WI Churchill Resigned as Tory Leader in 1945?

I've been enjoying Roy Jenkins' wonderful bio of Winston Churchill.

I wonder if anything significant would have happened if Churchill has stepped down as Conservative Party leader after the election disaster of 1945?

I suppose Eden would have become the new Opposition Leader, and ... according to Jenkins ... was more popular than Churchill in the country at large by the time of the 1950 election. So the Conservatives could have come back to power in 1950 rather than 1951.

Would it have made any difference? Would Eden have been a better PM if he took office earlier (he became PM only in 1955)? Or would he have merely self-destructed earlier as he did in 1956/57?

Any policy differences? Any differences in relations to Europe and the US?
 
I do not think that Eden was more popular than Churchill. Please remember the context, memories of the war were very clear.

I think that if Churchill were not tory leader Labour would have won by may 20 or 30 more seats in 1950, Atlee could have gone on to 1955.
 
I do not think that Eden was more popular than Churchill. Please remember the context, memories of the war were very clear.

I think that if Churchill were not tory leader Labour would have won by may 20 or 30 more seats in 1950, Atlee could have gone on to 1955.

I'm basing my supposition on Jenkins' book.

In any case, memories of the war didn't do much for the Tories in 1945 did they? Why would they be more helpful in 1950?
 
I'm basing my supposition on Jenkins' book.

In any case, memories of the war didn't do much for the Tories in 1945 did they? Why would they be more helpful in 1950?

Remember that Churchill didn't head a Conservative govenment during the war. People weren't voting against Churchill in the 1945 election. Rather they wanted to feel that they were personally gaining something after the hardship of the war, and Labour's program (in particular innovations such as the NHS) looked attractive.

By 1950, memory of the war was starting to turn towards nostalgia and the Tories benefitted by still having Churchill as party leader.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
I do not think that Eden was more popular than Churchill.

It depends on what you mean by 'popularity'. Obviously, Churchill was an incomporable figure. Eden wasn't going to match Churchill in terms of the national consciousness, etc.

But as time went on, (particularly during the 1950-1955 period) people's active political sympathies began to shift towards Eden. This is well attested. Churchill was an old man and seemed to offer very little which was constructive; Eden was seen as being a 'new man' who had film star (1950's film star) good looks and seemed to have a good grasp of the mood of the times which was almost cross-party.

Please remember, Eden increased the Tory majority at the 1955 general election - an historical achievement at the time. How well the Tories would have done in 1950 with Eden can't be tested exactly, but based on what we know it seems reasonable to conclude that he would have almost certainly done as well or probably even better than Churchill did.

If Churchill had retired early in the 1945 Parliament, then it could concievably have aborted a lot of Eden's OTL health problems. It wouldn't, on the other hand, have aborted Eden's inherent personality, (fussy, interfering, etc) which as a head of government did not sit particularly well. So you would have had a recognisable Eden, but a much more stable and healthy one than OTL.
 
Last edited:
Top