Britain after 8 years of Attlee and 4 of Gaitskell-what follows?

[Yokai Man]

In a world where the Labour Party carried on being in power til ‘57 and Bevan becomes leader after Gaitskell is no longer PM,who gets to be leader after he dies in ‘60? Would it be Freeman,Brown,Sunny Jim or our boy Harold?

Also on an unrelated note,how would Eden run as PM? Can the Profumo scandal still happen?If not,how long can Anthony go on?

Asking for a possible thing I might make,in which Attlee calls the election in 1952 and Labour,while not doing anything wrong,gets more tired and doesn’t know what to do anymore to remain fresh in the electorate’s mind,people starting to think that the new Jerusalem was just a dream that would never truly be accomplished in our cruel world...

 

[Nomad]

On the face of it, a 1960 contest would look fairly similar to 1963 did IOTL-Brown would still probably have the defects he had IOTL (though it would be interesting to see if more time as a government minister changed these in anyway), and Wilson would still have the advantages of being a unifying and telegenic candidate, and he would probably be in an even stronger position due to the fact he was an ally of the recently deceased leader.

The caveat I would add though is that much would depend on who was appointed to the cabinet/shadow cabinet in the time since the PoD. You might see some names become more prominent than they were IOTL, and then subsequently challenge for the leadership.

 

[Oppo]

Given that he wouldn’t make his disastrous Suez speech, Alfred Robens probably remains the frontrunner for the party leadership. Many maintain to this day that he would have become Prime Minister instead of Wilson IOTL.

A Robens leadership should be interesting, given the man’s paternalistic tendencies and eventual membership in the Conservative Party.

 

[Yokai Man]

Given that he wouldn’t make his disastrous Suez speech, Alfred Robens probably remains the frontrunner for the party leadership. Many maintain to this day that he would have become Prime Minister instead of Wilson IOTL.

A Robens leadership should be interesting, given the man’s paternalistic tendencies and eventual membership in the Conservative Party.

It would also mean the social reforms of OTL don’t really happen as much as they did,given Robens’s views I suppose.

 

[Yokai Man]

On the face of it, a 1960 contest would look fairly similar to 1963 did IOTL-Brown would still probably have the defects he had IOTL (though it would be interesting to see if more time as a government minister changed these in anyway), and Wilson would still have the advantages of being a unifying and telegenic candidate, and he would probably be in an even stronger position due to the fact he was an ally of the recently deceased leader.

The caveat I would add though is that much would depend on who was appointed to the cabinet/shadow cabinet in the time since the PoD. You might see some names become more prominent than they were IOTL, and then subsequently challenge for the leadership.

I was thinking Freeman or Sunny Jim,since they were close to Bevan ideologically and politically at this time and would probably have had a role in the Shadow Government.That and they have more charisma,I guess.

 

[Comisario]

I was thinking Freeman or Sunny Jim,since they were close to Bevan ideologically and politically at this time and would probably have had a role in the Shadow Government.That and they have more charisma,I guess.

If Freeman is in Parliament ITTL, I suppose it is plausible. James Callaghan, though, was not close to Bevan politically or ideologically at this point and had not associated with the left of the party since the late ‘40s. He was always instinctively on the right, given his social views and his lack of enthusiasm for Marxism as an ideology, and was thus solidly in the Gaitskellite social democratic camp for most of his career. In a scenario where Gaitskell has been PM, Callaghan would be even more ingrained in that side of the party.

 

[Yokai Man]

If Freeman is in Parliament ITTL, I suppose it is plausible. James Callaghan, though, was not close to Bevan politically or ideologically at this point and had not associated with the left of the party since the late ‘40s. He was always instinctively on the right, given his social views and his lack of enthusiasm for Marxism as an ideology, and was thus solidly in the Gaitskellite social democratic camp for most of his career. In a scenario where Gaitskell has been PM, Callaghan would be even more ingrained in that side of the party.

Would Robens be a better choice for the next Labour leader? Or could someone else be leader,like say Crossman or Castle?

Idk,which would be more realistic should be the one that gets written in the thing.The problem is that of Eden and if the Profumo scandal still happen.If not,then does Labour have a chance against him without an alternative scandal happening(say,The Duchess of Argyll one or Super Mac being destroyed after someone finds about his wife and her affairs with Boothby)?

Cuz if so,I have to rethink things a bit.Say,would Eden have made British troops take part in the Vietnam War?That could be an interesting way for him to fall from power and be hated like OTL,but in a different way.

