WI: Maudling wins 1965 Leadership

So according to Powell's biography, his leadership campaign was, at first, expected to do far better then it actually did and would help Maudling gain victory as he stole Heath votes but IOTL he failed to do so, Heath won and events happened.

So what if, during the 1966 Tory leadership election, Powell siphons more votes from Heath, Peter Walker doesn't run the Heath campign and Maudling does a better campaign having this as the result.

Maudling- 150 votes
Heath- 118 votes
Powell- 30 votes

Now Maudling had made a number of gaffes after the election and I don't see why he wouldn't make them ITTL, so as the Tories do worse in 1966 by a few seats and it seems that Labour will win 1970 with a historic third term in office. Until someone makes a certain speech that is popular with the working class.

According to his biography, Powell was rumoured to be moved to a higher cabinet position, even Chancellor, but I think it would be ASB for him so perhaps he's moved to somewhere safer. Home Secretary at the highest, but his position makes him difficult to remove and when he makes RoB, Maudling can't get rid of him since he's too popular and his gaffe's have been too damaging so he simply condemns the language used in the old lady story but slowly adopts it, gaining Hogg's resignation and Heath's hatred but the poll rise is enough.

So what happens, could Maudling win 1970 since he didn't kick Powell out (which was an unpopular move with the grassroots and general public) and Labour is not doing so well?

What difference is made now?
 
Last edited:
If Labour do even better in 1966, say over a hundred seats, I doubt there's any chance of Maulding emerging victorious in 1970. Although we might see a Gordon Banks style scenario with Powell being elected in 74/75 presuming he shortens Wilsons majority.
 
If Labour do even better in 1966, say over a hundred seats, I doubt there's any chance of Maulding emerging victorious in 1970. Although we might see a Gordon Banks style scenario with Powell being elected in 74/75 presuming he shortens Wilsons majority.

I wouldn't say over a hundred. Maybe in the region of 50-60 gained seats while the Tories lose 55-60 seats.

Apparently the RoB speech was one of the factors in 1970's victory but perhaps a reduced majority of 24 would be a result. What is interesting is Powell getting what he wants over immigration, something that might 'sweeten' anti-union laws for some as well as having a dramatic effect on Britain.
 
I wouldn't say over a hundred. Maybe in the region of 50-60 gained seats while the Tories lose 55-60 seats.

Apparently the RoB speech was one of the factors in 1970's victory but perhaps a reduced majority of 24 would be a result. What is interesting is Powell getting what he wants over immigration, something that might 'sweeten' anti-union laws for some as well as having a dramatic effect on Britain.

Well if the Labour party gain 60 seats they have a majority of 124.

RoB and Powell's popularity probably did help the conservatives but we can't forget that Heath did as well with his exploits, I think the best Maulding could do would be the Conservatives being the biggest party in a Hung Parliament.
 
Well if the Labour party gain 60 seats they have a majority of 124.

RoB and Powell's popularity probably did help the conservatives but we can't forget that Heath did as well with his exploits, I think the best Maulding could do would be the Conservatives being the biggest party in a Hung Parliament.

So the question is, who succeeds Maudling. Is there anyone but Ted Heath who could win?
 
The Conservative Party dodged a bullet by picking Heath over Maudling. Not necessarily because Heath did better than Maudling would have done - I don't really see why the Maudling Tories would have lost seats in 1966 or 1970 compared to the OTL results - but because he had some seriously dodgy connections that would have sunk any government led by him if/when they came out in the 70s.
 
Top