WI 1945 Tory victory in British general election.

WI Tories embrace the Beveridge Report

I'm considering a time line where the Conservative party run on an National Education Service ticket and counter the NHS proposal of the Labour party. Individual opportunities based on merit.

Policies of social security "must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual", with the state securing the service and contributions. The state " should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family". - The Beveridge Report third guiding principle

Click to expand...

There was a planned debate in Parliament on the Report for February 1943 so the Cabinet appointed the Lord President of the Council, Sir John Anderson, to chair a committee to consider the Report and to set out the government's line in the Commons debate. In the Commons debate the government announced they would not implement the Report immediately. The Tory Reform Committee*, consisting of 45 Conservative MPs, demanded the founding of a Ministry of Social Security immediately. At the division at the end of the debate, 97 Labour MPs, 11 Independents, 9 Liberals, 3 Independent Labour Party MPs and 1 Communist voted against the government.[5] A Ministry of Information Home Intelligence report found that after the debate the left-wing section of the public were disappointed but that "an approving minority" thought that the government was correct in waiting until the post-war financial situation were known before making a decision. An opinion poll by the British Institute of Public Opinion found that 29% were satisfied with the government's attitude to the Report; 47% were dissatisfied and 24% "don't knows"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report

Click to expand...

POD this opinion poll is a wake up call to the conservatives.


The four revolutionary measures to combat Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness:

National Health Service 5% of GDP
All treatments to a minimum standard paid for from taxation. More expensive treatment available through private practice. No doctor/dentist can refuse to provide NHS treatment and no more than 25% (time) of his workload can be private work.

National Education Service 5% of GDP plus loans
This would furnish free full-time education for all until the age of 16. This would offer basic education in reading, writing, arithematic, science and either the history of Britain or a modern language. You would also get an option to start to learn a local trade or join the cadets. From the ages of eleven to thirteen individual opportunities would arise to qualify for scholarships (fees, boarding and educational expenses) to public schools and new Technical Schools. There would be three chances to sit an entrance exam (one a year for either Tech or Public). Further scholarships would be available to anyone who qualified for higher education, but these fees would have to be repaid out of earnings when you started work (interest charged at base rate only). This would also apply to university places, PhDs etc. started before the age of twenty two or within two years of demobilisation from the armed forces.

National Employment Service
A minimum income available from taxation based on number and age of dependants. Up until retirement age there is a requirement to work for this.

National Housing Service
To build social housing to a minimum standard of amenities and density of population. Enough for all who want it. Alongside higher quality private provision.

The aim is for a fair start and a safety net for those that are unlucky. Anything more would be wasteful.


Seeking common ground with French Christian Democrats the Tories warm to the ideas of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schuman and get in on the ground floor of the European Coal and Steel Community.

*Anything like the 'one nation' Tory Reform Group?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory_Reform_Group

Anything? Anyone?

A few (29) have viewed, but this doesn't seem to stir the blood. A Tory 'lean' welfare state? surely there are some comments on this.

We are not thne masters yet

I suspect it was more than the Tories attitude to Beveridge that lost them the election. The Tories were largely held responsible for Munich and the Norway fiasco, the war had brought about a great deal of social mobility, industry was largely state directed (not the same as state controlled) people were collectively minded and didn't want a repeat of 1918 with a return to class conflict i.e pay cuts and unemployment when demobolisation occured. A lot of servicemen voted Labour to get demobbed.

However suppose the Tories took a more progressive line accepting in 1945 what they accepted in 1951 and there was no Gestapo speech from Churchill.

There are fears that Churchill wants to carry on the conflict and attack Russia maybe unfounded but unrest grows in the ranks. There are demob riots. The Tories face a financial crisis when lend lease ends. There is growing unrest. Rationing is abolished and there is a feeling that the working classes are being made to pay for the crisis whilst the rich are prospering.

Strikes erupt and the Tories try to implement order 1308? banning strikes but there is no consensus with the TUC and no voluntary pay restraint. Troops are used in strikes in essential services and there are mutinies in the ranks.

