WI the Conservatives Won the January 1910 General Election?

Anaxagoras

Banned
What if the swing to the Conservatives in January of 1910 had been a bit bigger than it was IOTL and enabled the Tories to garner 336 seats? Does this mean no People's Budget? Does this mean no House of Lords reform?
 
House of Lords reform was coming - it was just a question of when (and how much). But the veto is kept as a going concern for the time being; the more sensible Lords might use the extra time to try and put the genie back in the bottle ("we promise not to block the budget in normal circumstances").

A couple of other questions immediately arise too - how would a majority Tory Government deal with the outbreak of WWI (assuming the Parliament goes full term)? Does this prolong the life of the Liberal Party, since a Tory majority has no need for divisive coalitions, and the Liberals can keep their reforming bona fides intact?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
1) It would definitely mean the end of the People's budget. Its basically what the election was over

2) Reform of the Lords is put off until the future when the Tories once again lose power. How the King reacts would be interesting. George later blamed his inexperience for agreeing to the measures

3) As for WWI, Bonar Law makes it pretty clear in his statements that he and the Tories would back war if needed. That is made before Belgium is invaded and the statement clearly said "fatal to the national honor and security" if we failed to back "France and Russia". So if the Tories are in, the Brits are in the war from the start Belgium or no Belgium
 
It would be what three or four years with a different gov. So could we see a clear firming up of British policies? Something that makes their position clearer then OTL?

Also if this "Peoples budget" is so important in the eyes of the populace, could we see some kind of unrest? Just asking to get a better grip on things.

In the same vane, what about Ireland, it was a big headache in OTL and could be better or worse here.
 
1) It would definitely mean the end of the People's budget. Its basically what the election was over

2) Reform of the Lords is put off until the future when the Tories once again lose power. How the King reacts would be interesting. George later blamed his inexperience for agreeing to the measures

3) As for WWI, Bonar Law makes it pretty clear in his statements that he and the Tories would back war if needed. That is made before Belgium is invaded and the statement clearly said "fatal to the national honor and security" if we failed to back "France and Russia". So if the Tories are in, the Brits are in the war from the start Belgium or no Belgium

I completely agree with these three things, although really whatever George V thought he actually did the only thing he could have done. Constitutionally a refusal on his part would have been devastating and "packing" the Lords with Liberal Peers is the only solution that is really possible.

In addition to the above:

4) The Irish question is shelved. Again. So no Home Rule/Ulster crisis of 1913. But the issue still needs to be settled and Tory policy post 1910 will be essentially no more than hitting the snooze button.

5) This is a hammer blow to the Liberal Party. I think actually, instead of seeing it survive, this is an earlier and more bloody death. Presumably Labour still gain seats in this scenario, as any swing to the Tories would probably be negligible in the seats they were contesting. The Liberals split over the People's Budget aftermath - the majority probably denounce it as too radical and turn on Lloyd George. The radical minority move closer to the Labour party. They probably don't defect, but the seeds of division are sown earlier.

6) Enormous social problems in Britain remain unaddressed. There is less of a pattern for post-war welfare to emerge, either in 1918 or 1945. In this timeline Beveridge's formative time at the Board of Trade does not influence him to craft post-1945 welfare initiatives.

7) The Tory party remains split over the issue of free trade vs protection, leading to ongoing battles within the Party. Balfour remains (as he was) undecided on the issue, meaning no cohesive party policy on the economy going into WWI (how the war changes the party is hard to predict) and potentially they really screw up in the post-war slump.

8) Potentially Churchill, with the big swing you'd need for a Tory majority in this period, loses his seat. Unlikely, as his Unionist and Tory opponents would have to combine their votes but they did do this in other constituencies so it is a possibility. Whether he keeps his seat or not his political star isn't going to rise the way it did in our reality.
 
House of Lords reform was coming - it was just a question of when (and how much). But the veto is kept as a going concern for the time being; the more sensible Lords might use the extra time to try and put the genie back in the bottle ("we promise not to block the budget in normal circumstances").

A couple of other questions immediately arise too - how would a majority Tory Government deal with the outbreak of WWI (assuming the Parliament goes full term)? Does this prolong the life of the Liberal Party, since a Tory majority has no need for divisive coalitions, and the Liberals can keep their reforming bona fides intact?

Maeglin, you're back! Does this mean a welcome return of everyone's favourite Neo-Fascist New Zealand timeline?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much of a swing in the popular vote would be needed to get the extra 64 seats?
 
Maybe 3-5%? The conservatives arent that bad actually on reform and if conservatives were leading the war then they might become more pro imperial integration(idk why but maybe they see the white colonies contripution and think that nationalism needs countering for example) cause liberals for some reason werent. Also was there any plan for ireland from the conservatives during the campaign? Trying to bribe ireland with reforms and stuff could be very interesting and trying to disarm everyone instead of catholics only could be interesting ?

Also if haig is given free reign then ww1 might abit diffrent for example?History has been very unkind to him to be honest and liberals really did a number on him . If BEF model was the BEF of 1918 then things could have been hilariously diffrent during the battle of france.

Also who would be navy/army ministers to the run up to the war/during? Dardanelles campaign could get canceled or the navy presses on and forces the straits without churchill? One of the interesting idea to end the palestine campaign could be landing at alexndria in syria to cut ottoman railway and maybe then later do a dardenelle equilevant? Alot of stuff could be shipped to counter the first landing and if u do 2nd straight from egypt from mostly yet unused troops the dardanelles landing could be a suprise , hell you could go deception plan and say ur just reinforcing before boarding ships and only mention where ur going when ur at sea?
 
Last edited:
Top