in 1946, the UK’s economic growth was -1.4%, and in 1947 economic growth was +3.00%.

As the economy improved, Churchill decided to start the implementation of a cornerstone pledge of the Conservative Manifesto – a major house building programme. For the Government, this policy would kill two birds with one stone – first, it would repair the damage done to the UK’s cities by the Blitz. It would also allow demobilised soldiers to be provided with work upon returning to the UK. So, in 1946, the Government launched the Housing Scheme (established through the Housing Act, 1945) – soldiers who were returning to the UK were offered jobs in the scheme and most accepted, providing a workforce more than ready to launch the project. Between 1945 and 1950, as the Government had hoped, the number of houses in the UK rapidly increased, and the target set out in the Conservative Manifesto (200,000 houses) was easily met by the time the Housing Scheme ended in 1949.

upload_2017-4-5_14-34-11.png

Other policies introduced by the Government included the establishment of a Civil Aviation Authority, created in 1947, and the encouragement of the growth of small businesses through the reduction of taxation organised by Anderson in his Budgets which were introduced during Churchill’s second term.

By 1947, Churchill’s Government had taken major steps to implement manifesto commitments made at the 1945 general election. However, Churchill still had one major area to deal with, the implementation of the Beveridge Report, while the Government was also making decisions relating to foreign policy and the Empire. Thus, the Government’s task was far from complete.
 
Last edited:
By 1947, Churchill’s Government had taken major steps to implement manifesto commitments made at the 1945 general election. However, Churchill still had one major area to deal with, the implementation of the Beveridge Report, while foreign policy was also being implemented by the Government. Thus, the Government’s task was far from complete.

If, after two years, the Government has not got around to implementation of the Beveridge Report, there are going to be major, major problems with domestic law and order. If, as you suggest, the Conservatives managed to turn a -20% swing to a +5% swing by virtue of promising to implement Beveridge (which is away with the fairies in my opinion), then it had bloody well better deliver, or else those people who voted for them are going to express their displeasure.
 
If, after two years, the Government has not got around to implementation of the Beveridge Report, there are going to be major, major problems with domestic law and order.

Churchill's attitude to the Beveridge Report was that it would be implemented after the UK's economic condition improved. This was well-known to the British people, and so most people in this timeline anticipated that the Government would only implement the Beveridge Report after the UK economy began to grow again (which, in this timeline, began in 1947, so that year is the point at which most people expect the report to be implemented), as opposed to implementing it immediately. Consequently, there are few protests against the Government's timetable.
 
Churchill's attitude to the Beveridge Report was that it would be implemented after the UK's economic condition improved. This was well-known to the British people, and so most people in this timeline anticipated that the Government would only implement the Beveridge Report after the UK economy began to grow again (which, in this timeline, began in 1947, so that year is the point at which most people expect the report to be implemented), as opposed to implementing it immediately. Consequently, there are few protests against the Government's timetable.

In which case he doesn't get elected.
 
I've decided to adjust Part One to include more factors which would help Churchill's re-election, meaning it doesn't hinge on the Beveridge Report. Perhaps this makes it more plausible.
You really do need to adjust Part One. Sorry, but it's not at all plausible. The Armed Forces vote alone was a major factor and it was very anti-Tory, blaming them for the Great depression and the War as a whole. If family lore has it correctly, it was the only time that my Grandfather, a diehard Liberal, ever voted Labour, because of the above reasons. It is very, very difficult to get a Tory victory in 1945.
 
I think that wise, David Flin makes some valid points. Possibly some more polling by Conservatives that spells out how important Beveridge is to the electorate and they don't vote against it in 1944 and start doing some detailed planning for introducing it (Nye Bevan basically dusted down and updated old Liberal plans dating back to 1913 for National Infirmity Insurance and dropped the insurance element). But introducing it in 1947 is fine. That is a year earlier than the NHS was introduced in OTL. Maybe Walter Eliot decided to resign over appeasement after all as a POD? And is wartime coalition Health Minister and has already introduced many precursors? Churchill explicitly commits that the trusted Health Minister will be retained in post and given the opportunity to deliver?
 