Britain becomes involved in a war to hold on to India which becomes increasingly unpopular and wars in Greece and Palestine place an increasing burden on the economy and there is no bipartisan consensus on foreign policy. The Berlin crisis results in a limited war in Europe.

The Tories ditch Churchill and replace hime with Eden in the hopes of regaining popularity but narrowly lose in 1950 to a divided Labour Party.
Given that they sorted themselves out regained power in 1951 and ruled for 13 years. The Tories were better off losing in 1945 as they would have been in 1992

perfectgeneral said:

National Housing Service
To build social housing to a minimum standard of amenities and density of population. Enough for all who want it. Alongside higher quality private provision.

Click to expand...

I know very little about postwar Britain, but couldn't this lead to awfully designed, cheap, crime-ridden, poverty-stricken towerblocks?
I'm thinking of what happened to Ballymun, here.

Wiki said:

The flats were built in the 1960s under the authority of Neil Blaney, the then Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government. They incorporated the best social housing practice of the time. The first tenants moved in between August 1966 and December 1966. By February 1969, when the National Building Agency's contract for Ballymun ceased and control of Ballymun was handed back to Dublin City Council, there was a total of 3,021 dwellings in the new Ballymun, all of which was social housing under the control of the Irish state through Dublin City Council. The tenants primarily came from the most deprived areas of inner city Dublin, places where the depth of poverty could not be conceived of in modern Ireland. They arrived in Ballymun to some of the finest social housing in Europe, having central heating and other rarities of the day in their homes.
However, there was a profound lack of amenities throughout the area - initially the only shop was a van, for example - and, combined with a lack of trees, and estates built in cul de sacs, ghettoisation developed. By the recession of the 1980s, Ballymun was infested with social problems, most especially alcohol and other drug abuse. Although the public image of Ballymun has changed somewhat since the beginning of the Ballymun regeneration project in 1997, the social problems in Ballymun ensure it remains a remarkably different world to, for example, neighbouring Glasnevin.

Click to expand...

Cromm Crúaich said:

I know very little about postwar Britain, but couldn't this lead to awfully designed, cheap, crime-ridden, poverty-stricken towerblocks?
I'm thinking of what happened to Ballymun, here.

Click to expand...

Never mind just Ballymun... see, um, much of South / SE / East London.

Anyway - this one is interesting. Having no 'Gestapo' speech may help out particularly. From what I've read, though, there had been something of a cultural shift at this point, and the Tories were seen generally as responsible for the failed appeasement policy, as Andrew Hudson pointed out above.

Yes, Churchill himself was much respected due to his wartime leadership, but the Tories as a whole didn't look promising. Remember, by this point they have been in office for almost 15 years, with little to recommend them - and many senior members of Labour have been able to get past the 'lack of experience' problem due to their positions in the wartime Coalition.

These are all problems needing to be solved. Labour simply looked, to many, like it was more able to 'win the peace' as it were.

perfectgeneral

Interesting idea but would Churchill, now a die-hard conservative rather than the radical he once was, have accepted this? Also:

a) Could you be sure of keeping to the various budget limits and supplying the planned services? Tend to get things costing more than planned. Also have the danger of something like the system in recent years where massive amounts are spent 'ensuring' efficiency.

b) The restrictions on private medicine and forcing all doctors and dentists to work for the NHS sounds a lot more draconian than what I believe Labour managed with the medical profession and they had a hell of a fight getting that. Would this be practical without a hell of a lot of opposition? [Not to mention a lot of back door cheating or medical staff moving elsewhere].

c) The educational changes made would be a good imprpvement on what happened pre-war but would there be the willingness [and ability] to fund such a major programme? Especially considering the dire economical position of Britain post-war.

d) Would a Churchill government be able to avoid trying to hold onto India with the resultant impact in terms of huge costs and deep unpopularity both at home and abroad.

I would agree with Andrew that the Conservatives were probably lucky to be defeated in 45, both giving them time to adjust to Britain's post war conditions and have Labour carry Britain through the difficult post war years.

Steve

The point about social housing is already addressed by the standard of density and amenities set by statute. No tower blocks (too high a density) and no sink estates (more amenities). Homes fit for heroes.

The Indian issue is one I'll have to research before I can comment.

