Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 19:09:43 GMT
Every time people are asked about greatest prime ministers, Churchill comes out near the top and then someone who disagrees points out that he's being judged as a wartime, not a peacetime PM.
So, let's say that Churchill doesn't become PM in 1940 but does become Tory leader in the late 40s and PM in 1951. Exactly how and why is not important.
How does this impact his legacy? How is Churchill viewed as a prime minister without world war 2 influencing his image?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,762 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 9, 2021 20:04:24 GMT
Every time people are asked about greatest prime ministers, Churchill comes out near the top and then someone who disagrees points out that he's being judged as a wartime, not a peacetime PM. So, let's say that Churchill doesn't become PM in 1940 but does become Tory leader in the late 40s and PM in 1951. Exactly how and why is not important. How does this impact his legacy? How is Churchill viewed as a prime minister without world war 2 influencing his image? It would depend on who lost the war and was in favour in Berlin who was wartime PM. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jul 9, 2021 20:36:56 GMT
He probably wouldn't have got the job in peacetime if he hadn't been the wartime leader.
But I think he'd probably been seen as average to mediocre, given how he actually did in the 50s. That's assuming the history of events was similar to what occurred, if not and there was ww3 in the 50s then his legacy could be anything, dependent on its outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 10, 2021 16:45:47 GMT
One interesting thing Churchill did in his peacetime premiership was to go back on the Tories' 1951 manifesto pledge to restore the University seats in the House of Commons, which had been abolished by Labour in 1950.
I'm not entirely sure why. I have seen it suggested that this was a conciliatory gesture to Labour; but whatever the reason, his reneging on the commitment resulted in some serious political flak from his own side.
From the perspective of our own times, of course, he did the Tories a favour, and correspondingly Labour did itself a disservice by abolishing these seats because if they existed nowadays they would be among the safest Labour seats on the country.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 10, 2021 18:50:21 GMT
One interesting thing Churchill did in his peacetime premiership was to go back on the Tories' 1951 manifesto pledge to restore the University seats in the House of Commons, which had been abolished by Labour in 1950. I'm not entirely sure why. I have seen it suggested that this was a conciliatory gesture to Labour; but whatever the reason, his reneging on the commitment resulted in some serious political flak from his own side. From the perspective of our own times, of course, he did the Tories a favour, and correspondingly Labour did itself a disservice by abolishing these seats because if they existed nowadays they would be among the safest Labour seats on the country. It seems it was the right thing to do not to restore them |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 10, 2021 19:35:53 GMT
One interesting thing Churchill did in his peacetime premiership was to go back on the Tories' 1951 manifesto pledge to restore the University seats in the House of Commons, which had been abolished by Labour in 1950. I'm not entirely sure why. I have seen it suggested that this was a conciliatory gesture to Labour; but whatever the reason, his reneging on the commitment resulted in some serious political flak from his own side. From the perspective of our own times, of course, he did the Tories a favour, and correspondingly Labour did itself a disservice by abolishing these seats because if they existed nowadays they would be among the safest Labour seats on the country. I don't think it would be quite that simple, I don't see them always blindly voting for the Labour candidate. I suspect you would be more likely to get Independent MPs (who admittedly probably wouldn't be too different from Labour politically). |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 10, 2021 21:04:01 GMT
One interesting thing Churchill did in his peacetime premiership was to go back on the Tories' 1951 manifesto pledge to restore the University seats in the House of Commons, which had been abolished by Labour in 1950. I'm not entirely sure why. I have seen it suggested that this was a conciliatory gesture to Labour; but whatever the reason, his reneging on the commitment resulted in some serious political flak from his own side. From the perspective of our own times, of course, he did the Tories a favour, and correspondingly Labour did itself a disservice by abolishing these seats because if they existed nowadays they would be among the safest Labour seats on the country. I don't think it would be quite that simple, I don't see them always blindly voting for the Labour candidate. I suspect you would be more likely to get Independent MPs (who admittedly probably wouldn't be too different from Labour politically). I suppose the Lib Dems or Greens might pick up the odd seat, especially if the elections were still done using STV.
The Tories wouldn't get a sniff.
