WI the Conservatives had won the UK general election of 1929

The result of the general election held on 30 May 1929 was Labour 287 seats, Conservatives 260 seats, Liberals 59 seats, others 9 seats. But the Consrevatives polled 38.1% of the total vote, and Labour 37.1%. (1) Ramsay MacDonald became Prime Minister of a minority Labour government.

However
the reform of rating [local taxation], completed only just before the election, meant that many householders and shopkeepers received their new and increased assessments just before polling day.
Taken from The Conservatives: A History from their Origins to 1965 by Norman Gash et al. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1977.

What if the election was delayed till September or October so that the effect of the rate increases wore off, or if the election was held on the same date but if there were no or smaller increases.

Assuming that compared to the 1929 general election in OTL the swing from Labour to Conservative in Labour won seats in 1929, and from Liberal to Conservative in Liberal won seats was around 1.8%, the result of an alternate general election would be Conservative 309 seats, Labour 252 seats, Liberals 45 seats, and others 9 seats. This would mean a Conservative majority of 3. In practice it would be higher because three pro Conservative independents were elected, but the Speaker was a Conservative MP.

Such a small majority would be vulnerable to losses in by-elections. By 1931 it may have disappeared. In the economic crisis of that year would Baldwin have tried to form a National government with the Liberals and a small section of the Labour Party? Would he call a general election as the head of such a National government? But it might result in Labour winning an overall majority, because they had not been in government since October 1924.

What are people's opinions as to possible developments in British politics?

In the spring of 1929 Baldwin had discussed with Neville Chamberlain and Tom Jones (the Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet) ideas for a drastic change in the cabinet. He wanted to get rid of the older men and "youth was to have its chance". Harold MacMillan was one of the young men he wanted to bring in. (2) He wanted to appoint Churchill to the India Office. "If Austen Chamberlain retired, perhaps his brother Neville could take his place at the Foreign Office, or if not, replace Churchill at the Treasury." Baldwin also conseidered appointing Neville Chamberlain to the Colonial Office. (3)

So a reshuffled cabinet after a Conservative victory in the 1929 general election would have Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary or Colonial Secretary, and Churchill as Secretary of State for India.

(1) Figures taken from British Electoral Facts 1832-1987, compiled and edited by F.W.S. Craig.

(2) However in OTL 1929 general election MacMillan lost Stockton-on-Tees by 5.1% to Labour.

(3) The information and quotations in this paragraph are taken from Baldwin: A Biography by Keith Middlemas and John Barnes.
 
Last edited:
Might Baldwin have retired earlier given how stressful party management would be and his OTL health issues, which presumably get accelerated ITTL? I still highly doubt the MC is letting Churchill anywhere near No 10 even if he's still in Cabinet, so Chamberlain succeeds as per OTL.

National Government: The problem would be economic policy, seeing as the Libs were the only Keynesian party. Why not supply and confidence instead?
 
He wanted to appoint Churchill to the India Office.

:eek:

Labour won't split if it's in Opposition, so there won't be a Labour component to the National Government. Without that, the Liberals might be more reluctant to join it in the first place.

I suspect Macdonald wouldn't run for the leadership again, though I can't really think who would be the favourite to replace him. But it might significantly - there are Keynsians on the Labour front bench, A. V. Alexander in particular (Alexander led the "third way" in the Cabinet arguments of 1931, putting forward Keynsian deficit spending and intervention as an alternative to both the protectionism advocated by the left and the swingeing cuts put forward by Snowdon and Macdonald - and he won Henderson's support in the process).
 
I doubt Mosley would leave the Labour Party in such a scenario as I doubt Ramsay Mac would leave him out of the shadow cabinet.
 
A Conservative victory in the 1929 general election would mean that Ramsay MacDonald would not have appointed Stafford Cripps as Solicitor-General in October 1930, and Cripps would not have been elected Labour MP for Bristol, East in a by-election in January 1931. Though he could have been elected as a Labour MP at the next general election. However he might decide not to go into politics, which would have a major effect on policitics in the 1930s and 1940s.
 

Thande

Donor
So the Tories will be in power when the Wall Street Crash happens. That won't do anything good for the party's prospects.
 
I doubt Mosley would leave the Labour Party in such a scenario as I doubt Ramsay Mac would leave him out of the shadow cabinet.

