|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Aug 29, 2018 18:29:27 GMT
Had Labour won just another ten seats in 1950 then it would have meant an overall majority of around 25 seats, i.e. surely enough to last a full term. How would a full second term Labour government have panned out? Would the Bevanite-Gaitskellite infighting have been as intense in government as it became in opposition? Would Attlee have stood down prior to a 1954 or 1955 general election?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 18:41:28 GMT
I think Labour would’ve gone on to win in 1955 and 1959/60.
Attlee was still leader in 1955 so it’s reasonable to assume he would’ve served a full term.
Of course Labour would still lose the Sunderland South by-election in 1953 so would have a very small majority and would likely have waited the full 5 years until 1955 for the next election.
Eden would still have been Tory leader in 1955 but Suez would not have forced his resignation though losing th election may have done (though it was less common for party leaders to resign after 1 election in those days).
Would Labour have won 1959 with Gaitskell at the helm assuming Attlee quits halfway through a 3rd term.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,767
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Aug 29, 2018 18:56:01 GMT
One of the key reasons for the 1950 Labour loss was the continuing problems of rationing in the UK economy. Other countries managed to get off rationing quicker, and much of the reason the UK didn't was Atlee's strongly socialist, centrally planned economy, and the price fixing it imposed. If Atlee had won in 1950, rationing would not have been ended during the 1950-55 Parliament, and they would have lost the next election as a result.
|
|
swanarcadian
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 2,674
Member is Online
|
Post by swanarcadian on Aug 29, 2018 19:44:15 GMT
I think Labour would’ve gone on to win in 1955 and 1959/60. May I ask why? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 20:43:32 GMT
I think Labour would’ve gone on to win in 1955 and 1959/60. May I ask why? For the same reasons the Tories did. The economy was going well in the 50s and any government that went to the country in ‘55 or ‘59 would have a good chance of winning re-election. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Aug 29, 2018 22:02:24 GMT
The 1950 GE was very interesting; the actual result of 315 Labour, 298 Conservative, could quite easily have been 319 Labour, 294 Conservative but for the intervention of four Communist Party candidates from among their total of 100 nominees. These four constituencies saw a Conservative majority significantly less than the Communist Party vote:
Glasgow Scotstoun. C maj 239, Communist vote 1,088
Glasgow Govan. C maj 373, Communist vote 1,547
Shipley. C maj 81, Communist vote 273
Bexley. C maj 133, Communist vote 481
The last of these is worthy of its own thread in alternate political history. Ted Heath's arrival in the HoC would have been delayed, possibly by five years if the Labour government could have been more enduring with its slightly larger majority. Heath might not have been in a position to challenge for the Tory leadership in 1965.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 22:05:20 GMT
The 1950 GE was very interesting; the actual result of 315 Labour, 298 Conservative, could quite easily have been 319 Labour, 294 Conservative but for the intervention of four Communist Party candidates from among their total of 100 nominees. These four constituencies saw a Conservative majority significantly less than the Communist Party vote: Glasgow Scotstoun. C maj 239, Communist vote 1,088 Glasgow Govan. C maj 373, Communist vote 1,547 Shipley. C maj 81, Communist vote 273 Bexley. C maj 133, Communist vote 481 The last of these is worthy of its own thread in alternate political history. Ted Heath's arrival in the HoC would have been delayed, possibly by five years if the Labour government could have been more enduring with its slightly larger majority. Heath might not have been in a position to challenge for the Tory leadership in 1965..... Start the thread if there isn’t one already! |
|
swanarcadian
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 2,674
Member is Online
|
Post by swanarcadian on Aug 29, 2018 22:08:17 GMT
For the same reasons the Tories did. The economy was going well in the 50s and any government that went to the country in ‘55 or ‘59 would have a good chance of winning re-election. The economy was also going well in 1997, much more so than it had been five years previously. It was dubbed as the voteless recovery by some. I can't see myself how Labour (or any party for that matter) would have been able to hold onto power after a further two elections having already had a huge majority of 146 reduced to something like 25. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 29, 2018 22:37:15 GMT
Keep in mind that the boundary changes that occurred for 1950 were the most extensive in British history bar those that occurred for 1983. These boundary changes are also attributable to a steep drop in the Labour majority.
A lot of safe Labour seats, especially in London, were merged together as their electorates had dropped to sometimes lower than 20,000 apiece by 1945, and the loss of business votes sharply reduced the size of the London electorate further. For example, Holborn & St Pancras South was formed from three prior constituencies (Holborn, St Pancras South East, and St Pancras South West), as was Stepney (Mile End, Limehouse, and Whitechapel & St George's). Many other small seats that year were just merged with an equally small neighbour, rather than being split up and divided among other constituencies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 22:38:04 GMT
For the same reasons the Tories did. The economy was going well in the 50s and any government that went to the country in ‘55 or ‘59 would have a good chance of winning re-election. The economy was also going well in 1997, much more so than it had been five years previously. It was dubbed as the voteless recovery by some. I can't see myself how Labour (or any party for that matter) would have been able to hold onto power after a further two elections having already had a huge majority of 146 reduced to something like 25. Majorities can fluctuate and the reason Major lost was because of Black Wednesday plus sleaze. Yes the economy was doing well but the Tories were not trusted with it. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,784 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 29, 2018 23:38:29 GMT
Keep in mind that the boundary changes that occurred for 1950 were the most extensive in British history bar those that occurred for 1983. These boundary changes are also attributable to a steep drop in the Labour majority. I always raise an eyebrow when looking at pre-1950s maps of Sheffield showing seven, yes SEVEN, constituencies covering an area that now has four with an *increased* population. Before WW2 the area covered by the current 5.5 constituencies within the current Sheffield City boundaries had a lower population but covered the equivalent of nine constituencies (8 whole ones plus three thirds, so all or parts of ELEVEN!). Eg: link |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Aug 30, 2018 10:07:37 GMT
It is an interesting question. Worth considering what the Tory Party would have done if Labour had won a working majority. Churchill probably would have retired earlier and there would be a lot more reflection on the direction of the party.
My guess is Eden would have become leader and won in 1955. But 4 extra years of Labour government would have been interesting and likely riven by infighting as the left demanded to go further faster. Those 4 years of government would have been without Bevin as Foreign Secretary so it is possible that Britain's foreign policy could have taken a different direction (not radically so but perhaps significant in one or two areas).
|
|