But what I was really wondering was whether anyone knows why Churchill exposed himself to attack from his own side by ditching a pledge that was in the Tories' winning manifesto. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 10, 2021 21:07:01 GMT
One interesting thing Churchill did in his peacetime premiership was to go back on the Tories' 1951 manifesto pledge to restore the University seats in the House of Commons, which had been abolished by Labour in 1950. I'm not entirely sure why. I have seen it suggested that this was a conciliatory gesture to Labour; but whatever the reason, his reneging on the commitment resulted in some serious political flak from his own side. From the perspective of our own times, of course, he did the Tories a favour, and correspondingly Labour did itself a disservice by abolishing these seats because if they existed nowadays they would be among the safest Labour seats on the country. I don't think it would be quite that simple, I don't see them always blindly voting for the Labour candidate. I suspect you would be more likely to get Independent MPs (who admittedly probably wouldn't be too different from Labour politically). At the time of abolition these seats balanced firmly toward the Tories. I don’t think Labour won any, but there were some independents. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 10, 2021 21:18:18 GMT
I don't think it would be quite that simple, I don't see them always blindly voting for the Labour candidate. I suspect you would be more likely to get Independent MPs (who admittedly probably wouldn't be too different from Labour politically). I suppose the Lib Dems or Greens might pick up the odd seat, especially if the elections were still done using STV. The Tories wouldn't get a sniff. But what I was really wondering was whether anyone knows why Churchill exposed himself to attack from his own side by ditching a pledge that was in the Tories' winning manifesto. Churchill addressing parliament in November 1951:- For the Government to add to their majority in Parliament already elected would create a questionable precedent... |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,536
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 10, 2021 22:01:42 GMT
I have always assumed that the university constituencies were, by 1945, regarded as a ridiculous anomaly and anachronism, and that the abolition of them would have been completely non-controversial – in the sense that some people might have voted against their abolition, but (once they were gone) nobody would think about bringing them back again. A bit like the introduction of same-sex marriage or the abolition of the death penalty. It is surprising to discover that it was considered a viable possibility for them to be restored as late as 1951.
My mother was born in 1930, so she was annoyed at the fact that they were abolished just before she became old enough to vote in the university constituency (and thus have a second vote).
Incidentally, when I first became interested in elections as a teenager, and when I discovered the existence of the University constituencies, I initially assumed that they were constituencies of which the electorate were the current students at the University, rather than the graduates of the universities. Having separate functional constituencies for the populations of university students (separate from the geographical constituencies for normal people) would be a suitable way of allowing students to vote in elections, without the slight complication of being registered to vote in two different places (university and home).
Similarly, I have never had any particular objection to the idea of having universal adult franchise for elections in the UK, i.e. allowing prisoners to vote. Similarly, it would be a reasonable idea to have a single constituency of which the electorate is the entire prison population of the UK. No doubt, the turnout in such elections would be low, and the results of the election would be peculiar, but it would allow the possibility of (for example) an articulate, rehabilitated former prisoner to be elected as an independent MP to represent prisoners, to highlight issues of concern to prisoners, such as violence, drugs, overcrowding, due process et cetera.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 10, 2021 22:07:04 GMT
I don't think it would be quite that simple, I don't see them always blindly voting for the Labour candidate. I suspect you would be more likely to get Independent MPs (who admittedly probably wouldn't be too different from Labour politically). At the time of abolition these seats balanced firmly toward the Tories. I don’t think Labour won any, but there were some independents. I suppose the nearest Labour could be said to have come was George Maitland Lloyd Davies, elected for the University of Wales seat in 1923 as a Christian Pacifist, took the Labour whip without joining the party and lost the seat in 1924. Wikipedia lists him as a Labour candidate in the latter election but my copy of the 1925 Liberal Year Book has him down as an Independent.
Baroness Stocks who was the runner up in the 1946 Combined English Universities by election, later took the Labour whip in the House of Lords.
Ramsay Macdonald won the 1936 Combined Scottish Universities by-election as a National Labour candidate.
The most famous Independents elected are probably A P Herbert Oxford University (1935-50) and Eleanor Rathbone Combined English Universities ( 1929-46).
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,536
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 10, 2021 22:29:37 GMT
At the time of abolition these seats balanced firmly toward the Tories. I don’t think Labour won any, but there were some independents. I suppose the nearest Labour could be said to have come was George Maitland Lloyd Davies, elected for the University of Wales seat in 1923 as a Christian Pacifist, took the Labour whip without joining the party and lost the seat in 1924. Wikipedia lists him as a Labour candidate in the latter election but my copy of the 1925 Liberal Year Book has him down as an Independent. F.W.S. Craig has him as Labour candidate in 1924. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 10, 2021 23:58:12 GMT
Similarly, I have never had any particular objection to the idea of having universal adult franchise for elections in the UK, i.e. allowing prisoners to vote. Similarly, it would be a reasonable idea to have a single constituency of which the electorate is the entire prison population of the UK. No doubt, the turnout in such elections would be low, and the results of the election would be peculiar, but it would allow the possibility of (for example) an articulate, rehabilitated former prisoner to be elected as an independent MP to represent prisoners, to highlight issues of concern to prisoners, such as violence, drugs, overcrowding, due process et cetera. Remember when it was believed that Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare would go back to the Lords and make just such speeches? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 11, 2021 0:12:20 GMT
I suppose the nearest Labour could be said to have come was George Maitland Lloyd Davies, elected for the University of Wales seat in 1923 as a Christian Pacifist, took the Labour whip without joining the party and lost the seat in 1924. Wikipedia lists him as a Labour candidate in the latter election but my copy of the 1925 Liberal Year Book has him down as an Independent. F.W.S. Craig has him as Labour candidate in 1924. I've had a quick dig in the newspaper archives and a couple of newspaper reports in 1924 (inc the Western Mail) describe him as the Labour or Socialist candidate. He described himself as " a farm labourer, convict, dustman and itinerant preacher". The 1923 reports say he had accepted the Labour programme and had its backing.