Labour has an elected Shadow Cabinet (though it doesn't use that term until later - although the Liberals and Conservatives started using it during the 1924 Labour government). I don't credit Mosley's chances of getting elected to it unless the PLP shifts dramatically leftwards or he disassociates himself from the left.
 
So the Tories will be in power when the Wall Street Crash happens. That won't do anything good for the party's prospects.

Thande

It might make it better for Britain however if as a result a Lib-Lab pact or coalition came up with some Keynesian policies.;) The down side with that government from that stage is it's unlikely to include much/any increased military investment.:(

Steve
 
OK, I've done some reading, and I think I have a handle on the potential Labour leaders - either through a left-wing challenge to MacDonald or an open (and likely three-way) contest. Some of the more obvious ones are out - Maxton is too much of a firebrand, Henderson doesn't want to be leader and Mosley simply has no standing on which to run at this point.

On the left: George Lansbury, with John Wheatley and Josiah Wedgwood as possible alternatives. Lansbury is by far the most popular of the three, having topped the committee election in December 1924 and been re-elected 1925-28 while the other left-wing candidates were voted off following a split over Parliamentary tactics. The left had tried to get Lansbury to challenge MacDonald for leader in Dec '24, but he declined. Wheatley was frequently talked about as a future leader and has a lot going for him. Wedgwood emerged as the leading left-wing voice on India, particularly in opposition to MacDonald going along with Baldwin's attempts to delay and dilute Home-Rule. He was left out of MacDonald's government in 1929 but did get elected to the committee that year (with the party in government, only backbenchers can run for seats). Might be preferred to both Lansbury and Wheatley as the youngest and most energetic of the three.

With such a slender Tory majority, the tactics the left proposed in 1925 - an end to pairing and a move to filibuster government Bills - might be very attractive, and strengthen the left-wing candidate. But of course, such a slender majority also means another election might be called, and the party may be worried about looking too radical.

On the right: Philip Snowden or JH Thomas. Both were in lock-step with MacDonald, so will only be candidates if he doesn't run. Both were very popular once MacDonald re-established his dominance in 1925, Snowden topping the committee vote until 1927 with Johnston not far behind. But neither is as charismatic as MacDonald. Snowden's popularity had waned in 1928 after his debacle over Surtax - as did the right's as a whole, with the more middle-of-the-PLP candidates leading the poll that year (Henderson, Johnston, Lees-Smith and Dalton). I take the latter as a sign of the right's weakness - the PLP remained loyal with MacDonald as leader and the need for party unity, but that loyalty won't neccessarily remain after another election defeat.

In the middle: Tom Johnston. Beloved as the editor of 'Forward', a popular and scabarous left-wing paper which frequently lampooned Ministers of every party (it was briefly banned by Lloyd George in 1916 after it printed a highly embarrassing report about him being heckled during a patriotic speech). He could carry the left's support thanks to his Clydeside connections, but despite his radical journalism he is not seen as being of the left and can win-over the right. He topped the poll for the executive committee in September 1931 (with Lansbury a close second). He could be the compromise candidate who unites the party. Or he could fall between two stools. Dunno. The other possibility is Tom Kennedy, who replaced Henderson as Chief Whip. He's also Scottish, also a journalist, more intellectually socialist than Johnston. I don't have a handle on him or his chances, but Whips don't tend to go for the leadership (apart from Henderson, and he didn't want it).

So, if MacDonald runs again, I reckon either Lansbury or Wedgwood challenges him - and the result is probably a toss-up. The centre of the party - including Henderson and Tom Kennedy (the Chief Whip for most of the Parliament) - had supported the more distruptive Opposition of the left on certain issues and would probably have done so more were it not for concerns about looking disunited. The post-election atmosphere makes change possible, but again the government's majority is very narrow and that will help MacDonald.

If MacDonald steps aside, it's a three-way contest between Lansbury/Wedgwood, Johnston and Snowden/Thomas. It will go to two rounds. If either Lansbury/Wedgwood or Snowden/Thomas gets knocked out in the first round, Johnston will win. If Johnston is out, then whoever he throws his support behind will win the second round.
 