I think that a swing to the Conservatives is perfectly plausible given, in this timeline, their commitment to the Beveridge Report is more clearer and is emphasised more in the campaign (which party would implement the Report was a deciding factor for most voters).
This is really unconvincing. I'm sorry, but the best you're gonna get is an incredibly slim Conservative majority and, even then, I think you'd need to see Winston six feet under and Eden heading up the Tories for the 1945 election.
 
I think that wise, David Flin makes some valid points. Possibly some more polling by Conservatives that spells out how important Beveridge is to the electorate and they don't vote against it in 1944 and start doing some detailed planning for introducing it (Nye Bevan basically dusted down and updated old Liberal plans dating back to 1913 for National Infirmity Insurance and dropped the insurance element). But introducing it in 1947 is fine. That is a year earlier than the NHS was introduced in OTL. Maybe Walter Eliot decided to resign over appeasement after all as a POD? And is wartime coalition Health Minister and has already introduced many precursors? Churchill explicitly commits that the trusted Health Minister will be retained in post and given the opportunity to deliver?
A strong POD that I've pondered before - his personality was one of caution and moderation, so we'd need him to override his feelings towards jumping ship and then have Churchill recognise him as a key ally going into 1940. The latter is certainly easy, given Elliot's close relationship with Churchill.
 
If, after two years, the Government has not got around to implementation of the Beveridge Report, there are going to be major, major problems with domestic law and order. If, as you suggest, the Conservatives managed to turn a -20% swing to a +5% swing by virtue of promising to implement Beveridge (which is away with the fairies in my opinion), then it had bloody well better deliver, or else those people who voted for them are going to express their displeasure.
My own great-great grandfather (MP for Poplar South) said as much to Churchill upon being elected in his maiden speech - he threatened that, if Churchill was to drag his feet in implementing the Beveridge Report, there would be some form of violent revolt.

"I plead with you, as a working man coming straight from the workshop to this great House of Commons, with all its traditions, not to fail us, who have backed you right through, and not to delay these Measures until the war is won, because the same old bogy will then be trotted out as was trotted out after the last war. We shall not take that sort of thing lying down. We shall fight; and we shall be far more determined than when we came back from the last war. You are teaching many of my people a new technique of warfare. Do not complain if you let us down and you have to suffer the consequences." - William Henry Guy, MP for Poplar South.
 
@David Flin , @Comisario , if @Pittite wants I can do a rough calculation of a Conservative victory in the 1945 General Election and get a more reasonable seat count, but I'd like one of you to recommend the kind of swing that would have occurred under these circumstances. I've actually done an infobox on this very scenario before, but with no real background and the main point being trying to maintain a Conservative majority (even without Coalition Partners). Even with them though it may be a bit too narrow for Pittite's purposes however (five alone, sixteen with the Nationals).

Edit: Looking at it now I'm wondering if my math was wrong..........

EiJFOoc.png
 
I just don't see how you can have anything other than a Labour majority in the '45 election without a huge amount of hand-waving, to excessive levels.

Given the social and economic issues raised during the 30s and the decade of National Government, plus the stigma of appeasement and the Depression, you can't not have a Labour majority of some kind. The armed forces vote alone was lop-sided to Labour.

It's like that Dr Who concept - a fixed point in time that can't be changed without some massive PoDs decades previously.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
My own great-great grandfather (MP for Poplar South) said as much to Churchill upon being elected in his maiden speech - he threatened that, if Churchill was to drag his feet in implementing the Beveridge Report, there would be some form of violent revolt.

"I plead with you, as a working man coming straight from the workshop to this great House of Commons, with all its traditions, not to fail us, who have backed you right through, and not to delay these Measures until the war is won, because the same old bogy will then be trotted out as was trotted out after the last war. We shall not take that sort of thing lying down. We shall fight; and we shall be far more determined than when we came back from the last war. You are teaching many of my people a new technique of warfare. Do not complain if you let us down and you have to suffer the consequences." - William Henry Guy, MP for Poplar South.
Basically the memory of "A country fits for Heroes" would come back

A swing to the conservatives? I don't want to say it's impossible, but...

You seem to be going from position that the reason Labour won a landslide was because the conservatives fought a poor campaign, when the truth is probably more that people quite wanted a labour government.
Well, they did not even mention Full Employment in their manifesto.

In this TL, Winston Churchill and the Conservatives win the 1945 general election, after several PODs during the Second World War.