Renewal of government is possible. A shift in leadership and policy can bring about as much change as a change of party in power. Although I am not convinced that Churchill had (or even could) lost his Radical tendencies. He was still good friends with Sinclair (Liberal) and had more enemies in his own party than without.

SteveP:
The restrictions on private medicine and forcing all doctors and dentists to work for the NHS sounds a lot more draconian than what I believe Labour managed with the medical profession and they had a hell of a fight getting that. Would this be practical without a hell of a lot of opposition? [Not to mention a lot of back door cheating or medical staff moving elsewhere].

Click to expand...

Any dissent would reflect poorly on the doctors, not the Tories. And if the NHS fails it is no big problem for them. They will have proved Beveridge's reforms unworkable, which will discredit any attempt by labour to pursue this policy. If it does work, they have a better NHS than we do. More consistently ethical and more affordable in the long run. The 5% of GDP is a cap to define the minimum standard of care that the NHS will provide. Conservatives and Liberals are well in favour of premium healthcare services as a free market. If the minimum can be provided for less than 5% of GDP, so much the better.

SteveP:
The educational changes made would be a good improvement on what happened pre-war but would there be the willingness [and ability] to fund such a major programme? Especially considering the dire economical position of Britain post-war.

Click to expand...

RAButler had the legislation already in place for the Tripartite System of education. This interpretation is cheaper, aside from the loans. Again 5% of GDP is an estimate and cap, mostly a cap. The loans could get out of hand, but our credit is still OK. Our credit rating and exchange rate might suffer, but leaving the pound out to dry will boost exports. market forces.

Limit the power of Unions to disrupt industry 34 years early?

Clearly there were reformers (Radicals) within the Conservatives. The Liberals had lost much of the middle ground. This would be a good time to move the party to the centre (and maybe bring in the rump of the Liberals) for a Radical Conservative party.

They said to themselves: "If we can have full employment by killing Germans, why can we have it by building houses and schools?" - Tony Benn

Click to expand...

In this ATL the Radical Conservatives have stolen these clothes and made them their own. While there is a guarantee of full employment, there is of income enough to get by and real, efficient, jobs as the economy gets going. Job creation is kept out of the marketplace. Labour are planning wartime economy during peacetime, because that is the only experience of government they have.

"There was not a single man in my [tank] squadron who voted Conservative. The reason why was because a great many of them had been unemployed before the war and had had a pretty rough time... When I joined the Army in 1939, a lot of them were in the Army because it was the only way to get a square meal." - Lord Carrington

Click to expand...

That square meal is assured, along with work on honourable public works if a real job can't be found. Schools, Houses, Hospitals and the Severn Estuary Barrage anyone? (Mullberry Harbour tech can be applied)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4713041.stm
Churchill had in fact warmly welcomed Beveridge's report on welfare measures in 1942 and the National government he headed in 1944 moved to introduce comprehensive education.
But he had also said there should be no attempt to implement Beveridge's recommendations during the war and no guarantee afterwards as it might not be affordable.

Click to expand...

Our POD finds Churchill with a plan to keep it affordable. This is his campaign ammunition, the Gestapo Speech is not 'needed'.

http://www.polybiblio.com/bud/15409.html
Churchill's speeches against Indian independence ushered in his wilderness years; his fanatical stand made him an object of derision in the eyes of Labour and left him a pariah in his own party. Historians consider his Indian campaign one of the darkest stains on his record. Churchill never allowed the book to be reprinted in his lifetime.
ÔChurchillÕs letter of March 21, 1931 to Thornton Butterworth giving his inflated opinion of these speeches is much quoted: ÒThey are very good...Of course I have taken much more trouble with them than with any book.Ó ButterworthÕs impressions are not known. What is known, however, is that in March 1931 Churchill was irritated with his publisher over a royalty dispute relating to THE WORLD CRISIS and two quick months later INDIA was in print---May 27: Woods A38. An inveterate reviser and reprinter, Churchill nonetheless never permitted INDIA to be reprinted in his lifetime.
By any measure, and by almost all opinion, ChurchillÕs anti-independence stand on the India question represents his grossest political miscalculation. Some of his presumptions were zany--the grandson of a duke chastising wealthy, educated Indians for claiming the right to speak for the Indian underclass; some even perverse--he once characterized Gandhi as Òa fanatic...a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of the type well known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace...Ó But Churchill never was anything less than fiercely eloquent, and these India speeches represent some of his finest political rhetoric, only a notch below the great war orations of the next decade. By the end of the debate Churchill had squandered all of his political currency: despised by Labour, shunned by his own party, the years in the Wilderness had begun. And the echoes of ChurchillÕs thunderouus political crash would be heard for years. As Weidhorn notes in his introduction recently penned: ÒHistorians consequently see this Indian campaign as one of the major stains on ChurchillÕs record. What serves to darken this stain was that within a few years he would be mounting a somewhat similar-sounding campaign against Hitler, but have novantage point or leverage

