WI: Churchill never left Liberal Party

Thomas1195

Banned
What if Churchill still stayed in the Liberal Party. Assume that instead of shifting to the right, he continued his prewar trajectory of shifting to the left (in 1918 he was even a supporter of railway nationalization), thus becoming a centre-left politician like Lloyd George. Haldane proved that you can be centre-left but still Imperialist.

How would this affect British politics, especially the 3-4 years preceding the Second World War? Who would become the war leader? We already know that Churchill was the biggest opponent of appeasement, and in this scenario he would be in Lloyd George wing and likely succeed him as Liberal Leader rather than Samuel, while Sinclair was his closest comrade.
 
Churchill wasn't a Conservative - he was a Liberal Unionist. He believed in the Empire, its continuation and preservation.

He was also a political pragmatist and opportunist. He saw the decline of the Liberals and after his own election defeat realised the only way to combat Socialism was through the Conservative Party.

Had the Lloyd George-Asquith split never happened, Churchill, as a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, might have been more persuaded by Keynes and not returned Britain to the Gold Standard which was an economic disaster. We might have had a Churchillian "New Deal" and indeed Churchill might well have become Liberal leader in the late 1920s.

It's hard to know what a strong Liberal Party as second party might have achieved in the 1930s - Churchill might have had huge problems trying to persuade Liberal elements to accept re-armament and oppose appeasement and that might have driven him from the leadership.

Let's keep the thread of history and bring WSC back as leader of the War Coalition in 1940 and perhaps deputy to Attlee in the 1945-55 Labour-Liberal Government before his retirement from politics on his 80th birthday.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
He was also a political pragmatist and opportunist. He saw the decline of the Liberals and after his own election defeat realised the only way to combat Socialism was through the Conservative Party.
I said that he would become more left-wing (less hostile to Socialism) than IOTL, so that he never left Liberal even with a POD after 1918. IOTL by 1920s he was either a Liberal Right or a wet Tory.

Churchill might have had huge problems trying to persuade Liberal elements to accept re-armament and oppose appeasement and that might have driven him from the leadership.
This would not be a big problem. IOTL Archibald Sinclair did the same thing. Actually the Liberal Party was the first to have an anti-appeasement stance.
 
One thing about the UK Conservative Party is that it gains strength by stealing the clothes, as Disraeli put it, of other political parties. It is remarkably, and very successfully, opportunist. As was Churchill, who even after 1924 was regarded as left of center until he started crusading against Dominion status for India. Pretty much on every issue not involving India his political positions were either left of center or eccentric on the UK political spectrum.

Churchill was also an opportunist. So to keep Churchill a Liberal, you just have to make the Liberals stronger so that there is a real chance of a Liberal politician becoming a minister. Aside from the two Churchill governments, this was not a possibility IOTL between the Liberals leaving the National government in 1932 and 1974.

There are timelines here about the Liberals remaining as the main left-of-center alternative to the Tories, including one long and good one where the Liberals, not Labour, come in second in 1923. Its perfectly doable. One issue where I disagree with the timeline is that I think a strong Liberal Party would be the party of Lloyd George and Churchill, not the party of Asquith. A party has to have a populist streak to do well after universal suffrage.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
As was Churchill, who even after 1924 was regarded as left of center
He was so until he returned to Gold and then conducted typical Treasury policies of balanced budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Another POD is to have McKenna successfully persuade Asquith to resign during 1918-1920, then Haldane or McKenna succeeding him as Leader. This would pave the way for somewhat earlier Liberal reunion.
 
The big question here would be about the Second World War? IOTL it was clear that no-one was more suitable for the job than him.

Well, there are butterflies to consider first. Churchill as Liberal wouldn't have become Baldwin's Chancellor of the Exchequer, so the UK might have avoided the Gold Standard insanity in 1926. That in turn makes for a less nasty Depression, which in turn impacts the politics of the 1930s.

Avoiding butterflies though, it's unclear what happens without Churchill in 1940. The issue with Halifax is that he would not have got Labour support for any accommodation with Hitler - which either means Halifax ends up fighting on too, or (more likely) you end up with Eden, and fighting on. Possibly Attlee, though he was playing the administrator role of the operation, not the face.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, there are butterflies to consider first. Churchill as Liberal wouldn't have become Baldwin's Chancellor of the Exchequer, so the UK might have avoided the Gold Standard insanity in 1926. That in turn makes for a less nasty Depression, which in turn impacts the politics of the 1930s.
Anyone would do the same as Churchill except for McKenna, the only frontbench politician to have spoken against it.
 
Well, there are butterflies to consider first. Churchill as Liberal wouldn't have become Baldwin's Chancellor of the Exchequer, so the UK might have avoided the Gold Standard insanity in 1926. That in turn makes for a less nasty Depression, which in turn impacts the politics of the 1930s.

Avoiding butterflies though, it's unclear what happens without Churchill in 1940. The issue with Halifax is that he would not have got Labour support for any accommodation with Hitler - which either means Halifax ends up fighting on too, or (more likely) you end up with Eden, and fighting on. Possibly Attlee, though he was playing the administrator role of the operation, not the face.
He could have if he'd been a National Liberal, which seems more likely than remaining with the Samuelite Liberals IMO.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Yes, but he was keen on a lot of things before abandoning them for personal gain (if you're feeling charitable) or anti-Socialism.
Maybe Asquith decides not to back Labour in 1923. Actually, if this happens, Asquith would be likely to be invited by the king to form a new government. And I think he would do well, as their economic and public work proposals, funded by Lloyd George, were far better than the rest.
 
Though Churchill was pretty keen on Free Trade.
Might this have been the way he could have supported Dominion status for India?

I've had an Indian student explain to me that British companies were the primary reason the UK supported Partition between India and Pakistan and how the British kept a foot in Pakistan.

So in an ATL, advocacy of free trade knowing you're going to be the primary partner for a good long while and, when it comes down to it, it's better to have a political divorce relatively early on friendly terms?

PS I'm a Yank and by no means an expert! :)
 
Anyone would do the same as Churchill except for McKenna, the only frontbench politician to have spoken against it.
Runciman probably wouldn't have either, nor would Robert Horne. Both wanted to go back to the Gold Standard yes - neither was as clear sighted as McKenna. But both could at least see that it wasn't a good idea at this point in time. The "Lord make me chaste but not yet" faction.
 
Top