WI: Labour Loses in '64

Thande

Donor
On homosexuality, there were plenty of Tory libertarians like Powell who advocated legalisation. How about Powell as Home Secretary in a post 64 non Hume led Tory government (yes yes I know, but that's a different issue!) he supported legalisation so perhaps he could have played the same role as Roy Jenkins and helped a backbencher like Leo Abse get his private members bill through?
That would be interesting because it would destroy the popular image of Powell in OTL...imagine if Powell was remembered as Roy Jenkins is in OTL, except as a strident defender of FPTP rather than a supporter of PR...
 
That would be interesting because it would destroy the popular image of Powell in OTL...imagine if Powell was remembered as Roy Jenkins is in OTL, except as a strident defender of FPTP rather than a supporter of PR...

Had Powell not made Rivers of Blood or used less incendiary language then I suspect he'd be most remembered for his Hola Camp speech denouncing the murder of Mau Mau prisoners, what Denis Healey described as the greatest speech he ever heard in Parliament. I don't think he would have become PM or Tory Leader, he was too much of a maverick, but he could have been a major reformer. I can remember seeing on Political Compass a while ago that because of his libertarianism and economic policies, Powell would have been to the left of Tony Blair on the political spectrum! I don't know who would have been more annoyed/surprised by that!
 
On the other hand, Political Compass sucks old man cock.

In any case, Powell would almost certainly not get back into the cabinet after his and Macleod's very public shunning of Home's leadership. Which sets up the more interesting possiblity of him being a backbench rebel in the parliament. Which I think he would probably enjoy a great deal.
 
Yeah, the political compass' ratings of people are stupid. They put all modern British politicians on the right pretty much when in reality modern British politicians are generally pretty firmly on the left.
 
Bad times.
Homosexuality remains illegal, university remains purely for the elites, more wars abroad...
The only bright side which comes to mind for me is less big ugly concrete monstrosities and more old architecture being kept.

Good times: "most of our people have never had it so good"
Homosexuality probably remains "Don't Ask, Don't Tell",and a abolition of the law is anyway probable.
University not was more only for elites from late 40s
UK in Vietnam? i don't believe.
And sadly,swinging London was yet on the way,with Beatles,Stones,Carnaby street stuff,ecc actives in 63.
So in any case goodbye to John Steed and welcome to Austin Powers.
Unfortunately. :(
 
I suppose the one thing that would have stopped the Tories taking Britain into Vietnam after '64 was the fact that Britain was already heavily committed to Aden and Borneo and may not have had the forces available for a third major commitment apart from the SAS and some advisers. Perhaps when Borneo ended in '66 and the troops became available Britain has seen enough about how Vietnam is going that it chooses to sit on the sidelines or makes a token contribution?

Borneo would almost certainly have gone the same way as ITTL but what about Aden? Would a Tory government have been more determined to see the operation through instead of cutting and running like Wilson did in '67 or was this just a hopeless cause?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Borneo would almost certainly have gone the same way as ITTL but what about Aden? Would a Tory government have been more determined to see the operation through instead of cutting and running like Wilson did in '67 or was this just a hopeless cause?
I doubt the Tories would run like Wilson did. If Heath takes over he keeps British forces east of Suez, same likely goes for Butler protégé Maudling.
 
Last edited:
Borneo would almost certainly have gone the same way as ITTL but what about Aden? Would a Tory government have been more determined to see the operation through instead of cutting and running like Wilson did in '67 or was this just a hopeless cause?

Aden would be a really interesting case, in my opinion. A longer British commitment could have led have led to some kind of non-communist Southern Yemenese state. However, the British would really not have too much reason to hang onto Aden once the Suez Canal is closed after the 1967 War (not sure how a Tory government could prevent the Six Day War).

In the Far East, maybe another year or so of the "Confrontation" going full tilt. Not that the conflict really matters so long as Sukarno gets deposed, but if he does not, I really think there is a chance at an escalation, as it is hard for two countries to remain in an undeclared conflict for so many years without the conflict heating up. Maybe England is forced to deploy a carrier group and a lot more RAF assets to pummel the Indonesians, who respond with more amphibious attacks aimed at Malaysia.
 

Thande

Donor
Would a Tory government also go easy on Rhodesia if it declares UDI in 1965 as per OTL?

That's a very interesting question. It could either be better or worse than OTL: a Tory government might have a better relationship with Ian Smith and persuade him not to UDI, or they might alienate everyone else by cosying up to Rhodesia and then have them UDI anyway. The exact relationship with Canada will be important here.
 
Smith was no fan of the Tories and especially Ian MacLeod, because of the deal he struck with Kaunda over Zambian independence. Smith saw this as a sell out of the Northern Rhodesians, had Macmillan picked anyone but Hume then MacLeod would likely have been a senior minister and this would not have gone down well with Smith.

I've no doubt that a post '64 Tory government would have been naturally more inclined to the Smith government, however the international picture would have made it difficult for them to give more than the most token support. People across the World had woken up to the evil of apartheid following Sharpeville and the imprisonment of Mandela as well as the Civil Rights movement. Had Britain been openly supporting a minority regime that was using repressive means to control the majority, even if Smith's Rhodesia wasn't as nasty as Apartheid South Africa it was still not a good place if you weren't White, then it would have been the subject of harsh criticism from the U.S. and from the Commonwealth, especially the New Commonwealth. The Tory back benchers may have been calling for more weapons for Smith but the government would have had to take a more pragmatic approach.
 
Mind you, as Foreign Secretary under Heath Douglas-Home did negotiate a settlement with Smith which was then torpedoed by the UK Govt for political reasons - unfortunately I don't have my references here to hand. South Rhodesia would almost have certainly been the Europe of its day for the 1960s Conservative Party - that Alec Douglas-Home was seen to stand on the centre-right of the Tory spectrum would probably make it worse.
 
Rhodesia could have been a nightmare for a Tory government. As it was they were able to have their cake and eat it by condemning Rhodesia for "betraying" the Empire by declaring UDI and condemning Wilson for forcing them into it. It was a line that played well with the base and the country however it would not have been available in government.
That said I expect you would have a continuation of OTL Tory policy to Rhodesia, ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Whether that would work and Britain could keep on ignoring the problem and Smith would be content with the status quo without UDI is up in the air.

On social and economic issues I would expect a line broadly similar to OTL. Abortion, Homosexuality and the Death Penalty were all passed by free votes with majorities large enough that switching 20 seats from Lab to Con wouldn't effect them. They wouldn't have a Home Secretary backing them as much as Jenkins but I suspect that 2 out of 3 would get up within the Parliament with Death Penalty being the most controversial.
As to the effect of social reforms under a Tory government remember that the Tories were still the "natural" party of the middle and upper class while Labour were the party of the working class and bits of the intelligentsia. In OTL such social reforms split both parties equally and the tradition of social issues being decided by free conscience votes was unchallenged. While there would be a backlash from angry social conservatives it wouldn't make the Women Institute switch to Labour any more than the socially conservative elements of the working class went Tory (over social issues) in OTL.

Vietnam would be very interesting, I think that pre-1967 Britain would have too much else going on and post then a tired and unpopular government would be too cautious about getting into an increasingly divisive war where British national interest isn't effected. I would rate the odds 65/35 against any more than a token SAS detachment.
 
Top