• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State

Woman's Party Leaders

1917-1925: Emmeline Pankhurst
1925-1928: Adela Pankhurst
Party affiliates with Labour
1928-1944: Adela Pankhurst
1944-1950: Eveline Lowe
1950-1958: Barbara Castle
1958-1973: Dorothy Rees
1973-1984: Judith Hart
1984-1998: Gwyneth Dunwoody
1998-2012: Hilary Armstrong
2012-present: Stella Creasey

The recent visit of the Danish Prime Minister to the United Kingdom has seen them visit all the usual locations for a foreign dignitary, but a more unusual visit has shed some light onto a party that, despite having a fair number of MPs, and being on the verge of celebrating its centenary, is generally unknown by most people. The ringing endorsement from a foreign head of state notwithstanding, many might be wondering 'Just who are the Woman's Party?'

The story of the Woman's Party begins as the story of a family--the Pankhursts. After finally securing the right for women to vote, Emmeline Pankhurst, not one to rest on her laurels, set up a party devoted to the 'advancement of women in thought, word, and deed'. While the party could have easily fizzled out after its first election--gaining its first MP, in the new constituency of Smethwick, was a close-run thing, and depended on the candidate getting Labour support to stand against Ernest Maysay-Thompson--the new party was largely kept going by Emmeline's daughter, Adela.
While she and her mother had had some political differences in the past, they had eventually come to a reconciliation, and Adela would go on to be the Party's first MP after her older sister Christabel turned the offer down.

The party persisted with a small handful of MPs until 1928, by which time Adela had succeeded her now-deceased mother to the leadership. Realising that the party could not survive on its own, Adela began bargaining with Labour leader Arthur Henderson for some kind of deal similar to that of the Co-operative Party, who had affiliated with Labour a year before. After long hours of negotiation, Adela managed to secure an affiliation with a permanent seat for the party leader on the NEC, on the condition (stipulated by Henderson as a counterbalance) that the Co-operatives got a representative as well. This deal meant that Woman's Party candidates stand for all intents and purposes as Labour candidates, which has obviously decreased their prominence in the eyes of the average voter, but increased the range of resources available to the party.

With the party following her into Labour's embrace, Adela retained leadership, despite the scandalised protests of her sister Christabel, who complained that this 'alliance with the Socialists' had 'devastated mother's legacy'. Her Women's Advancement Party would remain a thorn in Adela's side until Christabel's death, but never reached any kind of prominent status, quickly dwindling due to the limit of Christabel's resources. However, Adela was far from being a pliant tool of the Labour leadership, running the Woman's Party very much her own way. While her views aligned with Henderson's, her idiosyncratic political journey began to cause trouble for the Labour leadership, and many began muttering against her after she whipped her MPs to vote against Clynes' attempts to nationalise the Manchester Ship Canal. It is likely that there would have been a contested leadership election after the Second Great War, but fate intervened, and Adela was killed by an unexploded bomb after visiting her constituency.

Eveline Lowe, the party's third leader, was placed in the party by Bevan in order to bring it more in line with the rest of the Labour Party. Lowe set to the task with gusto, quietly removing those whose views strayed too far from the Labour leadership, but being careful not to weed out too many of the experienced old guard. After she resigned due to ill health, many speculated on who the next leader would be. Thanks to Lowe's reforms, may were expecting a fresh face in charge of the party, but few would have guessed that victory would go to such a callow candidate. For Barbara Castle, though, this was all part of the plan.

Castle is well known to most, but few are aware that she was the first member of an affiliated party to become the Labour leader. Having ascended to the leadership of the Woman's Party, she began planning her further ascension, but many in the party still bear her good will, citing her as one of the best leaders the Woman's Party ever had. Indeed, her Equal Pay Act fulfilled one of the party's longest-standing aims, as well as, of course, her ascension to become the first female PM. However, many at the time disliked her switch to become a mainstream Labour MP in order to become leader, and perennial questions about the appropriation of party funds to her leadership campaign have never been settled. Of course, nearly any leader would look good compared to Castle's successor.

In a tense leadership contest, the largely unknown Dorothy Rees took the leadership, beating out party grandee Edith Summerskill and young Turk Mervyn Pike. Unfortunately, it turned out that Rees, far from heralding a new era, was largely out of her depth with regards to leadership, and while Castle's tenure as PM acted as a mask for these issues, by 1968 the structural rot was obvious. Apathetic campaigning, a highly indecisive leadership, and a severe funding gap had created a period of decline for the Woman's Party. The cherry on the cake was an inability to remove Rees from office--the only prospective challenger, Elaine Burton, was given a life peerage before she could stand, ostensibly for services to sports. In reality, this was a clear attempt to preserve Rees in office by Dick Taverne, who needed allies on an NEC heavily opposed to his attempts at privatisation, and after his untimely fall, Rees was swiftly ousted. The problems she created remained.

