WI Harold Wilson never got elected in 1964

Tories in Vietnam

The Tory Govt decides to send troops to Vietnam to fight the insurgency. Would this move be popular with the public? How would it influence the course of the war? So where would the defence projects at the time end up? TSR2 and new carriers? Is a different line taken with regards to Northern Ireland?
 
I'm not sure large scale British involvement in Vietnam is a given simply because Britain was already heavily committed in Borneo and Aden at this time so there mightnt have been the troops available. Certainly the SAS as well as RAF and RN units could have been deployed and this wouldn't have been very popular with the public. Borneo goes as OTL but Aden may last longer as I doubt the Tories would have cut and run like Wilson did, that may not be a good thing as I think Aden was a lost cause.

TSR.2 and CVA-01 probably get the go ahead and then have their production curtailed after the oil shock. Northern Ireland is potentially worse as the Tories' links to the Ulster Unionists may have meant they won't press them to reform as much as Labour did, especially if there's a tight parliamentary majority.

Overall the government would be like Major's government post Black Wednesday, tired and beset with internal fighting leading to a heavy defeat in 1968/69 and Labour Government through the 1970's.
 

abc123

Banned
About Aden, never mind now Wilson or any other PM, if Britain decides to stay in East-of-Suez area, could suitable replacement base be found, so that insurgency problem isn't so big?
Socotra maybe?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure large scale British involvement in Vietnam is a given simply because Britain was already heavily committed in Borneo and Aden at this time so there mightnt have been the troops available. Certainly the SAS as well as RAF and RN units could have been deployed and this wouldn't have been very popular with the public. Borneo goes as OTL but Aden may last longer as I doubt the Tories would have cut and run like Wilson did, that may not be a good thing as I think Aden was a lost cause.

TSR.2 and CVA-01 probably get the go ahead and then have their production curtailed after the oil shock. Northern Ireland is potentially worse as the Tories' links to the Ulster Unionists may have meant they won't press them to reform as much as Labour did, especially if there's a tight parliamentary majority.

Overall the government would be like Major's government post Black Wednesday, tired and beset with internal fighting leading to a heavy defeat in 1968/69 and Labour Government through the 1970's.

Absolutely correct on Vietnam, Home may send a token force but a major commitment isn't on the cards. As for public opinion the university swinging sixties youth are obviously going to be hostile but that was only ever a small section of the population. Much like in Australia and the US I except wider public to be supportive, probably up until '68/'69 by which time they'll be a Labour government which will pull out the troops.

As for CVA-01 and TSR-2 Britain can afford one or the other. I personally suspect TSR-2 will get the nod and a new fleet carrier put off to the 70's by which time Labour will be in and probably cancel it.
 
Yes, it will be a token force - the United States only wanted British troops as a sign of their moral support for the war. The Conservatives, the Treasury and the Foreign Office all supported intervention.

Related to the issue of foreign affairs is the sterling situation, OTL LBJ offered the UK a blank cheque to support the parity of sterling if they contributed troops to Vietnam. Plus, the financial markets will be more favourable to a Conservative government. Sterling, however, was a residue of its historical value and devaluation would have to come eventually. Maybe slightly later in 1968/1969? In terms of economic policy, the Conservatives in the early 1960s no longer had prosperity to distract them from a genuine re-evaluation of their policies and were considering ways to modernise the economy. Throughout the 1950s there was considerable pressure on the Conservative leadership from backbenchers and pressure groups to prioritise lower taxes over high public expenditure. Modernisation would have to take the form of either cuts or incomes policy, pressure on sterling and defence commitments will probably result in significant cuts. Co-operation with the TUC is probably unlikely and increasing industrial unrest is probable with deflationary economic policies, leading to some restrictive trade union legislation, whether it would go beyond In Place of Strife I don't know. A form of economic planning had been adopted in the form of the NEDC in 1962, but as with OTL's National Plan it will probably be abandoned as it proves incompatible with deflation. The Conservatives would continue, I think, to press for EEC entry and may be successful if De Gaulle goes early. Macleod, Heath, Maudling, Hailsham and Soames will be key figures in the government.

A loss in 1964 will put Harold Wilson in a difficult position, he ran for the leadership as the self-proclaimed candidate of unity and had advanced a unifying ideology in terms of wedding socialism to the concept of scientific revolution. The discrepancy between his optimistic message and the reality of defeat will be clear. The Right will see the defeat as a vindication of the analysis they have made for years: that the weight around the party's neck is the Left's radicalism and obsession with nationalisation. Nevertheless the Right of the party won't have a clear figurehead to replace him, perhaps they will cast aside their doubts about George Brown or opt for Jim Callaghan. Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey and Anthony Crosland are all too inexperienced at this point. OTL in the 1963 leadership election, Wilson's victory was not assured at all, there was a strong possibility that Patrick Gordon Walker would run as the right's unity candidate and the PLP was dominated by the centre-right. If there is a leadership challenge to Wilson, I think it could go either way, perhaps with Wilson surviving, or a new leadership under Brown, Callaghan or Walker. Whoever is leader will probably win a general election in 1969. In many ways the outlook looks good for Labour, economic planning hasn't lost credibility through subjugation to sterling and therefore hasn't destroyed Wilson's unifying vision, they haven't alienated the trade unions and the progressive intelligentsia and students haven't left Labour as a result of the Vietnam War. In many ways the election of 1964 was a poisoned chalice.

I've considered doing a TL on this theme for a quite a while but I've never got around to it and need to do more research.
 
Top