Timeline: A different political path in 20th century Britain

The TL is mostly based on my TL - WI Conservative government in Britain in 1914 : https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=120658 , which has not received any comments for several days and the title of which does not state that it is a TL.

In this TL the POD is 12 April 2008. Sir Edward Grey becomes Liberal Prime Minister when Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman resigns, not as in OTL Herbert Henry Asquith. Asquith stays as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Richard Haldane becomes Foreign Secretary, Winston Churchill becomes Secretary for War, and Lloyd George continues as President of the Board of Trade.
 
While Lloyd George is not Chancellor of the Exchequer there is no People's Budget. Therefore there is no general election in January 1910 and subsequently in December 1910 as in OTL.

In accordance with the convention of five to six year Parliaments, Prime Minister Sir Edward Grey calls a general election for October 1911. Although there is a moderate swing to the Conservatives, the Liberals remain the largest party in the House of Commons, but lose their overall majority. The results are as follows:

Liberal: 298 seats
Conservative: 247 seats
Labour: 41 seats
Irish Nationalist: 84 seats.
--------------------------
Total: 670 seats

So the Liberals have a majority with the support of Labour and/or the Irish Nationalists. Theoretically the Conservatives could construct a majority with the combined support of Labour and the Irish Nationalists, though as that would never happen the Liberals return to power with Grey as Prime Minister.

Note on terminology: Conservative refers Conservative and Liberal Unionist. By now both in this TL and OTL there is only a nominal difference between the two parties. The term Unionist is often used instead of Conservative by contemporaries. Also popularly called Tory.

Irish Nationalist refers to the Irish Parliamentary Party under the leadership of John Redmond, and the All-For-Ireland League (AFIL) led by William O'Brien. The AFIL's support base is in the city and county of Cork.

In a cabinet reshuffle in November 1911, Richard Haldane is appointed Lord Chancellor and made Viscount Haldane. Asquith succeeds him as Foreign Secretary, Lloyd George becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer and Winston Churchill Home Secretary.

Lloyd George's budget of April 1911 is similar to his People's Budget of April 1909 in OTL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Budget ). It is rejected by the House of Lords and Grey calls a general election for January 1913. In this TL the power of the Lords has not been curbed. The result of the election is a Conservative majority of 48 over all other parties:

Conservative: 359 seats
Liberal: 191 seats
Irish Nationalist: 82 seats
Labour: 38 seats.

Arthur Balfour becomes Prime Minister. He appoints Austen Chamberlain as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Lansdowne as Foreign Secretary. A suprise appointment is that of Sir Horace Plunkett ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Curzon_Plunkett ), Conservative MP for County Dublin South and very much on the liberal or progressive wing of the Tory Party, as Chief Secretary for Ireland.

Although Plunkett is a Unionist he believes that some measure of self-governmment for Ireland is necessary to keep that country within the United Kingdom. His appointment is widely regarded as conciliatory by Irish Nationalists and sparks widespread speculation that the Balfour government is considering introducing some measure of self-government for Ireland. By 1913/1914 progressive Unionists have to accept that some measure of Home Rule for Ireland is necessary if the union is to be saved.
 
I will summarise events from September 1913 to November 1917 because I have written about them in detail here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=120658 .

In September 1913 Sir Horace Plunkett announces that he will call a convention which will discuss all options for the future of Ireland within the British Empire.

The Irish Convention starts its deliberations in October 1913 under the chairmanship of Lord Dunraven. It hears evidence from a wide range of opinion: political ranging from Ulster Unionist through mainstream nationalist to Sinn Fein to socialist; from churches and religious bodies; from women's groups; from trade unions; from business groups and professional organisations; from academics, lawyers and anyone else with relevant expertise.

The Majority Report of the Convention is published on 8th July 1914. It recommends the establishment of a two-chamber legislature for Ireland elected by proportional representation. It would have power over all areas which are currently the responsibility of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There would be constitutional safeguards for the Protestant minority. Irish representation would continue at Westminster.

