Wi either Brown Or Callaghan elected labour leader in 63?

Hi guys,
Not sure whether this has been discussed before, but here goes.
What if either George Brown or Jim Callaghan win the leadership of the UK Labour party in 1963, instead of Wilson?

Are they able to win the 1964 election? IOTL labour under Wilson only just scraped through and an election had to be called 18 months later.

Asuming labour under Brown or Callaghan win the 64 election, how do things progress from there?
 
Callaghan wouldn't have won the Leadership, he was only running to help Wilson by drawing off some of Brown's natural support on the Right of the Party. So therefore if Callaghan doesn't run then it's more likely that Brown wins. IIRC opinion polls at the time suggested that Brown wasnt as popular as Wilson so he may well have lost, had I won then given his drink problem his Premiership may not have gone well.
 
Callaghan wouldn't have won the Leadership, he was only running to help Wilson by drawing off some of Brown's natural support on the Right of the Party. So therefore if Callaghan doesn't run then it's more likely that Brown wins. IIRC opinion polls at the time suggested that Brown wasnt as popular as Wilson so he may well have lost, had I won then given his drink problem his Premiership may not have gone well.

I got the impression that Brown was less popular than Wilson too-an that his drinking had something to do with it. Asuming he wins the leadership (going on to win in 1964-a big asumption I know), does this mean there's less social reform in the 60's?

He's less affective than Wilson was, so less gets done I guess. I understand he was on the write of the labour party and ended up endorsing the SDP when they formed, which might also contribute to slower social liberalisation...
 
A lot of the reforms passed by Jenkins would still have happened irrespective of who was in power, many Tories like Ian MacLeod and Enoch Powell were strong advocates of legalising homosexuality so while it may have happened a bit later it was pretty much inevitable at this point. Abortion reform would have taken much longer as would abolition of the death penalty even though there was growing pressure to address both issues throughout this time.
 
I got the impression that Brown was less popular than Wilson too-an that his drinking had something to do with it. Asuming he wins the leadership (going on to win in 1964-a big asumption I know), does this mean there's less social reform in the 60's?

He's less affective than Wilson was, so less gets done I guess. I understand he was on the write of the labour party and ended up endorsing the SDP when they formed, which might also contribute to slower social liberalisation...

The troika was largely Jenkins' brainchild, though IIRC in our last "ADH wins" thread it was stated that the Tories planned to move in that direction too.
 
The Demon Drink..

I can see only two ways Brown can win the leadership - either by being sober and sensible or by butterflying away Wilson or having an equally strong candidate on the Left.

Brown, apart from his personal embarrassments (the events of 22 November 1963 being a good example) was politically out-manoeuvred consistently by Wilson, arguably one of the shrewdest political operators of the post-war period.

Brown's drinking was well known in Labour and Westminster and there were those who would otherwise have supported him as the standard bearer of the Gaitskellite wing who were appalled by the prospect of him being a potential Prime Minister.

A sober and sensible Brown would have won the Labour leadership and probably won the 1964 GE by a larger margin than Wilson. He would have had the problem of what to do with Wilson and Callaghan - perhaps Wilson as Chancellor, Callaghan at the Home Office and maybe Jenkins or Crossland as no.2 to Patrick Gordon-Walker (who might have survived with a better Labour performance).

It's hard to see how Brown would have avoided the devaluation crisis to be honest - would Wilson have resigned as Callaghan did ? Seems implausible.

Could Brown win in 1970 or 1971? Not sure - if he does, the Labour Government faces the oil shock of 1973-74 and, given Brown's Jewish origins, some hard problems over Mid-East policy. I simply can't see that ending well.

If Brown is defeated in 1970 (and assuming he keeps his seat which he didn't in OTL but seems much more likely) does he stay on ? I think so with Wilson or Callaghan as his Deputy.

Beyond that, it gets very murky - IF the Conservative Government falls in 1970, Brown might get back into No.10 in 1974 and will serve out a difficult term before a second defeat in 1979 after which he steps down (Wilson has already quit politics and Callaghan is too old). Jenkins, Healey and Foot fight for the leadership which Foot wins.

Brown becomes a high-profile member of the new SDP in 1981 and is able to persuade more of his former MPs to join (perhaps up to seventy) and the SDP survives as a larger more coherent force through the 1980s.

In OTL, Brown died in 1985 at the age of 71 but no reason why, without the drink, he couldn't live longer and become the "grand old man" of the SDP keeping it in the Gaitskellite tradition (which he sees strongly in David Owen).

In 1992, he approves of the SDP's decision to support John Major's minority Conservative Government.
 
The Best chance would be for there to be a strong real left candidate who took the left votes that wilson got.

They woudl probably need to push Wilson into 4th place, that means they need 75 votes or for Callaghan to do better.

I guess possible candidates for that role would have been Crossman, Beavan if he had survived and was healthier or, interesting but unlikely in those times Barbara Castle
 
Top