WI Labour doesn't call a snap election in 1951/ does better in 1950?

The 1950 General Election was the beginning of the end for the Attlee government. They had received more votes in total than they did in their landslide win in 1945, and the percentage of votes they received dropped only by a very small amount, but that change was enough for their position to significantly crumble, losing 78 seats and going from a strong majority to a barely workable majority. This on paper still wouldn't be much of a problem, but cracks were forming in Labour between the left and right, so Attlee had trouble getting all the MPs he needed into line. They attempted to get back some of their seats by calling a 'snap' election in 1951. This backfired horribly for them as, despite still having the majority of votes, Conservative won the majority of seats, and Churchill became Prime Minister again.

How could Attlee have repaired the rifts forming in Labour so that the slim majority he had would still be workable for the next five years? If not possible, how might it be averted for as long as needed so Labour would keep their strong majority in 1950? How would a full second term under Attlee and Labour affect Britain?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
I know it's a bit rude to spam threads with quotes, but these responses from another thread might be of some interest to you:
Ideally, Attlee would have never called the election for October 1951 at all. Had he waited another year, the economy would have improved, and the Liberal Party (devastated in 1950) would have built up enough of a campaign war-chest to suck votes away from the Tories. And Labour at this point was pretty horrible at targeting seats: they got substantially more votes in 1950 yet only a wafer thin majority and lost 1951 despite getting more votes.

As it was, Attlee decided to put the convenience of the King, who wanted the election before he went on an overseas trip, over the interests of his party. He was also motivated by the fact that his Government was getting pretty exhausted, and governing with such a slender majority was proving a battle of attrition. Besides, he'd also achieved nearly all of what he wanted to do in 1945.

But what happens if he wins? Renewal would have to take place in Government, rather than Opposition. Since Bevan had quit in protest over the spectacles charges, I like Gaitskell's chance at succession in, say, 1953 (Attlee was hanging around by that point to prevent Morrison taking over). With an economic upswing, Labour seems pretty safe for the rest of the 1950s, with the Tories only regaining office in the mid-1960s or so (just in time for Vietnam...). Nationalisation would be pretty entrenched, though with Gaitskell's faction on top, there wouldn't be that much of a further move towards socialism. No Suez means the UK is still likely to be seen as an effective international presence.

The striking thing is the extraordinary longevity of Attlee - he was party leader from 1935, in Government continuously from 1940 to 1951, and then party leader again to 1955, more than 20 years at the very top - he must have been truly exhausted. That might have been a factor in choosing to run in 1951 - maybe even (specualtion alert) a subconscious desire to lose and hand the burden over?

The assumption that Labour would be safe for the rest of the 1950s might be true - but I suspect the Conservatives would have recovered quicker if Churchill were put out to grass sooner. I assume that a Labour government would not have launched the Suez adventure (assuming that the nationalisation is not butterflied) - but although we know that would have been for the best, ATL it would have been a stick for Eden to beat Gaitskell with (i.e. 'you allowed this tin-pot tyrant to steal our canal') - never mind the unfairness of this, it would have happened.

This, together with the crushing of the Hungarian uprising at about the same time, would have created a serious risk on the foreign-policy side for Labour going into a general election in 1957 (I assume here a 5-year gap from a 1952 election). The Conservatives could have run hard on foreign policy, presenting Eden as a anti-appeaser who would stand up to Russia and other foes. By that time, also, Labour would have been in office for over a decade and the usual 'time for a change' factor might have come into play.

Plausible, but Eden was a pill-addled wreck by '56 anyway (while it was exaggerated by SuperMac's allies, he was ill). Would the Tories definitely go into the 1957 election with him at the helm, and if they did, would he be another Bonar Law?

Eden was a pill-addled wreck due to a botched operation on his bile duct in 1953. Obvious butterfly potential. A mid-fifties election between Eden and Gaitskell would be very closely-fought IMO. I can certainly see the Conservatives winning, though I wouldn't care to call it either way.

no october 1951 election, Attlee goes to the country in June 1952, wins a decent majority (say 340-350 seats). He retires just after the coronation in 1953 (a la Baldwin).

Gaitskell probably becomes labour leader, goes to the country in 1954, maybe increases labours majority a little more.

Churchill retires as tory leader to be followed by eden, he retires after losing 1954 election to be followed by Rab Butler.

Butler defeats Gaitskell in 1958 - so we could have REAL Butskellism! Tories could probably hold onto power until the oil shock (assuming it isnt butterflied away) in 1973.

Another intersting what if is if there were no representation of the people act in 1948. That redistributed seats from the depopulated urban areas to the county seats, and probably cost labour a good 30-40 seats. If it hadnt been for that, labour would have won a large majority in 1950 - they won the popular vote quite handidly anyway.
 
Is there any possibility of Labour implementing proportional representation after close calls on their ability to govern in spite of their having a worthwhile majority of the vote?
 
Didnt Attlee call an election in 1951 because the King wanted him to get it over and done with before he went on his tour of the commonwealth? Of course that tells us that he was contemplating an early election, but his hand was forced to do it that early. King George ultimately didnt go on that trip because of his health, so maybe that becomes clear earlier and Attlee holds off to call an election in 1952, by which point the Liberals coffers have recovered enough to put up a half decent fight against the Tories, and Labour are returned with an ever so slightly increased majority. In those circumstances, it would just be continuation of the previous few years with a divided governing party, and there is a good chance Labour get kicked out by the Tories under a new leader despite the strong economy. If Attlee is replaced, presumably by Gaitskell, then it is more up in the air.

Alternatively, Labour could have done better in 1950, perhaps by not implementing the boundary changes which went against their own interests, and lost them quite a few seats from what I hear. Attlee has a stronger majority with which to govern, and the next 5 years go well enough for Labour to win again in 1955. Gaitskell becomes PM, but I imagine if he still pursues his confrontationally right wing approach then the party becomes divided which wont help them in the long run, so they could lose the next election, and if they dont, it will be the next one for certain.

Looking back though, as good a PM Attlee was, he made some decisions that were terrible for his own parties electoral interests.
 
Top