The First Minority Report by Sinn Fein and its allies calls for an independent Ireland. The Second Minority Report by the Ulster Unionists proposes that there is no change to the status quo. However if Home Rule is ever implemented then Ulster should have the right to opt out.

Plunkett announces that the Majority Report has his full support. Balfour says that it offers a constructive way forward and that he will give it his careful consideration.

The events leading up to the First World War and the declaration of war by Britain on the Central Powers happens as in OTL. Balfour appoints Lord Kitchener as Secretary of War on 5 August 1914.

The Government of Ireland Bill (popularly, though unofficially called the Irish Home Rule Bill) is published in February 1915. It provides for the establishment of a two-chamber Irish Legislature comprising a National Assembly of 150 members and a Senate of 50 members, both elected by Proportional Representation. 60 members of the National Assembly and 25 members of the Senate would be elected by the nine historic counties of Ulster: Antrim, Armagh, Cavan, Donegal, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, Mionaghan and Tyrone. The Senate would have the power to veto legislation from the Assembly provided that the marity for the veto is at least two-thirds of the senators voting.

Bonar Law, the Colonial Secretary, and Sir Edward Carson, the Attorney-General, both resign from the government in opposition to the bill. It receives its second reading with the votes of Liberal, Irish Nationalist and Labour MPs after a three day debate in February 1915. However only 104 Conservative MPs vote for it, compared to 187 who vote against it.

In the Committee stage amendments are passed which give women ratepayers (local property tax) payers and the wives of male rate payers, the right to vote for the Irish Legislature; and that the Legislature will be called a Parliament. Amendments to include all or part of Ulster are defeated.

It receives its third reading in July 1915, again with only a minority of Conservatives voting for it. In November 1915 it is rejected by the House of Lords by a majority of 293 votes to 93 votes. Balfour says that he will not reintroduce the bill this session.

In spite of strong pressure from right-wing Conservatives, and Liberals such as Lloyd George and Churchill and their allies, the Balfour government does not enter into a coalition government of National Unity with the Liberal and Labour Parties. A sustained attack for the introduction of conscription by the same groups in the Conservative and Liberal Parties is resisted by the government.
 
Last edited:
Continuation of summary up to November 1917.

Because Churchill is not in the government there is no Gallipolli campaign in 1915. This does not effect the result of the war because the troops who in OTL fought in that campaign are redeployed to other theatres of war, but are not enough to make a decisive difference. However Rupert Brooke, the poet, and Henry Moseley ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Moseley ), the physicist, do not die in the campaign. They survive the war and their careers develop post-war.

The Tory Reform Group (TRG) of liberal and progressive Tories want their party to become like the Canadian Conservative Party or the American Republican Party. Enthusiastic supporters of the government's Irish policy, they advocate Home Rule All Round (the establishment of a federal United Kingdom) and Imperial Federation. They want a democratisation of the House of Lords and a curbing of the power of the hereditary peers.

The Easter Rising in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland in April 1916 happens as in OTL. However the rebel leaders are not executed but sentenced to long terms of imprisonment to be served in Irish prisons. The only exception is Roger Casement who is convicted of treason, espionage and sabotage and sentenced to death. Before his execution by hanging the British government circulates extracts from his diaries which show that he was actively homosexual. This reduces support among those campaigning to have his death sentence commuted.
 
You'd have to think having a Conservative government with entirely different players would alter the war somewhat. I don't know how, I'm not a WWI expert, but I think you could plausibly have a variety of changes if you wanted.


As regards the British Conservative Party wanting to be like the Canadian Conservative Party—in what way do you mean? The Canadian Conservatives at the time were pretty much a direct descendent of the Disraeli era Tories (in Canada, Red or Radical Toryism) combined with a still fairly small business wing and inconsistent support from Prairie populists and libertarians.

The American Republican Party was entirely different and—the Teddy Roosevelt interregnum aside—was entirely owned by big business[1] and could not possibly be farther from Red Toryism, Disraeli, and or the modern (1913) British Conservative Party.