Click to expand...

Hmm. Would he reiterate the position that put him in the political wilderness, after India has helped to win the war? He was certainly set on some form of post-war British Empire, but this might include Dominion status for India. If only to spare his blushes. Apparently at the Atlantic Conference FDR made Indian Independence a precondition of American entry into the war. Churchill can't ignore this. In fact I'm not sure Dominion status will satisfy America (HS Truman).

wiki - The Atlantic Charter was an agreement made by Roosevelt and Churchill, which set goals for the postwar world. It agreed to seek no territorial gain from the war. It was made to keep "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live", and "a permanent system of general security".

Click to expand...

Plenty of wiggle room there.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132482
The principle of self-determination refers to the right of a people to determine its own political destiny. Beyond this broad definition, however, no legal criteria determine which groups may legitimately claim this right in particular cases. The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues facing policymakers in the United States and the international community at large. At the close of the twentieth century, it could mean the right of people to choose their form of government within existing borders or by achieving independence from a colonial power. It could mean the right of an ethnic, linguistic, or religious group to redefine existing national borders to achieve a separate national sovereignty or simply to achieve a greater degree of autonomy and linguistic or religious identity within a sovereign state. It could even mean the right of a political unit within a federal system such as Canada, Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union, or the former Yugoslavia to secede from the federation and become an independent sovereign state.

Click to expand...

I don't think Churchill will accept that he has agreed to bits of Canada (or the whole of India) becoming independent. More that they should run their own territory - a Dominion (or two) within the Empire. Gandhi wouldn't accept this, but Nehru and Patel would.

History will be kind to me for I intend to rewrite it.
– Winston Churchill

Click to expand...

Do you think that a radical, tory democrat party would welcome the single transferable vote? Champions of the individual over the dictatorship of the block vote?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagenbach-Bischoff_quota

conservative manifesto

conservative ideas on housing

HOMES

In the first years of peace, the provision of homes will be the greatest domestic task. An all-out housing policy will not only make a tremendous contribution to family life, but also to steady employment and to national health. All our energy must be thrown into it. Local authorities and private enterprise must both be given the fullest encouragement to get on with the job.
Prices of materials must be controlled as long as supplies are short. Even so, building costs will be high at first. They must be brought down as rapidly as possible. Subsidies will be necessary for local authorities and for private enterprise alike.
We must add to our building labour force as quickly as we can. The strength of the industry was 1,000,000 men before the war. Now it is down to under 400,000. We have already made our plans to expand it as quickly as possible up to and beyond its pre-war strength.
In blitzed areas the repair of war-damaged houses and the rebuilding of those destroyed will be given high priority. In the first two years, as the labour force grows, we intend to build at least 220,000 permanent new houses and have a further 80,000 under way. We hope to increase this still further, but do not intend to make promises we may not be able to fulfil. As the result of intensive research work that has been carried out by many enterprising firms, a number of new types of factory-made permanent houses and housing equipment is being developed. (The erection of these makes a smaller demand on our scarce building labour than the traditional types.) These will be put into large-scale production with the same energy as was shown in munitions. We must supplement this with at least 150,000 well-equipped temporary houses that can be put up quickly. Our target is 200,000.
So long as there is a serious shortage of houses, rent control must continue on houses controlled at present. The establishment of Tribunals throughout the country to fix fair rents as between landlord and tenant (as recommended by the Ridley Committee) seems to provide the best solution of a long-standing problem.
The rebuilding of badly bombed areas, the general attack on the housing problem and the redistribution of industry demand plans for the use of land which will take into account the needs of each locality and the opportunities offered by national resources. The Government will press forward with the main lines of policy laid down in the Town and Country Planning Acts, including the acquisition of land required in connection with the restoration of blitzed areas on the basis of the 1939 value.
We shall bring forward in the new Parliament proposals for improving the law with regard to compensation and betterment, so as to secure for the future the best use of land in the public interest, including proper reservation of open spaces and the best location of industry and housing.