The poor situation began to be reversed, slowly, under Hart, who's main focus was restoring prestige within the Labour Party. This strategy, after nearly fifteen years of rubber-stamping the Labour leader, was slow, but eventually yielded results, with Hart retiring on a high after getting the fiery Maggie Roberts the position of Shadow Minister for Science, the party's first cabinet member since Castle. However, Gwyneth Dunwoody's tactics, continued by Armstrong, of building a new campaigning base by bringing the party back to a focus on female equality and recruiting canvassers at universities was what really brought the party back from the brink. Not only did this strategy bring the party above 10 seats within Labour for the first time since the death of Adela, it also brought new blood back into the party with an army of devoted young campaigners, including a young Brigid Toksvig--hence her recent visit to the party headquarters and endorsement.

Her visit could not have come at a better time for the party--Stella Creasey's strategy has focused on increasing the party's prominence, and what better way than a state visit? Many are calling her a second Adela Pankhurst, and she certainly fits one of Pankhurst's qualities--her recent Hubbub battle with NI Labour leader Boyd Black over abortion laws was ferocious. While the party is having some issues over trans rights, with some traditionalists claiming the female-only clause for members disqualify transwomen, the party has never been this well-known or this successful. The centenary celebrations being organised, featuring 'an alternative leader's debate' between Creasey, Unionist Women's Group chair Caroline Lucas, Democratic Liberal Secretary for Gender Equality Margaret Smith, Plaid Cymru leader Bethan Sayed, and Commonweal Party Speaker Theresa Brasier, only go to show how far the party have gone with Emmeline Pankhurst's dream.

--This article was written by William Hague for The Daily Standard. To see more engaging content, Visit Our Website
 
Very fun. The issue, of course, is that the Women's Party was only set up because the Tories wanted a way to repay the right-wing members of the Pankhurst family for their role in the war effort, which would just so happen to also help make the Tories look like the party for women - an image which stuck, for quite a few reasons. So starting off with an electoral pact with Labour requires quite a major handwave.

Also, Adela's falling-out with Emmeline and Christabel was permanent before the War even started, so I can't see her coming back to mend bridges, still less can I see the Women's Party existing if there was a chance of Adela being the candidate. I also can't see Adela pushing for a closer relationship with the Labour Party - she was too much of a purist for that.
 
Very fun. The issue, of course, is that the Women's Party was only set up because the Tories wanted a way to repay the right-wing members of the Pankhurst family for their role in the war effort, which would just so happen to also help make the Tories look like the party for women - an image which stuck, for quite a few reasons. So starting off with an electoral pact with Labour requires quite a major handwave.

Yeah, tbh that bit is quite implausible. I probably should have started from a PoD instead of starting from an idea and justifying it.

Also, Adela's falling-out with Emmeline and Christabel was permanent before the War even started, so I can't see her coming back to mend bridges, still less can I see the Women's Party existing if there was a chance of Adela being the candidate. I also can't see Adela pushing for a closer relationship with the Labour Party - she was too much of a purist for that.

The PoD is that Adela doesn't have the same falling out with her mother, and turns to the right like she did in OTL much less severely.
 
Last edited:
Years of Rage

1933-1937: Al Smith (Democratic)
1932 (with John Nance Garner) def. Herbert Hoover (Republican)
1937-1941: Hamilton Fish III (Republican)
1936 (with Warren E. Green) def. Al Smith (Democratic), Huey P. Long (Union)
1941-1953: Huey P. Long (Democratic)
1940 (with Floyd B. Olson) def. Hamilton Fish III (Republican), John Nance Garner ('Real' Democratic)
1944 (with Harry F. Byrd) def. Wendell Willkie (Independent, cross-endorsed by Republicans and Progressives)
1948 (with Harry F. Byrd) def. Earl Warren (Republican), Henry A. Wallace (Progressive)

1953-1961: Gerald L.K. Smith (Democratic)
1952 (with Estes Kefauver) def. Robert M. La Follette Jr. (Republican & Progressive)
1956 (with Estes Kefauver) def. Vito Marcantonio (Republican), Earl Long (New Union)

1961-1961: Earl Long (New Union)
1960 (with Sam Yorty) def. Estes Kefauver (Democratic), John Abt (Republican)
1961-1965: Sam Yorty (New Union)
1965-1973: Ted Walker (Democratic)
1964 (with Evan Mecham) def. Sam Yorty (Unionist), Paul Robeson (Republican)
1968 SUSPENDED DUE TO VIOLENCE


So this is an idea I've been ruminating over for a bit, before remembering its basically already been done by Vulture on AH.com, which I only know about via @Japhy.

