|
|
Post by stodge on Jul 12, 2024 8:46:47 GMT
On April 25th 1953, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden died of complications following botched bile duct surgery.
This was a heavy blow to the Conservative Government and a personal shock for his mentor and long time political friend and ally, Winston Churchill.
On June 23rd 1953, Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United KIngdom, died of a stroke in 10 Downing Street. Some claim he had never recovered from the death of Eden and the pressure of Eden's funeral and then the coronation of the new Queen.
Who would take over the leadership of the Conservative Party and become the new Prime Minister?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 12, 2024 9:02:41 GMT
On June 23rd 1953, Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United KIngdom, died of a stroke in 10 Downing Street. Just three weeks after the Coronation of the new Queen, this was a bitter blow for a nation now forced to mourn its wartime leader. Anthony Eden was set to become Prime Minister but four days later he too was dead following complications from botched bile duct surgery. Who would take over the leadership of the Conservative Party and become the new Prime Minister? Richard Austin |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,886 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 12, 2024 10:07:41 GMT
On June 23rd 1953, Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United KIngdom, died of a stroke in 10 Downing Street. Just three weeks after the Coronation of the new Queen, this was a bitter blow for a nation now forced to mourn its wartime leader. Anthony Eden was set to become Prime Minister but four days later he too was dead following complications from botched bile duct surgery. Who would take over the leadership of the Conservative Party and become the new Prime Minister? Richard Austin Parlour politics involving the butler is very Christie and demands a Scot to come in (stage left) from the print shop with a butcher's knife. |
|
|
|
Post by stodge on Jul 12, 2024 20:20:50 GMT
R A Butler would have been the obvious choice to succeed Churchill in a timeline in which both Churchill and Eden died in 1953.
Butler would presumably have sought his own mandate and won an election in 1954 as easily as Eden did in our timeline in 1955. We know the death of his wife affected Butler badly and how would he have handled the Suez question? Who would have become Foreign Secretary after Eden - could MacMillan have become FS in 1953?
Between the "pots and pans" budget in late 1954 and Suez two years later, Butler suffers a number of reverses as Prime Minister and with the coming of Gaitskell to the Labour leadership, it's possible Labour would have recovered more quickly from the 1954 defeat.
Suez is as much a personal disaster for Butler as it was for Eden but Butler refuses to step down and goes to the country in 1958 losing to Gaitskell's Labour.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,886
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 12, 2024 22:21:45 GMT
R A Butler would have been the obvious choice to succeed Churchill in a timeline in which both Churchill and Eden died in 1953. Butler would presumably have sought his own mandate and won an election in 1954 as easily as Eden did in our timeline in 1955. We know the death of his wife affected Butler badly and how would he have handled the Suez question? Who would have become Foreign Secretary after Eden - could MacMillan have become FS in 1953? Between the "pots and pans" budget in late 1954 and Suez two years later, Butler suffers a number of reverses as Prime Minister and with the coming of Gaitskell to the Labour leadership, it's possible Labour would have recovered more quickly from the 1954 defeat. Suez is as much a personal disaster for Butler as it was for Eden but Butler refuses to step down and goes to the country in 1958 losing to Gaitskell's Labour. Why do you suggest a botched Suez under Butler. He would have handled it better or dismantled it before our involvement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2024 7:18:36 GMT
Seasons don't fear the reaper. Nor do the wind and the sun and the rain.
|
|
|
|
Post by stodge on Jul 13, 2024 17:08:17 GMT
R A Butler would have been the obvious choice to succeed Churchill in a timeline in which both Churchill and Eden died in 1953. Butler would presumably have sought his own mandate and won an election in 1954 as easily as Eden did in our timeline in 1955. We know the death of his wife affected Butler badly and how would he have handled the Suez question? Who would have become Foreign Secretary after Eden - could MacMillan have become FS in 1953? Between the "pots and pans" budget in late 1954 and Suez two years later, Butler suffers a number of reverses as Prime Minister and with the coming of Gaitskell to the Labour leadership, it's possible Labour would have recovered more quickly from the 1954 defeat. Suez is as much a personal disaster for Butler as it was for Eden but Butler refuses to step down and goes to the country in 1958 losing to Gaitskell's Labour. Why do you suggest a botched Suez under Butler. He would have handled it better or dismantled it before our involvement. That's a reasonable point and I was being a bit lazy there. I need to do some more research as to how a Butler Government might have handled Nasser - the political and above all psychological impact of a "successful" Suez aren't often considered in counterfactual histories. I'm NOT suggesting British and French troops march to Cairo - perhaps they don't march at all. Suez brought home the reality of the loss of superpower status for Britain and France and the realisation of American economic power. My other thought is absent a Suez issue, how does Hungary play out? There's no question of western intervention - Eisenhower didn't want it and knew it would lead to a nuclear conflict. Attacking Moscow for imperialist actions sounded hollow when British and French troops were in Egypt but if they weren't, Dulles would have been able to use the imperialist argument with much more conviction and it might have carried more weight in the non-aligned world. Would we have seen a more concerted western response such as a larger boycott of the Melbourne Olympics? No one was left in any doubt Europe was divided de facto along the Iron Curtain and that would remain the case for the next 30 years. One of the consequences of Suez in Britain was the realisation in Government the days of Imperial Britain were over and there was an acceptance only Europe and NATO would or could provide military and economic security. Harold Macmillan instigated the process of Britain joining the Common Market when he became Prime Minister with Heath his principal negotiator. Butler had supported the idea of remaining aloof from the emerging Common Market describing the Messina talks in 1955 as "some archaeologocal excavations at an old Sicilian town". I suspect Butler would have continued his disinterest and with no humiliation at Suez, you'd have seen, I think, by the late 50s, an emerging split in the Conservatives (as happened to an extent to Labour in our time) between the Imperialists and the Europeans such as Heath who argued for Britain to engage with new Coal & Steel Community - the precursor to the Common Market. The truth was in 1955 the Empire accounted for 50% of Britain's trade and Europe for only 20%. |
|