[1] Except in Presidential election years, when the Progressives returned to vote.
 
Originally posted by Electric Monk
As regards the British Conservative Party wanting to be like the Canadian Conservative Party - in what way do you mean?
The ideology of the Tory Reform Group (TRG) and their allies in the British Conservative Party is something like a combination of Disraelian One Nation Conservatism and Canadian Red Toryism.

They see parallels between Quebec and Ireland. Quebec is mostly Roman Catholic and Francophone. Ireland is also mainly Roman Catholic (73.9% of the population in the 1911 census), and though mostly Anglophone has a growing minority of Irish speakers partly as a result of the efforts of the Gaelic League formed in 1893. The 1901 census recorded that 14.4% of the population of Ireland were Gaelic speakers.

As regards the American Republican Party, the TRG sees affinities with the liberal or progressive wing of that party.

Progressive or liberal British Tories look across the Atlantic to nations in which an hereditary aristocracy plays no part in political life. Though they do not want to see that happening in Britain, they advocate the abolition of the veto power of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

Their libertarian tendencies were shown in their uniting with most Liberal MPs, and with Labour and the Irish Nationalists, to defeat efforts to introduce conscription in 1915 and 1916 by the majority of Conservative MPs and the Lloyd George/Churchill wing of the Liberal Party. Also the Balfour government allowed Arthur Henderson and Ramsay MacDonald to attend the socialist-organised Peace Conference in Stockholm from May to July 1917, as representatives of the Labour Party. In OTL the War Cabinet refused them to allow them to attend.
 
An all-party conference on electoral reform presided over by the Speaker of the House (the Speaker's Conference) is convened in 1916. Its report is published in January 1917, as in OTL. Its recommendations are largely incorporated in the Representation of the People Act 1917 which has the following provisions:

All men age 21 or over are enfranchised, subject to a six-month residential qualification. The rather byzantine system of property and residential qualifications which disenfranchised in the region of 30 to 40 percent of the adult male population are abolished.

All women age 30 or over who are rate payers (local property tax payers), or who are the wives of rate payers, are given the vote for parliamentary elections. These women already have the vote for local government elections.

The number of additional votes for possession of business premises is restricted to one additional vote. Previously a voter could claim as many votes as he had businesses.

The number of University seats is increased from 9 to 15.

Voting in general elections will take place on one day, rather than the existing practice of voting over two or three weeks.

The term of a Parliament is reduced from 7 years to 5 years. However if the war has not ended in January 1918 (five years after the last general election), the next general election will take place not later than two months after the war's end.

Voting in future general elections will be held under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) in three to seven member constituencies. The Speaker's Conference had unanimously recommended the introduction of proportional representation for parliamentary elections, as in OTL. However in this TL Parliament votes to introduce STV, unlike in OTL. The exception is that voting in six large rural Scottish constituencies, three large Welsh constituencies and four single-member University constituencies voting will be by the Alternative Vote (AV). AV will also be used in all byelections. The majority of Conservatives voted for STV, while AV was the choice of a majority of Liberals.

The number of MPs in the House of Commons is increased from 670 seats to 685 seats.
 
i think that something like galipoli will happen, although without churchill, it may be more or less successful than OTL. after all, we are still allied with Russia, and (ignoring butterflies) they will need supplies of weapons, ammunition and such, as they do not have many. the easiest way to do this is via the Bosphorus, which is controlled by turkey. so, a galipoli-anologue will happen.
 
Originally posted by ddtim
I think that something like Gallipoli will happen, though without Churchill it may be more or less successful than OTL.

Perhaps so, but the impression I have is that Churchill was the driving force behind the Gallipoli campaign, so in this TL with him not in office it does not take place. Anyway I have assumed that its absence does not make any significant difference to the course of the war.

The speech in the House of Lords on 29 November 1917 by the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Foreign Secretary in the Balfour government, is a major peace initiative.

