| Churchill Wins the 1945 General Election | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 16 2013, 07:07 PM (278 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 16 2013, 07:07 PM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
What would it take for Winston Churchill to win the 1945 British election instead of Attlee? |
![]() |
|
| John | Mar 16 2013, 11:45 PM Post #2 |
|
More votes?! Spoiler: click to toggle
Edited by John, Mar 16 2013, 11:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 17 2013, 02:15 AM Post #3 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It would be extremely difficult, given the association of the Conservatives with the failures of the 1930s and the vast public support for the immediate implementation of the Beveridge Report. Whilst the margin in the popular vote between Labour and the Conversatives and Liberals is only just over 1 million, the swing to Labour was massive and the number of seats gained similarly large. There would need to be a different 1944 and 1945, resulting in the Conservatives wholeheartedly supporting the implementation of the Beveridge Report. The electorate wasn't so stuck on nationalization and other issues, but were in favour of housing, social security, and health reforms. One angle that could be taken is to emphasize education, which could possibly go some way towards stealing some of the thunder of the Labour Party as the party of the future. Not having Attlee around could divide Labour slightly, but even Stafford Cripps was quite popular in some circles. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 17 2013, 03:00 AM Post #4 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
As Johnny Carson would say, you're wrong, three-martini-lunch-breath! It could be accomplished with no extra votes provided a good portion of Labour stayed home. (Not very likely.) Would there be enough time from the beginning of 1945 to organize proper support? From what I understand, Churchill wasn't opposed to many of the plans himself, and did a terrible job of campaigning in the summer. I don't really see any way to overcome the association with appeasement, though. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 17 2013, 06:33 AM Post #5 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
More time wouldn't really have a great impact and Churchill wasn't seen as the peacetime answer in addition to the Conservatives being on the nose. The issue of getting voters to turn out or stay home wasn't a big one in Britain at the time and the vast majority of the military vote went for Labour. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 17 2013, 07:39 PM Post #6 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Well, there go my plans to start the 1945 game in January so Churchill can continue.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 19 2013, 07:45 AM Post #7 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The path I took in previous 1945 games whereby Churchill gets back in by around 1949 is perhaps the best case scenario. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Mar 19 2013, 02:14 PM Post #8 |
![]()
The General
|
Then we can start in 1949, in the middle of the Tito-Stalin split.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 19 2013, 09:55 PM Post #9 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The period from 45-49 has far too many delicious opportunities to be ignored. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |







8:40 AM Jul 11