 

[Comisario]

Would Robens be a better choice for the next Labour leader? Or could someone else be leader,like say Crossman or Castle?

Crossman could have taken it, but it’s dependent on how the Bevanites have fared in government for much longer and whether Crossman himself would be willing to step forward. He was an intellectual who eschewed easy labels, which might make him a suitable compromise candidate between the two ends of the internal Labour spectrum.

Castle, by virtue of her gender, is still likely out of the running in 1960. So, I’d say no on her.

Idk,which would be more realistic should be the one that gets written in the thing.The problem is that of Eden and if the Profumo scandal still happen.If not,then does Labour have a chance against him without an alternative scandal happening(say,The Duchess of Argyll one or Super Mac being destroyed after someone finds about his wife and her affairs with Boothby)?

I imagine this slightly older Eden, without Suez hanging over him, will have a cabinet reflecting his more radical domestic ambitions. That will include people like John Profumo, but the butterflies created by this POD of having an election in ‘52 makes it extremely difficult to say whether he would be involved in the same scandal at the same time with the same people. As you go on to say, there’s a wealth of material to work with when it comes to scandals in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s on the Conservative side, so use your imagination and see what you think most appropriate. Should they come to pass, depending on his personal popularity, you could see him out on his arse or he could weather the storms and carry on having shaved off the “liabilities” of his cabinet.

Cuz if so,I have to rethink things a bit.Say,would Eden have made British troops take part in the Vietnam War?That could be an interesting way for him to fall from power and be hated like OTL,but in a different way.

Whether we enter Vietnam or not depends massively on the economic situation in Britain as well as our ability to project militarily on a global scale. The former needn’t be all that different, seeing as the same mechanisms and drives of consensus economics would remain. The latter, however, depends on Suez - does it happen in this world? If so, how does it proceed? Does Britain become militarily involved? These questions would need to be answered before even considering intervention in Vietnam.

 

[Yokai Man]

Crossman could have taken it, but it’s dependent on how the Bevanites have fared in government for much longer and whether Crossman himself would be willing to step forward. He was an intellectual who eschewed easy labels, which might make him a suitable compromise candidate between the two ends of the internal Labour spectrum.

Castle, by virtue of her gender, is still likely out of the running in 1960. So, I’d say no on her.


I imagine this slightly older Eden, without Suez hanging over him, will have a cabinet reflecting his more radical domestic ambitions. That will include people like John Profumo, but the butterflies created by this POD of having an election in ‘52 makes it extremely difficult to say whether he would be involved in the same scandal at the same time with the same people. As you go on to say, there’s a wealth of material to work with when it comes to scandals in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s on the Conservative side, so use your imagination and see what you think most appropriate. Should they come to pass, depending on his personal popularity, you could see him out on his arse or he could weather the storms and carry on having shaved off the “liabilities” of his cabinet.


Whether we enter Vietnam or not depends massively on the economic situation in Britain as well as our ability to project militarily on a global scale. The former needn’t be all that different, seeing as the same mechanisms and drives of consensus economics would remain. The latter, however, depends on Suez - does it happen in this world? If so, how does it proceed? Does Britain become militarily involved? These questions would need to be answered before even considering intervention in Vietnam.

I was thinking that Gaitskell lets the UN decide what is best to do like he proposed OTL.

Given that Boothby’s scandal with the Krays was downplayed by the government, the opposition and the press,who covered it up as fast as they could,it’s kinda hard to make the scandal go in the public and actually mean something.

Idk,maybe Private Eye gets a scoop,doesn’t respect the press ban/covert up and goes deeper,showing the links between Dorothy,Boothby,Kray,Driberg- the whole lot. I don’t know how to make it possible tho.

 

[Yokai Man]

If one wanted the scandal to become public knowledge in a big way, you don't handle it from the Boothby or Driberg end. You handle it from the Kray's end. God knows, they weren't discreet, and their protection rackets were less than subtle. No-one minded while the victims didn't matter, but Ronnie in particular was noted for his temper, and his penchant for making a point. It would not be difficult for them to overstep the mark. Having Driberg murdered, for example, or at least given a Dagenham smile, is by no means out of the question, especially if not given the respect Ronnie felt was his due.

As it was, the Krays were allowed to flourish, and the Powers That Be simply didn't give a damn about the unimportant people. Provided the Krays kept Celebrity status and The Firm separate, no-one worried too much. But the Krays really didn't appreciate the distinction, and considered themselves (not without reason) above the law.

That would be interesting.Thanks for the idea.