Important points from his speech: The war's "wanton prolongation would be a crime, differing only in degree from the criminals that provoked it." The war must be ended "in time to avert a world catastrophe."

He discusses three areas in which given moderation on both sides agreement between the belligerents might be possible: post-war international security through an international pact, post-war economic access, and territorial issues.

The best hope for post-war security lay in an international pact. That is collective security based on compulsory arbitration enforced by economic and military sanctions.

He appeals to German moderates by reassuring them that the allies "do not desire the annihilation of Germany as a great power", and that "we have no desire to deny Germany her place among the great commercial communities of the world."

Lansdowne's speech is much the same as his peace letter published in the Daily Telegraph in OTL. Here is a long extract from an excellent article on that letter: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1483658/The-Lansdowne-Peace-Letter-of.html .

Prime Minister Arthur Balfour says that Lansdowne's speech has his full support.
 
There is the still the campaigns against the Ottomans in Mesopotamia, Arabia and Palestine. T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) is still doing his stuff as in OTL.

Reactions to Lord Lansdowne Peace Speech. In Britain it is generally well received by the Balfour government, so far no one has resigned because of it; by most Liberals including Sir Edward Grey, the party leader, and Asquith; by Labour and the Irish Nationalists. There are negative reactions from a significant number of Conservatives outside the government; by some Liberals including Lloyd George and Churchill. The press reaction is as expected with the liberal/radical/socialist papers being supportive (except the Lloyd George supporting ones), while the conservative/right-wing papers are generally sceptical or opposed. The exception is the Tory supporting Daily Telegraph which gives the speech a cautious welcome.

Foreign reaction varies. Emperor Charles I of Austria-Hungary has been conducting secret negotiations with France during 1917. Balfour appoints Lord Edmund Talbot, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and a Conservative MP, as his unofficial representive at the Imperial court in Vienna, with the brief to explore possible peace openings. Talbot is related to the Duke Of Norfolk and is a Roman Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Foreign reaction to the British peace initiative.

France: The government of Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau is hostile. Clemenceau became Prime Minister on 16 November 1917, and strongly advocates a policy of total war and war until the end, as in OTL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Clemenceau ).

Italy: In OTL the secret Treaty of London signed on 26 April 1915 between Italy, Britain, France and Russia promised Italy territorial gains from Austria-Hungary if she entered the war on the side of the Entente ( http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/london1915.htm ). In Britain Asquith was still Prime Minister of a solely Liberal government when the treaty was signed.

In this TL Arthur Balfour is Prime Minister of a liberal inclined Conservative government. I am assuming that it would have signed such a treaty. But if it had not, with France and Russia as the other non-Italian signatories the treaty would probably have been signed anyway.

So the Italian government wants an Entente victory, but Italian forces had been defeated at the battle of Caporetto on 23 October 1917 and been forced to retreat several miles.

Russia: The Bolshevik Revolution has happened as in OTL, and the Bolsheviks are preoccupied with consolidating their power in Russia. They want "peace without annexations or indemnities". They have made public the provisions of the secret Treaty of London (as in OTL).

United States: President Wilson is sympathetic to the peace initiative.

Austria-Hungary: The Imperial government of Charles I and Foreign Minister Count Ottakar Czernin are strongly supportive of the peace initiative.

Germany: Count Georg von Hertling of the Centre Party is Chancellor, and Friederich Von Payer of the Progressive People's Party is Vice Chancellor as in OTL. There is a majority in the Reichstag for a negotiated peace, but the Third Supreme Command under generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff want a military victory. This speech by Chancellor Hertling - http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/fourteenpoints_hertling2.htm - to the Reichstag on 25 February 1918 gives his response to President Wilson's Fourteen Points Initiative. He says that Germany does not want to annex Belgium, believes in the desirability of a League of Nations, and is in favour of an independent Poland.

However there must be a civilian government with real power in Germany for there to be any prospects of peace negotiations.

Ottoman Empire: Has largely lost its Arabian possessions to the Arab Revolt, while British forces under General Allenby are advancing in Palestine. The Turkish government is in favour of a peace which does not result in them losing territory. But would not continue fighting without German military assistance.

Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Serbia are of comparatively little political or military importance.

The greatest impetus in favour of a negotiated peace comes from war weariness after three years and four months of war with millions of casualties and with no end in sight.
 
Negotiations between the British government representative Lord Edmund Talbot and Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Count Ottakar Czernin are friendly and show promising areas of agreement.

In reply to Czernin raising the provisions of the secret Treaty of London under which Austro-Hungarian (A-H) territory would be handed over to Italy, Talbot assured him that the British government had no intention of keeping to those provisions. They were included to entice Italy to ally with the Entene Powers in 1915.

Czernin said that the A-H government intends to make the Empire a confederation in which the different nationalities will, as far as possible, have self-government within the Empire. But the Empire is an intricate patchwork of different nationalities, the distribution of which does not find neatly into the boundaries of possible independent states. An independent Czech republic of Bohemia and Moravia would include a sizeable minority of ethnic Germans. Can one dismiss the possibility that sometime in the future, perhaps not in our lifetime, a German demagogue would use the situation of these Germans as a pretence for war?

The dismemberment of the Empire into several independent states each with their own armed forces is a recipe for future war.

Austria has no love for Germany, or more exactly for Prussia. We have been rivals and enemies for centuries. A strong Austro-Hungarian Empire is a counterweight to a powerful and expanionist Germany. However any peace agreement must include Germany.
 
In December 1917 and January 1918 widespread popular demonstrations in cities throughout Germany call for peace negotiations with the Entente powers. Workers, soldiers and sailors play a prominent role in these demonstrations, though only a small minority want to see a Russian style Communist revolution.

In early December 1917 Arthur Balfour appoints the Conservative MP Charles Alfred Cripps (in our OTL he is also the 1st Baron Parmoor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Alfred_Cripps,_1st_Baron_Parmoor ), who is also in the government as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as the British government's unofficial representative in Berlin. His task is to explore with the German government the possibilities of a negotiated peace, and to ascertain the extent of support for such peace negotiations in Germany.
 
In a debate in the House of Commons on 23 January 1918 on the Balfour government's peace initiative, the Prime Minister said there has been progress in negotiations with Germany and Austria-Hungary (particularly the latter) and a just peace agreement which protects the interests of the British Empire can be perceived on the horizon. He assured the House that there would be no agreement without the whole-hearted consent of the government of France, which demands the return of Alsace Lorraine. So far the German government has been ambiguous about returning those provinces to France.
 
which demands the return of Alsace Lorraine. So far the German government has been ambiguous about returning those provinces to France.

As I recall they would have voted in a referendum to return to France, despite being more ethnically German than not. With Wilson on the scene, he might might push for something like that.
 
In the House of Commons debate on his government's peace initiative Balfour assured the House that there would be no peace agreement with Germany which does not guarantee the withdrawal of all German troops from Belgium and the territorial integrity of that country.

Balfour said that the government will treat the vote on the debate as a vote of confidence. If it is defeated it will resign. In his closing peroration he said that the government will sign a peace agreement only if it brings peace with honour.

In the debate speakers in support of the government stressed the collapse of Russia as an effective ally, the continuing stalemate on the Western Front, the opportunity for an honourable peace. Antiwar and pacifist opinions are also expressed.

Speakers opposed to the government claimed that victory is in sight, within two years. American troops will make a decisive difference to the allied war effort. British armed forces are advancing in Palestine and have already captured Palestine. Any peace settlement before the surrender of all the Central Powers is a betrayal of all the brave men and women who have given their lives or been wounded fighting to resist German militarism and aggression, and to free the subject peoples of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.

Andrew Bonar Law, the leader of the many Conservatives opposed to the peace initiative, said that if the government is defeated he has secured the agreement of Lloyd George for a Conservative and Liberal coalition government of national unity which would include his supporters among Liberal MPs.

