1940 general election goes ahead

[Deleted]

Supposing Churchill had taken the view that he wasn't going to allow the Nazis to disrupt democracy in the UK and called a general election in 1940, five years after the previous general election. After all, by-elections were being held. Perhaps the voting could have been staggered over several days in different parts of the country.

Would the Conservatives have suffered due to the appeasement policy of the outgoing Chamberlain, despite his rapidly declining health (and death) - or would Churchill have won support riding on the back of patriotism, the Dunkirk spirit and a desire for strong leadership in time of war? How would the opposition have reacted and campaigned in the circumstances of the time? Would Labour and the Liberals have been prepared to continue their support for a National government regardless of the result? And supposing Attlee had become Prime Minister: how differently might World War II have turned out?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Can't accept it would have been at all possible to have a general election in the middle of wartime and an invasion threat, with millions in the services and dispersed around the world. There was the 1914-18 precedent for delaying a general election. Churchill had only just taken over from Chamberlain and wasn't leader of the Conservative Party until September. A partisan fight would simply not have been appropriate when national unity was of the essence.

The more interesting question is what would have happened if Hitler had taken the hint from the UK's mutual defence pact with Poland and postponed the invasion; in that case there would probably have been an election in spring 1940. Chamberlain and the National Government would have won with a slightly reduced majority but it would have become even more clear that the National Government was simply the Conservatives with a few allies.

[Deleted]

Agree with DB, how would you organise a FPTP GE with many voters not 'living at home' (for want of a better way to put it !) I know that this was the situation (to a degree) in 1945, but we weren't at war then.

[The Bishop]

Well, not in Europe anymore (ahem)

[neilm]

Feb 22, 2016 10:18:26 GMT @robin said:

Agree with DB, how would you organise a FPTP GE with many voters not 'living at home' (for want of a better way to put it !) I know that this was the situation (to a degree) in 1945, but we weren't at war then.

Would an STV one have been easier to organise?

[carlton43]

Feb 22, 2016 10:18:26 GMT @robin said:

Agree with DB, how would you organise a FPTP GE with many voters not 'living at home' (for want of a better way to put it !) I know that this was the situation (to a degree) in 1945, but we weren't at war then.

So, what is your point then? There were probably more out of Britain in 1945 than 1940. We would have still been tail end of Phoney War and GE would have been easy enough to hold. I think it would have been a large majority for the Conservatives or a complete landslide for a National War Coalition with approved ticket candidates. It would have been a sorter-out with perhaps some of the elderly and the younger officers and TA/Other Reservists (about to be called up) sensibly deciding not to stand and effectively be absentee members whilst on active duty. So there could have been benefits as to the structure and membership of the HOC? 

[carlton43]

Feb 22, 2016 11:09:03 GMT @trident said:

Feb 21, 2016 22:27:09 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Can't accept it would have been at all possible to have a general election in the middle of wartime and an invasion threat, with millions in the services and dispersed around the world. There was the 1914-18 precedent for delaying a general election. Churchill had only just taken over from Chamberlain and wasn't leader of the Conservative Party until September. A partisan fight would simply not have been appropriate when national unity was of the essence.

The more interesting question is what would have happened if Hitler had taken the hint from the UK's mutual defence pact with Poland and postponed the invasion; in that case there would probably have been an election in spring 1940. Chamberlain and the National Government would have won with a slightly reduced majority but it would have become even more clear that the National Government was simply the Conservatives with a few allies.

By-elections were more common in those days, so a look at by-election results from 1938-39 would be a guide to what might have happened.

Seriosly, I don't think they would have been any guide at all. The mind-shift from Munich to the ascendancy of Churchill was massive.

[Deleted]

To go off on a slight tangent, how well did the USA do in ensuring all their armed forces were enfranchised for the 1944 presidential election?