Davies committed suicide in a Welsh asylum in 1949.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 11, 2021 9:27:32 GMT
Extract from the 1951 Tory manifesto:
"We look on the Government as the servant and not as the masters of the people. Multiplying orders and rules should be reduced, and the whole system kept under more rigorous Parliamentary scrutiny. We shall call an all-Party conference to consider proposals for the reform of the House of Lords.
"We shall restore the University constituencies, which have been disfranchised contrary to the agreement reached by all three Parties during the war.
"The United Kingdom cannot he kept in a Whitehall straitjacket. The Unionist policy for Scotland, including the practical steps proposed for effective Scottish control of Scottish affairs, will he vigorously pressed forward.
"There will he a Cabinet Minister charged with the care of Welsh affairs,
"We shall seek to restore to Local Government the confidence and responsibility it has lost under Socialism."
The whole (admirably brief) thing may be found here:
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 11, 2021 9:31:37 GMT
Didn't know about any tripartite agreement to keep the University seats, you might have presumed Labour at least would have been opposed to them long term.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 11, 2021 9:34:29 GMT
I have always assumed that the university constituencies were, by 1945, regarded as a ridiculous anomaly and anachronism, and that the abolition of them would have been completely non-controversial – in the sense that some people might have voted against their abolition, but (once they were gone) nobody would think about bringing them back again. A bit like the introduction of same-sex marriage or the abolition of the death penalty. It is surprising to discover that it was considered a viable possibility for them to be restored as late as 1951. My mother was born in 1930, so she was annoyed at the fact that they were abolished just before she became old enough to vote in the university constituency (and thus have a second vote). Incidentally, when I first became interested in elections as a teenager, and when I discovered the existence of the University constituencies, I initially assumed that they were constituencies of which the electorate were the current students at the University, rather than the graduates of the universities. Having separate functional constituencies for the populations of university students (separate from the geographical constituencies for normal people) would be a suitable way of allowing students to vote in elections, without the slight complication of being registered to vote in two different places (university and home). Similarly, I have never had any particular objection to the idea of having universal adult franchise for elections in the UK, i.e. allowing prisoners to vote. Similarly, it would be a reasonable idea to have a single constituency of which the electorate is the entire prison population of the UK. No doubt, the turnout in such elections would be low, and the results of the election would be peculiar, but it would allow the possibility of (for example) an articulate, rehabilitated former prisoner to be elected as an independent MP to represent prisoners, to highlight issues of concern to prisoners, such as violence, drugs, overcrowding, due process et cetera. This resonates because I became interested at a similar age. I originally assumed that the university seats were territorial constituencies like all the others, but with boundaries drawn very tightly around the university itself. I was confused about how this could be done, given that university buildings are scattered throughout the host city. It took me a while to absorb the idea of a non-territorial constituency, and when I finally grasped it I didn't like it at all (and still don't). |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 11, 2021 10:03:05 GMT
Didn't know about any tripartite agreement to keep the University seats, you might have presumed Labour at least would have been opposed to them long term. 1944 Speaker's Conference. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 11, 2021 10:26:17 GMT
The Bow Group had proposed in 1953 that the university seats should be revived for the HoL but that was a non-starter. Neither main party wanted to see an elected or partially elected HoL.
The Tories had only just scraped to power in 1951 (Labour winning the popular vote, and probably so even if you allowed for the four unopposed returns in Northern Ireland). The return of the uni seats would have been contentious. The debate to abolish them was acrimonious. Best to move on. Another boundary review was due, which was expected to boost the Tory lead (+6 seats to minus one for Lab according to The Times). Also not a good idea to revive plural voting.
Churchill had dallied with STV (certainly for the large cities) after 1951 (possible overture and then union with the Libs) but the Tories were having none of that!
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by pl on Jul 11, 2021 10:42:24 GMT
The Bow Group had proposed in 1953 that the university seats should be revived for the HoL but that was a non-starter. Neither main party wanted to see an elected or partially elected HoL. The Tories had only just scraped to power in 1951 (Labour winning the popular vote, and probably so even if you allowed for the four unopposed returns in Northern Ireland). The return of the uni seats would have been contentious. The debate to abolish them was acrimonious. Best to move on. Another boundary review was due, which was expected to boost the Tory lead (+6 seats to minus one for Lab according to The Times). Also not a good idea to revive plural voting. Churchill had dallied with STV (certainly for the large cities) after 1951 (possible overture and then union with the Libs) but the Tories were having none of that! The university seats made sense in the days before universal suffrage. It was just another criteria - alongside property ownership- which allowed you to vote. I'm guessing that pre-universal male suffrage, quite a few graduates who had taken holy orders and/or were academics (a reasonable proportion of graduates at the time) would not have otherwise have had the right to vote. Plural voting was also quite common with the business vote. In the modern age it is an anarchonism, of course. |
|