conservative manifesto

conservative ideas on education

EDUCATION

The Education Act set forth in the "Four Years' Plan" has already been piloted through Parliament by Mr. Butler. Our task in the coming years will be to remodel our educational system according to the new law, and a vigorous drive will be needed to supply the teachers and the buildings necessary. Our object is to provide education which will not produce a standardised or utility child, useful only as a cog in a nationalised and bureaucratic machine, but will enable the child to develop his or her responsible place, first n the world of school, and then as a citizen. Many parents will be able to choose the school they like and to play their part with the educational authorities in the physical and spiritual well-being of their children.
Our aim must be to produce the good citizen of tomorrow. Our primary schools call for much encouragement and improvement. Secondary Education for all will have no meaning unless variety, practical training and, above all, quality of standards convince parents that the extra schooling for their children is worth while. Technical education, at all levels, must be greatly extended and improved.
No system of education can be complete unless it heightens what is splendid and glorious in life and art. Art, science and learning are the means by which the life of the whole people can be beautified and enriched.

conservative manifesto

conservative ideas on the empire

THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND COMMONWEALTH

We shall base the whole of our international policy on a recognition that in world affairs the Mother Country must act in the closest possible concert with all other parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire. We shall never forget their love and steadfastness when we stood alone against the German Terror. We, too, have done our best for them. The prowess of the Indian Army must not be overlooked in the framing of plans for granting India a fuller opportunity to achieve Dominion Status We should remember those friends who stood by us in our hour of peril, and should be ever mindful of our obligations towards minorities and the Indian States.
The arrangements made in war for constant mutual consultation with the Dominions and India on all matters of joint interest must be perfected in peace. In particular, the whole subject of Imperial defence must be reviewed in relation to our world responsibilities and to modern weapons. Mutually convenient arrangements must be made to foster Imperial trade.
Movement of men and women within the Empire must be made easier. A two-way traffic should grow. Those who wish to change their homes should be enabled to carry their national insurance rights with them wherever they go. Imperial ties should be knit together by closer personal contact and understanding.
Our record in colonial government is unsurpassed. Our responsibility to the Colonies is to lead them forward to self-governing institutions; to help them to raise their standards of life by agricultural advance, the application of science and the building up of local industries; to improve conditions of labour and of housing, to spread education, to stamp out disease and to sustain health, vigour and happiness. The policy laid down in the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts must be keenly pressed forward. The resources of the Empire need to be developed for the benefit of all its many peoples.

conservative manifesto

BRITAIN AND THE WORLD

The settlement of Europe and the prosecution of the war against Japan depend on decisions of the utmost gravity, which can only be taken by resolute and experienced men. Our alliance with Soviet Russia and our intimate friendship with the U.S.A. can be maintained only if we show that our candour is matched by our strength. We have, during the years of our history, gained the confidence of the smaller nations, because, although our power has been formidable, we have tried to use it with restraint and for high purpose, and have always respected the rights and interests of others. There is no small country which does not welcome our strength. This was plainly shown in the recent events in Greece. The irresponsible attitude towards the interests of the Greek people adopted by many sections of Left Wing opinion is, by its example, a warning not to put the conduct of foreign affairs into untried hands.
The main hope of the world is now founded upon the setting up of a World Organisation strong enough to prevent future wars of aggression whether by the weak or the strong. The United Nations have lately been assembled at San Francisco with the object of devising the necessary machinery. We have taken our full part with other Nations and have acted by natural inclination in full agreement with the United States.
There are still many difficulties to overcome. It would be wrong to pretend that so far full success has been gained. Despair would be a crime. We must persevere by any road that opens towards the uplands on which will certainly be built the calm temples of peace. Our prevailing hope is that the foundations will be laid on the indissoluble agreement of Great Britain, the United States and Soviet Russia.

conservative manifesto

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/con45.htm

Gold

Thanks NS

This goes to show that it isn't much of a stretch.

