The Bulldog Fights On: A British Politics TL

Deleted member 94680

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.

Would it be possible to have a National Government with Churchill as PM, Eden with obvious amounts of power (Winston effectively becomming a figurehead) and Labour in opposition? Bring the Liberals in to keep Labour out, as it were? Or are the Liberals done and dusted by this point?
 
Would it be possible to have a National Government with Churchill as PM, Eden with obvious amounts of power (Winston effectively becomming a figurehead) and Labour in opposition? Bring the Liberals in to keep Labour out, as it were? Or are the Liberals done and dusted by this point?

I'm not certain, though it would certainly be interesting to see a TL where National Government never ended, dominated by a weird fusion party that encompasses the centres of each party - rather like Chamberlain and others like Baldwin debated in the 1930s.
 
I'd like to thank everyone for their suggestions and advice on how to improve this TL and make it more plausible (I especially like the idea surrounding Walter Elliot). One question, though - would a change in Labour's leadership (i.e. someone in charge other than Attlee) help Churchill win in 1945?
 
I'd like to thank everyone for their suggestions and advice on how to improve this TL and make it more plausible (I especially like the idea surrounding Walter Elliot). One question, though - would a change in Labour's leadership (i.e. someone in charge other than Attlee) help Churchill win in 1945?

The main contenders would seem to be:
Hugh Dalton, who would be more likely to make errors after a victory than give any particular boost to the Tories during the election. Dalton was known to have been a strong opponent of Appeasement, and was keen to ensure the social reforms happened.
Ernest Bevin, who would probably give a swing to Labour. He was popular with the Americans, and he was Minister of Labour during the war, with a remarkable record of success.

Attlee was not especially charismatic, and indeed was "notoriously laconic".

One thing that will help is a total re-jig of the Tory campaign. In OTL, it was essentially entirely "Churchill is wonderful", and the voters remembered what Churchill was like during the Depression. It wasn't helped by Churchill's comments during the campaign. In one radio broadcast, he said that a Labour government would introduce a form of gestapo to implement the reforms. That backfired. Gagging Churchill during the campaign could probably swing half a point to the Tories.

To win elections, you've got to judge the public mood. In 1945, the public wanted the men home, not off fighting pointless little colonial wars to hang on to Empire that did no good to anyone who was just an ordinary working bloke. The public wanted their "Land fit for Heroes", where you didn't have the inequalities of the Depression. They wanted homes and jobs and an end to going hungry to make ends meet, while the rich ignore the problems. The ordinary voter didn't care who ruled India.
 
The problem with the Labour leadership is that Attlee was Labour leader for a decade prior to the election and had served admirably under Churchill. Therefore the PoD needs to be in the 1930s - either Lansbury doesn't resign the leadership, or Attlee is beaten by someone else.

Problem here is that although laconic Attlee was a fantastic organiser and committee man who kept various party elements in check and working together. Without Attlee you have a different Labour, and possibly not even a successful war; after all, it was Attlee who finally agreed to serve under Churchill after refusing to serve under Chamberlain, and it was he and Greenwood who supported Churchill in his determination to fight on in May 1940 in the Cabinet Meetings on the 9th and 10th May.

Remove Attlee and you potentially unleash a whole host of butterflies throughout the 1930s and 40s. A National Government seems to be the only way to go ahead without lots of changes to the time stream; and I'd be interested to see how that works
 
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'm not saying this needs to be original, of course not. I'm just saying he needs to make it more sensible.
 
The main contenders would seem to be:
Hugh Dalton, who would be more likely to make errors after a victory than give any particular boost to the Tories during the election. Dalton was known to have been a strong opponent of Appeasement, and was keen to ensure the social reforms happened.
Ernest Bevin, who would probably give a swing to Labour. He was popular with the Americans, and he was Minister of Labour during the war, with a remarkable record of success.
Whilst these two are certainly plausible, I don't believe they are the most plausible. Herbert Morrison will take his shot and, should he do so, would have Dalton's backing without a doubt. He wouldn't win it without a serious split in his opposition, which isn't entirely implausible but would need serious explanation. If he wins, he'll sign up to a longer National Government for at least another year or so.

On the left, you have Stafford Cripps - the man who was one of Britain's most popular politician during the war and was the choice of a variety of constituencies in the country. Now, there are certain issues depending upon when Attlee goes, with the most important of which being Cripps' admission back into the party. Timing is key in that case, but it's not implausible for him to stand in a 'Attlee falls terribly ill in '45' scenario.

Disregarding all suggestions, however, it would probably make the most sense to have Arthur Greenwood take over. The issue here is timing, but a well-timed bout of serious illness for Attlee (not unreasonable, given his record of ill health at every stage of the war and before) would allow Greenwood to take up the role of Acting Leader in a fashion similar to Attlee himself in 1935. A Greenwood campaign might dampen the Labour vote, but that depends on how bad old Arthur's drinking gets and how lacklustre he is with the voters.
 
Top