Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10975360-20131216191302/@comment-32656-20131220172313

More hunting, taking out "Morrison," I find accounts of these events. Blaming the wrong person, Sam.

In 1945, it was Laski and Wilkinson that attempted to stop Attlee - a man he could not stand - from becoming PM. He was the Chairman of the party at the time. Apparently, part of their party guidelines indicated that a leader be chosen in the house for each legislative session - i.e. after elections or changes in government - and he wanted this done in 1945. Problem there is obvious - people voted for Attlee to be PM, not someone else. Laski seems to have thought Morrison would win any such vote. Attlee disregarded this concept - doesn't seem to have been the first Labour leader to do this, either - and accepted the invitation of the King to form a new government.

Morrison seems, by all accounts, to have had little to nothing to do with this. Some of his supporters, yes, but not the man himself. Did he oppose it? No - he could possibly have benefited, though the likelihood of that is so small to be considered lunacy. But was it his move? No.

The idea that someone who had just been elected PM would be removed from the leadership of the party is truly near-insane, lol.

1947, same concept. The senior cabinet officials - again, not led by Morrison - attempted to oust him. Seems to have been led by Bevan and Crips. Fell apart in no small part because none could agree on which of them should succeed him.

Neither "attempt" had enough support or backing to go anywhere. That's why you can't even find references to it - except in passing in some - in even biographies of these men.

So inconsequential that it's not even funny. And, imo, shows just how little support any of them had. No wonder none of them succeeded Attlee or came even close.

To say that it is "well-documented" is an exaggeration, at best. Same goes for Morrison as a "strong figure." Man was even only given the "back" posts in Cabinet, and failed horribly in other roles - he had the position he did out of longevity, not support.

Again: Attlee paid part of his majority by taking five years. And who is to say that Churchill would have had the same economic problems? I very much doubt he would have.

Labour has elected those with no such experience as leader on several occasions, imo. Means nothing.

Far as I can determine, Greenwood did not support the 1945 action. Would know for sure, but the book database I use is not working quite "right" at the moment. At a minimum, that would make very little sense considering his prior support for Attlee in 1935 and during the war.

Again: Churchill and the Conservatives supported the Beveridge Report. Cannot say that any clearer than that.