Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10975360-20131216191302/@comment-10975360-20131220113622

Morrison did try to challenfe him in 1945, this is well documented. If morrison had have been able to hold a formal leadership election he couuld quite concievably have beaten attlee. Morrison had a power base in the 1940's, his power waned after the 1950 election and his disasterous period as foreign secretary. In 1945 he was a strong figure.

Churchill would have gone to 1950, 1949 was a bad year for whoever was in government - economic difficulties, devaluation - 1950 would have been good, particularly if he waited until June or July, with the korean war going on he would have been able to be a war leader once more. He might even win an election with the backdrop of korea, but i think the likelihood is a labour majority and morrison as prime minister.

A morrison led labour government starting in 1950 would be a very, VERY interesting scenario, he would have had an improving economy to work with and would have probably been able to lead a much more stable government than that of Attlee.

Bevan's reputation grew immensly as health secretary, before that he was a left wing radical. Labour would not have elected someone with no cabinet experience leader in this situation. the only times labour did were neil kinnock - out of desperation to unite the party - and tony blair - because there was no prominent party figure left who had served in government - labour would have elected morrison as leader. Greenwood was too old, and he himself supported morrison in the leadership question in 1945.

Churchill would have been forced to adopt most of the beveridge report by his own party, even if he himself had not particular love for it. He would have spent more money on housing and less on nationalisation - he may still have nationalised the railways, after all the conservative led coalition nationalised the airlines in the 1930's,