The result of the vote is a victory for the government by a majority of 146 votes. The result is as follows:

For the government: Conservative 173
Liberal 110
Irish Nationalists 64
Labour 28
--------------------
Total 375
--------------------

Against the government: Conservative 159
Liberal 63
Labour 7
---------------
Total 229
--------------

It is widely thought that Balfour's making the debate a vote of confidence in his government enabled him to win a narrow majority of Conservative MPs. For the Liberals, Sir Edward Grey, the party leader, and Asquith voted for the government; Lloyd George and Churchill voted against.

In retrospect historians regard this debate and vote the beginning of the postwar realignment in British politics.
 
Throughout December 1917 and January 1918, as part of the British government's peace initiative, British diplomats negotiate with the Allied Powers and with the Central Powers. It is agreed that a peace conference will take place in Copenhagen following an armistice on all fronts which is declared on 4 February 1918.

In this TL, President Wilson lists his Fourteen Points in a speech to a joint session of Congress on 8 January 1918 as in OTL.

The Copenhagen Conference opens on 25 February 1918 with delegates from 28 nations attending. However much of the negotiations are conducted between representatives of the Allied Powers: France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Romania, Russia, Serbia and the United States of America on one side; and the Central Powers: The Austro-Hungarian Empire, Bulgaria, the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire on the other side.
 
The areas for negotiation at the Copenhagen Peace Conference are as follows:

1) The boundaries of the Central Power nations.

2) Whether there should be an independent Poland and if so its boundaries.

3) What should happen to the German colonies captured by the Allies.

4) The level of armaments held by the great powers.

5) Whether Germany should pay any reparations for its invasion of Belgium and France.

6) The constitution and powers of the proposed League of Nations.

Because no nation accepts that it has been defeated in the war, none is prepared to accept a peace settlement which would be imposed by a victorious enemy after such a defeat. However they are prepared to make compromises in order to secure a just and lasting peace.

However in reality the Ottoman Empire has lost a considerable amount of territory - in the Hejaz to the Arab Revolt, and in Mesopotamia and southern Palestine (including Jerusalem) to British forces. T.E. Lawrence in flowing Arab robes is present at the conference and attracts a lot of attention.

Regarding #1. Germany is prepared to allow plebiscites in Alsace and Lorraine to determine whether these provinces want to return to France or remain as part of Germany. It insists on separate plebiscites for each province. Germany is also prepared to allow a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants of North Schleswig as to whether they want to return to Denmark or remain in Germany.

Austria-Hungary adamantly refuses to cede any territory to Italy or to Serbia. The Ottoman Empire will not cede any territory. However it is prepared to allow the Hejaz to become an autonomous province in the Empire. Bulgaria also refuses to cede any territory.

Re #2. The Bolshevik regime in Russia is willing to allow Russian Poland to become independent, and to accept the de facto independence of the Baltic states and Finland. Austria-Hungary is prepared to allow Galicia and Lodomeria ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Galicia_and_Lodomeria ) to become part of an independent Polish state. Germany is willing to allow the province of Posen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Posen ) to become part of an independent Poland, but will not relinquish any more territory to Poland.
 
Last edited:
Continuation of the Copenhagen Peace Conference.

A representative of the Administration for Western Armenia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_for_Western_Armenia ), supported by the Allied Powers, raises the matter of the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman government. The Conference hears undeniable evidence of the genocide.

President Wilson passionately denounces the Ottoman government for the genocide of its Armenian citizens. He calls for the creation of an independent Armenia as shown in this map: http://armenian-history.com/images/maps/Armenia-sevr.jpg . It is the area coloured pink.

He is supported by the other Allied governments, but is opposed by the Central Powers. However Ottakar Czernin and Richard von Buhlmann, the Austro-Hungarian and German Foreign Ministers respectively, denounce the genocide as pure evil.

When the armistice is declared on 4 February 1918, Ottoman forces still occupy most of Palestine including Gaza, though the British have captured Jerusalem. In Mesopotamia British forces have captured Baghdad but have advanced little further.
 
Top