WI: Churchill never defects to the Liberals

Winston Churchill first entered Parliament in 1900, being elected as Member of Parliament for Oldham as a Conservative. However, in 1904, Churchill defected from the Conservatives to the Liberals, due to disagreements with Joseph Chamberlain's proposals for tariffs which were being accepted by Arthur Balfour and the Conservative leadership.

But Churchill wasn't the only Conservative who opposed tarriffs and supported free trade - indeed, he was a member of a group of Conservative MPs, known as the 'Hughligans' (after their leader, Lord Hugh Cecil) who supported free trade and opposed Imperial Preference.

So what if Churchill followed the rest of this group and remained a Conservative, simply arguing against tariffs within the Party's ranks rather than crossing the floor? How would history have changed if Churchill remained a Conservative his entire life, rather than becoming a Liberal from 1904 to 1924?
 
But Churchill wasn't the only Conservative who opposed tarriffs and supported free trade - indeed, he was a member of a group of Conservative MPs, known as the 'Hughligans' (after their leader, Lord Hugh Cecil) who supported free trade and opposed Imperial Preference.

Whilst he wasn't the only one he attracted far more ire than some of his contemporaries, with his comments leading to him being deselected from his Oldham seat and effectively being told that his only future was with the Liberals. Had he stayed with the Tories regardless he likely would have struggled to find another seat to stand in 1906 and even if he did the Liberal landslide that year would make it very difficult for him to acquire a winnable seat. Even if he isn't deselected he's likely to lose Oldham in any case, as his replacement did IOTL.

Either way, a potentially huge PoD with Churchill being outside of the Commons at least until 1910 and on the fringes of the Conservative party. He might give up on politics entirely and go back to the army, at least for a spell.
 
He might give up on politics entirely and go back to the army, at least for a spell.
I'm not sure that Churchill would give up completely on politics - he had his mind set on following in his father's footsteps and entering the Commons for quite a while before his election in 1900.

Although it would be interesting, if Churchill did return to the army for a period if he failed to be re-elected in 1906, he managed to rise to a senior military position by the time that the First World War breaks out. Perhaps we could see Churchill as one of the senior British commanders on the Western Front - or, if he managed to learn Arabic, perhaps we might even see 'Churchill of Arabia'.
 
My knowledge of pre-war British politics is thin so I might be both wrong and too biased by hindsight but the notion does interest me. My thoughts would be that Churchill is sidelined with the free traders but a vocal minority, likely also tending to be interventionists and soundly Imperialists if Churchill gains more authority over time. If he is not in the Liberal party then he never becomes DLG's protege. Does this give added weight to the "pacifist"voices in the party? And does Churchill siphon free trade thinkers to the Tory camp, pulling them towards otherwise Liberal political ideas, in the economic sense? Here Churchill might re-emerge as a strong voice inside the Conservatives rather than a flip-flop independent, giving the party more "back bone"? But we likely take away any of his posts in the Liberal government or later coalition, he might never see the Admiralty as a rather disfavored Tory backbencher and might miss out on any wartime post unless the Tories win in 1915 as the Liberals dither on joining the war. Would he get some junior spot given his being left out in the woods or gain some ground? If he never gets Exchequer then Britain might be spared some rough economic sailing, a free trade voice in the Tories might let Keynsian ideas get heard when they are in power, or put Churchill on track to being a PM other than in desperate times. Not to belittle him but I am doubtful he rises beyond some Cabinet posts and gets shuffled, his temperament seems to rub the wrong way enough that he never quite builds any broad support to become a leader without some outside forces like the war. Overall I think he might never be famous outside of British political hobbyists discussions, a more obscure sort of eccentric. But I obviously invite the full measure of critique, welcome it in fact.
 
Top