Basically this is a TL where ya boi Long becomes President, initially on a very progressive platform, but steadily ossifying into corruption and crypto-fascism, until he stands aside and then things kick into high gear under President Smith. The Republicans meanwhile become a lightning rod for the oppositionist left, and thence becomes a target of attack in the government's anti-communist purges.

Smith's extreme white supremacist rhetoric leads to Earl Long launching an imitation of his brother's 1936 ploy on an essentially watered down and more economically leftish platform but on eventually gaining the Presidency, promptly dies. He is succeeded by Yorty who cleaves far more rigidly to the consensus established by Smith, and it comes as no surprise when the Democrats return to power.

With left-wing ideals seemingly impossible to achieve within the electoral system, many begin to look in other, more violent directions...
 
Hero of Nijmegen

1949-1957: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Democratic)
1948 (with Harry S. Truman) def. Douglas MacArthur (Republican), Henry A. Wallace (Progressive/American Labor)
1952 (with Claude Pepper) def. Harold Stassen (Republican), Vito Marcantonio (Labor)

1957-1965: Hugh Scott (Republican)
1956 (with Arthur B. Langlie) def. Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic), Averell Harriman ('Yankeecrat'), Walter Reuther (Labor)
1960 (with Arthur B. Langlie) def. George Smathers (Democratic), George Meany (Labor)

1965-1969: Joseph Kennedy (Democratic)
1964 (with Nelson Rockefeller) def. Milton Young (Republican), Victor G. Reuther (Labor)
1969-: Ron Reagan (Labor)
1968 (with Dan K. Moore) def. Joseph Kennedy (Democratic), Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)

Basically, the 1948 Dem Eisenhower plan (of doubtful truth) goes through, and the Civil Rights Plank flounders. Dems stay rooted South, Republicans become a party of liberal centrism, and the labor movement combine with Northern Dem splinters to get the Senator and former SAG President into the White House.
 
Last edited:
That’s not really what my point was. I’m saying some of the founding members were socialist, many of whom being German-American immigrants.

Like this guy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weydemeyer
Some, sure. But the party as a whole was decidedly geared towards business, especially by the 1870s.

And I'll point out that in the 1850s, the Democrats didn't have a lack of utopian socialists either, with Robert Owen's son sitting as a Democratic congressman and then Ambassador.
 
Some, sure. But the party as a whole was decidedly geared towards business, especially by the 1870s.

And I'll point out that in the 1850s, the Democrats didn't have a lack of utopian socialists either, with Robert Owen's son sitting as a Democratic congressman and then Ambassador.
You’re moving the goal posts again. My point is about the party’s foundation not its development twenty years later.

And the Democratic Party having socialists in it is not the same as having founding members being socialist.
 
Abolitionism sure. But to call the Republicans in the 1860s socialist is laughable.

Horace Greeley, who reputedly coined the name of the Republican Party when it was founded, would disagree with you. The Tribune newspaper he was editor of published 500 articles by Karl Marx, and he was a keen proponent of associationism, which is a kind of pre-Marx utopian socialism, to the point a utopian colony he was involved in was incorporated as the City of Greeley in the 1880s. One of the writers he hired at the Tribune, another initial utopian socialist Charles Anderson Dana, was Assistant Secretary of War from 1863 to 1865. Dana is actually quite instructive about the Republicans transformation after the war, by the 1890s he was a conservative and his newspaper The Sun had gone from being aimed at the working class to defending the business community.
 
You’re moving the goal posts again. My point is about the party’s foundation not its development twenty years later.

And the Democratic Party having socialists in it is not the same as having founding members being socialist.
Well, you moved the goalposts by moving the point from "the Republicans was founded by socialists" to "some were socialists".

I don't think seeing the Republicans as Left in the 1850s beyond a relative sense compared to the Democrats is a fair assessment.

John D. Rockefeller, the man who would become the most wealthy American in the 19th century, supported the Republicans. Its way more complicated than Left and Right, and the issues back then do not gel well with present issues.
 
Back
Top