Also given Baldwin's new Cabinet a think, and here's my estimate:

Stanley Baldwin – Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons
Lord Hailsham – Lord Chancellor
Lord Salisbury – Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords
Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland – Lord Privy Seal
Neville Chamberlain – Chancellor of the Exchequer
Sir Laming Worthington-Evans – Home Secretary
Leo Amery – Foreign Secretary
Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister – Secretary of State for War
Winston Churchill – Secretary of State for India
William Ormsby-Gore – Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Colonies
Sir Samuel Hoare – Secretary for Air
Bolton Eyres-Monsell – First Lord of the Admiralty
Sir John Gilmour – Secretary of State for Scotland
Lord Kennet (Hilton Young) - Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Arthur Samuel – President of the Board of Trade
Walter Guinness – Minister of Agriculture
Lord Eustace Percy – President of the Board of Education
Lord Londonderry – First Commissioner of Works
Henry Betterton – Minister of Labour
Kingsley Wood – Minister of Health

Balfour, Austen Chamberlain, Joynson-Hicks, Bridgeman, Peel, Cushendun are retired. Ormsby-Gore, Eyres-Monsell, Kennet, Samuel, Betterton, Wood are the new additions. Five members are still in the same jobs they've had since 1924 - Baldwin himself (obviously), Salisbury, Hoare, Gilmour and Percy. Four members are in the Lords - two less than before the election.

If Churchill does go to India (and that seems a bit like a demotion, when he could reasonably expect to stay at the Treasury or go to the Foreign Office) then it seems clear that Baldwin dropping the delaying tactics and coming out firmly against Home Rule for India. That should spur Labour into some kind of action.

On the swings discussed, Steel-Maitland keeps his seat. I imagine hime becoming Lord Privy Seal with a remit to coordinate industrial policy and deal with unemployment. Hilton Young, the former Liberal, replaces Cushendun with responsibility for the League of Nations and gets a peerage to lend gravitas (which frees up Sevenoaks for one of the MPs who lost their seats - not too far from Bromley, where Macmillan moved to in 1945).

Outside the Cabinet, Eden and (when he finds another seat) Macmillan become junior ministers. Does Duff Cooper (close ally of Baldwin) still lose Oldham? If not, he becomes Financial Sec to Treasury.
 
Orginally posted by Gregg
Does Duff Cooper (close ally of Baldwin) still lose Oldham?

The OTL 1929 general election result in the double-member constituency of Oldham was as follows:

Rev. G. Lang (Labour): 26.2%
J. Wilson (Labour): 25.0%
A. Duff Cooper (Conservative): 22.5%
J. P. Dodd (Liberal): 15.9%
Rev. C.J. Jenkins (Liberal): 10.4%

In my scenario Duff Cooper would be elected.
 
What if the Conservatives were the largest party but a few seats short of an overall majority. Let's assume that the result was as follows:

Conservative: 302 seats
Labour: 257 seats
Liberals: 47 seats
Others: 9 seats
-----------------
Total: 615 seats
----------------
Six of the others were pro Labour and three were pro Conservative. The Speaker was a Conservative MP, which reduced the Conservative total to 301. Conservative plus Liberal plus three others=351. Labour plus Liberal plus six others=310. Three of the others were Irish Nationalists. 308 seats are required for a majority.

This result is similar to the result of the 2010 general election in OTL, except the Conservatives lost over 100 seats and Labour gained over 100 seats.

Baldwin and his administration had the right to stay in office until they were defeated on a vote of no confidence in the King's Speech in one to four weeks time. Baldwin and prominent members of his cabinet try to negotiate an arrangement with Lloyd George (LG) and leading Liberals. LG insists on a Conservative-Liberal coalition with three Liberal ministers in the cabinet, and junior ministers, and legislation providing for the alternative vote (AV) or STV for elections to the House of Commons. He says that if the Conservatives reject his demands he will enter into coalition with Labour. Baldwin rejects AV but proposes STV in cities with a population of over 200,000. Would he reject a coalition but instead propose to consult with the Liberals on legislation in return for confidence and supply?

Ramsay MacDonald and leading members of the parliamentary Labour Party enter into discussions with LG and prominent Liberals. This time LG asks for four Liberal cabinet ministers, and junior ministers, in a Labour-Liberal coalition and AV or STV. He says that if the Labour team reject his demands he will form a coalition with the Conservatives. Neither the Conservative or Labour negotiators know whether or not LG is bluffing. The Labour team reject STV but agree to AV. There are no leaks from the Conservative-Liberal and Labour-Liberal negotiations.

