WI A More Convincing Labour Victory in 1964's UK General Election?

Hi all,

One of my favourite Alternate History topics in the relm of British Politics is the prospect of the Tories winning the 1964 General Election, since they nearly did, despite them being written off a year beforehand.

I've had another AH thought over the past couple of days or so however-what if Labour had won convincingly in 1964, rather than the single figure majority of OTL? Let's say that either Macmillan remains in post past 1963, or something derails the Tory campaign, inabling Labour to win out with a majority of between 30 and 40 seats. I'm presuming Wilson doesn't call an election in March 1966 in these circumstances, but does he wait out the parliamentary term? I'm guessing that 1968 would be too risky a time. Is it conceivable that he finds a reason to call a 1966 election anyway, perhaps to capitalise on the afterglow of winning the World Cup?

How are the reforms of the 1960's effected by this? What about Foreign policy?

And what happens within Tory/Liberal ranks after a "proper" Labour victory in 1964? Does Heath still become conservative leader?
 
what if Labour had won convincingly in 1964, rather than the single figure majority of OTL?
Lets say the elections results show the seats won, looking like:
Labour 351
Conservative 257
Liberal 12.

Giving Harold Wilson, 35 seats over the majority.

Let's say that either Macmillan remains in post past 1963, or something derails the Tory campaign, inabling Labour to win out with a majority of between 30 and 40 seats. I'm presuming Wilson doesn't call an election in March 1966 in these circumstances, but does he wait out the parliamentary term?
I can not see Harold Macmillan, staying on past 1963, with his "inoperable prostate cancer" and not to say that his government was rocked by the Vassall and Profumo scandals, Macmillan, wanted to leave on an easy note. The easiest way to have the CONSERVATIVE lose, is to have an "un-electable" and "un-charismatic" leader chosen to take them into the "64 election.

I'm guessing that 1968 would be too risky a time. Is it conceivable that he finds a reason to call a 1966 election anyway, perhaps to capitalise on the afterglow of winning the World Cup?
The election in OTL 1966 was before the World Cup.
What about, Harold Wilson, calling a referendum on either:
- Britain's membership of the European Community
- whether Britain should go to War, stating it is a national matter, which the people should have a right to vote on.
While at the same time he holds a new election?

And what happens within Tory/Liberal ranks after a "proper" Labour victory in 1964?
The Tory's losing more then 100 seats would result, in Alec Douglas-Home's resignation

Does a "Proper" labour victory, take any seats from the Liberals, in 1966, Jo Grimond's party gained 3 more seats, to have 12 MPs, a majority, the Liberal Party has not felt since 1945.

Does Heath still become conservative leader?
Not necessarily, other contenders such as Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (famous family man, who was called vulgar for feed his baby daughter in public, and allowing his supporters to distribute "Q" (for Quintin) badges), Former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Reginald Maudling, former Secretary of State for Defence, Peter Thorneycroft, Chief Whip, William Whitelaw or
 
Could always go down the "Gaitskell doesn't die" route, although Wilson was much more charismatic and media conscious than Gaitskell, Gaitskell was seen by the public as more trustworthy and more moderate as well as having more experience in government as Chancellor.

It ought to be remembered that '64 was more of a tory defeat than a Labour victory, Labour actually won slightly fewer votes than in '59. It was more the Liberal revival under Grimond that saw tory voters switch to the liberals.

Lets say Gaitskell lives, Labour wins 330-335 seats (Labour majority of 30-40), that's more than ample to last for a full 5 year parliamentary term. People don't like unnecessary elections, the OTL 1966 and Oct 1974 elections were justified because the government had a tiny majority (or in the latter case no majority), a majority of 30 would be fine though and no cause for an early election.
 
One of my favourite Alternate History topics in the relm of British Politics is the prospect of the Tories winning the 1964 General Election, since they nearly did, despite them being written off a year beforehand.
I trust that you have therefore read Blackadder Mk 2's The Crowned Prime Minister timeline? I only ask as I don't remember seeing any comments by you in the thread, although with my memory that's no guarantee :), and it is rather good.
 
If you check out the timeline on the left of my signature, I think it's very relevant to what you're asking here.
 
If you check out the timeline on the left of my signature, I think it's very relevant to what you're asking here.

I came here to recommend the OP read it - obviously a more left-wing Labour leadership has more butterflies too, but it's a great picture of a more confident 1960s government.
 
I came here to recommend the OP read it - obviously a more left-wing Labour leadership has more butterflies too, but it's a great picture of a more confident 1960s government.

Damn, I was too eager for self-promotion! :p

Of course, there are major changes, but plenty of the stridently left-wing ideas in that TL have seeds in the crumpled pieces of paper in Harold Wilson's OTL bin.

(Also, sorry to seem too eager, but did you get my last PM?)
 
Top