When the book 'Guilty Men' was published in TTL, it recognised that the Opposition parties were just as in favour of appeasement as the National Government, and so many figures in the Labour Party appeared in the book alongside the members of the National Government who were in the book IOTL. Consequently, the public perception was that both sides were in favour of appeasement, and that who was to blame for it was no longer a political issue, as Churchill, who had been opposed to appeasement from the start, was Prime Minister, and the politicians who were in favour of it were quickly withdrawing from public life.

The Conservatives ensured that their constituency organisations did not fall into disrepair during the Second World War, while the war itself went the same as OTL. This means that the following by-elections went differently to OTL:
  • Cambridge University (1940) - Conservative hold
  • Newcastle North (1940) - Conservative hold
  • Grantham (1942) - Conservative hold
  • Wallasey (1942) - Conservative hold
  • Rugby (1942) - Conservative hold
  • Maldon (1942) - Conservative hold
  • Belfast West (1943) - Ulster Unionist hold
  • Eddisbury (1943) - Conservative hold
  • Skipton (1944) - Conservative hold
  • West Derbyshire (1944) - Conservative hold
  • Combined Scottish Universities (1945) - Liberal National hold
Holding these constituencies gave a significant boost to the Conservatives and this, combined with the constituency organisations being maintained and up to date, means that the Conservatives in TTL were more confident entering the 1945 general election. In addition to this, Churchill also decided to contest Epping once again, rather than Woodford, as the threat of losing his constituency was less due to the Conservatives’ renewed electoral fortunes - while this affected the election outcome very little, it certainly gave a morale boost to the Conservatives, as it demonstrated that their leader was confident of victory.

During the 1945 election campaign, the Conservatives put greater emphasis on their commitment to implementing the Beveridge Report, and emphasised their commitment to a 'Four Year Plan' to reform post-war Britain, including a major house building project. In addition to this, the Labour campaign encountered more problems then OTL, as many politicians, economists and journalists questioned the feasibility of implementing the Beveridge Report while the UK was still in recession - this damaged Labour's credibility. In contrast, Churchill's view, that the Beveridge Report would be implemented once the economy was in a more healthy state, received greater support, and so the electorate decided that this would be the most sensible method of implementing the Report.

With all these factors in place, the 1945 general election resulted in the following outcome:


Having secured a third consecutive victory for the Conservatives (a landslide victory, too), Winston Churchill was able to accept King George VI's invitation to form a Government, and began his second term as Prime Minister.
Well, you also forgot about Tory's infamous austerity policy during the 1930s, when a sensible government must introduce a New Deal.

Not just Welfare State, Atlee also went on to embrace Keynesianism and Full Employment, that's why he won. I could not found any "Full Employment" phrase in Tory manifesto.
 
I think you'll have to give up on this.

I don't think that's fair to the OP. Some changes are needed but it could be done. Perhaps a scenario where a National Government is formed; Labour dominated but with Churchill as PM (incidentally what many '45 voters seemed to assume would happen even as they voted Labour).

I certainly don't think we should be straight up discouraging people working on original TLs.
 
I think you'll have to give up on this.

One would have to work hard to get a Conservative government in '45. I don't think it's quite flat-out impossible. What is as close to being impossible as makes no difference is the proposed scale of the victory.

I would suggest that the OP look at the OTL 1945 results, and work back from there. As a rough rule of thumb, I've found that a 1% swing is about justifiable for a major piece of butterfly flapping (others may differ, but it feels about right to me).

1945 OTL saw Labour on 47.7%, Tories on 36.2%. That's an 11.5% difference, which means an awful lot of shifting. One also has to remember that few people would believe promises of the Tories implementing Beveridge willingly, and assurances: "We'll implement it when economic circumstances allow" would be translated as "We'll not implement it because we'll say the economic circumstances were quite right." One only has to read diaries and so forth of people from the period to realise just how much of an impact the Depression had on the voting public. They were not in a mood to forget. One also has to remember which party was most strongly associated with Appeasement.

The obvious first step is not to delay implementing Beveridge until the economic conditions are right, but to start implementing before the election is called, to demonstrate that one is serious about it. That would get you to maybe Labour 47.3%, Tories 36.9" (L down 0.4%, T up 0.7%, total swing 1.1%). The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
Top