What happens now? The Conservatives are in a considerably stronger position than Labour. But would MacDonald and Labour agree to LG's demands? Would Baldwin and his cabinet decide to stay in office in the hope that enough right-wing Liberals would vote with the Conservatives in a no confidence vote on the King's Speech? Or would they resign in the belief that a Labour-Liberal coalition would be short-lived and the Conservatives would be back in power within two years?
 
I do wonder if a different government would have butterflied some of the terrible provisions (from the RN pov) of the 2nd Washington treaty, which in OTL seemed designed to hurt the RN as much as possible. A less restrictive treaty might also have let France and Italy decide to be in it, with yet more butterflies accruing...
 
What happens now? The Conservatives are in a considerably stronger position than Labour. But would MacDonald and Labour agree to LG's demands? Would Baldwin and his cabinet decide to stay in office in the hope that enough right-wing Liberals would vote with the Conservatives in a no confidence vote on the King's Speech? Or would they resign in the belief that a Labour-Liberal coalition would be short-lived and the Conservatives would be back in power within two years?

I really don't know. What I have read about the period suggests that LG was (1) opposed to an actual coalition with either party and (2) entirely wedded to supporting a minority Labour government, even fighting pitched battles with his own party over it. But I don't know if things would be different in the circumstances you lay out - and if so, how they would differ. However, if nothing else, the Tory government has been (tacitly) protectionist and Labour is solidly free-trade, and that issue always seemed to trump everything else for the Liberals until Samuel and Simon took control (and remained an important concern for Samuel).
 
I do wonder if a different government would have butterflied some of the terrible provisions (from the RN pov) of the 2nd Washington treaty, which in OTL seemed designed to hurt the RN as much as possible. A less restrictive treaty might also have let France and Italy decide to be in it, with yet more butterflies accruing...

Astrodragon

I fear not. The Tories were committed to cutting spending drastically, Labour and probably the Liberals would have opposed military spending and a lot of people were still attracted by pacifism and belief in the LoN. hence I doubt that any political combination would have been willing to listen to the warnings of the naval professionals.:(

The best bet might be if a government with a strong Liberal presence, possibly an alliance with Labour, brings in Keynsians policies. It won't do anything directly for the navy but might mean the industrial and economic base might be a bit stronger when people realise that the navy needs a big programme of new construction. [Either because of a serious war threat or simply because the existing fleet is so obsolete].

Steve
 
Astrodragon

I fear not. The Tories were committed to cutting spending drastically, Labour and probably the Liberals would have opposed military spending and a lot of people were still attracted by pacifism and belief in the LoN. hence I doubt that any political combination would have been willing to listen to the warnings of the naval professionals.:(

The best bet might be if a government with a strong Liberal presence, possibly an alliance with Labour, brings in Keynsians policies. It won't do anything directly for the navy but might mean the industrial and economic base might be a bit stronger when people realise that the navy needs a big programme of new construction. [Either because of a serious war threat or simply because the existing fleet is so obsolete].

Steve

I wasnt thinking of not having a treaty revision at all, but there were sone things (put in by a deeply pacifistic government) that the RN hated. And wouldnt ahve affected spending. In particular the cruiser and destroyer limits, and possiblty when new BB;s could be built.
Without such a anti-military government the treaty might not have been so bad
 
I wasnt thinking of not having a treaty revision at all, but there were sone things (put in by a deeply pacifistic government) that the RN hated. And wouldnt ahve affected spending. In particular the cruiser and destroyer limits, and possiblty when new BB;s could be built.
Without such a anti-military government the treaty might not have been so bad

Astrodragon

I agree but I can't see a better, i.e. more naval friendly government, occurring.:(:(

Steve
 
In the 1929 general election in OTL six Liberal MPs were elected with no Conservative opposition. The most senior was Sir John Simon. Of the other five, four were elected for Scottish constituencies. Most or all these six MPs would probably keep a Tory minority government in office.

Sir Herbert Samuel won Darwen for the Liberals by a majority of only 462 votes (or 1.3%) over the Conservative candidate. In a scenario with a Conservative majority, or near majority, he would probably be defeated. He lost Darwen in 1935.
 
On 2 June 1930 the following Conservative motion was debated in the House of Commons: "That a Select Committee of Eleven Members be appointed to examine and report upon the proposals contained in the International Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments." See http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1930/jun/02/naval-treaty .

The motion was defeated by 282 votes to 201 votes. The Liberals voted with the majority.
 
Top