WI Stanley Baldwin remains as PM in 1937?

While he had certainly earned retirement & had perfectly defused the abdication crisis, WI Baldwin stays on as PM for another couple of years? Domestically he's much more conservative than Chamberlain, and also advocated appeasement. He's practically the same age as Chamberlain, in good health, with unquestioned command of the party, country and Commons. Would there be an election in 1939 or 1940? How would the Phony War go?
 
If Stanley Baldwin had not resigned as Prime Minister in 1937 Antony Eden might not have resigned as Foreign Secretary in February 1938. Assuming that the Sudenten crisis flares up in September as in OTL, Baldwin would not have negotiated directly with Hitler. Presumably he would have sent his Foreign Secretary instead, who could have been Eden. If Eden had resigned over appeasement, Baldwin could have promoted Malcolm MacDonald, who in OTL became Colonial Secretary in May 1938 after having been Dominions Secretary from November 1935, to the Foreign Office. Malcolm MacDonald was the son of Ramsay MacDonald.

I assume that there would still have been an agreement analogous to the Munich agreement, with events in 1939 happening as in OTL. I am inclined to think that Baldwin would not have called a general election in 1938 or 1939.

Baldwin was more popular than Chamberlain with the Labour Party in 1937.

Presumably Neville Chamberlain would have conntinued as Chancellor of the Exchequer, with Sir John Simon staying as Home Secretary.
 
One question I've never seen answered: why did the Tories agree to enter a coalition in 1931? When they won nearly 80% of the seats in the Commons, which, IIRC, is the largest landslide of the 20th century, allow MacDonald to continue as PM? Even when things returned to "normal" in 1935, they still had a majority of 146, the same as Attlee in 1945 or Thatcher in 1983. Besides, Baldwin's fiscal approach was hardly Keynesian like Chamberlain- pure monetarist. A CPI of 84 iin 1935 and near-zero inflation, and like Thatcher, double-digit unemployment was electorally irrelevant. I heard that it was because the King asked in 1929, but after 1936 they didn't have to deal with a politically active monarch.
 
One question I've never seen answered: why did the Tories agree to enter a coalition in 1931? When they won nearly 80% of the seats in the Commons, which, IIRC, is the largest landslide of the 20th century, allow MacDonald to continue as PM? Even when things returned to "normal" in 1935, they still had a majority of 146, the same as Attlee in 1945 or Thatcher in 1983. Besides, Baldwin's fiscal approach was hardly Keynesian like Chamberlain- pure monetarist. A CPI of 84 iin 1935 and near-zero inflation, and like Thatcher, double-digit unemployment was electorally irrelevant. I heard that it was because the King asked in 1929, but after 1936 they didn't have to deal with a politically active monarch.

I believe that from a political point of view its called giving yourself enough rope to hang yourself.....:D:D
A policy which worked rather well for the Tory party of the day
 
Top