We must produce a great deal more food than we did before the war, because food is scarce in the world to-day, and in any case we shall not be able to buy as much imported food as we did. ...We must maintain the fertility of the soil; we must be skilful in the use and management of our land for the production of the foodstuffs which it is best fitted to provide, and which are most required to satisfy the nutritional needs of our people.

Click to expand...

Meat might have to be rationed for a long time (especially inefficient meats like pork and beef). A heart healthy nation emerges.

All right, the Torie win. But don't tell me Sir Winston is going to become Prime-minister once more. He was good and respected during the WW2 but he was a war-leader. England needed quite a different kind of a leader during the time of peace. So, I'd expect Anthony Eden as PM in this (unlikely) event.

I still agree with Andrew Hudson here. Even if the Tories had won in '45, it would have been by the slimmest of margins, just like the Tory victory in '92. I see a no-confidence vote within 6-12 months, with snap elections where Labour will win handily, throwing the Conservatives into the weeds for at least a decade.

The reaction against the ruling party wasn't restricted to Britain. In the US, the first post-war election saw a rejection of the New Deal and a Republican surge in the Congress. Though Truman was reelected in '48, it was by a slim margin in a four-way race, and he now gets to fight with Bush over who leaves office as the most unpopular president in history. In Canada, though the Liberals won in '45, they had to form a minority government (118 of 245), having host almost 60 seats from their 1940 results, including of all people the PM Mackenzie King! who lost his riding in Saskatchewan to the CCF candidate.

OTL election results.

Monarch: King George VI, 1936-1952 Thu 5th July 1945PartySeats - %Candidates% VoteParty leaders Labour govtLab39561.7607(3 LD)48.1 (+10.4) C. Attlee
Con+UU215
inc S33.6627(12 LD)40.1 (-13.9)W. Churchill Turnout = 72.6%Lib121.9306(72 LD)9.0 (+0.8)A. Sinclair
C. Davies Cabinet membersOthers183.4143(88 LD)2.8

Total640
1683(175 LD)¤
Manifestos
Thu 23rd Feb 1950PartySeats - %Candidates% VoteParty leaders Labour govtLab31550.4623(8 LD)46.2 (-1.9)C. Attlee
Con+UU29847.7623(5 LD)43.5 (+3.4)W. Churchill Turnout = 83.6%Lib91.4475(319 LD)9.1 (+0.1)C. Davies Cabinet membersOthers3
inc S0.5147(129 LD)1.2 (-1.6)

Total625
1868(461 LD)
Manifestos
Thu 25th Oct 1951PartySeats - %Candidates% VoteParty leaders Conservative govtCon+UU32151.4618(3 LD)48.0 (+4.5)W. Churchill
A. Eden
Lab29547.2617(1 LD)48.8 (+2.6)C. Attlee Turnout = 81.9%Lib60.96109(66 LD)2.6 (-6.5)C. Davies Cabinet membersOthers30.4832(26 LD)0.6 (-0.6)

Total625
1376(96 LD)
Manifestos

British Governments and Elections since 1945 British Governments and Elections sin

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/uktable.htm

Um... NS, could you give us the results in a cleaner form? Or if not, give us links? What you posted is gobbledygook to most of us...

Beveridge calls for revolutionary thinking

Stalker said:

All right, the Torie win. But don't tell me Sir Winston is going to become Prime-minister once more. He was good and respected during the WW2 but he was a war-leader. England needed quite a different kind of a leader during the time of peace. So, I'd expect Anthony Eden as PM in this (unlikely) event.

Click to expand...

Implementing the Beveridge recommendations and Churchill's popularity are the things that get the Tories elected. The patricians are out, the grandees are out this is Radical conservatism. Very centrist and reforming. Churchill maintained that it was the Liberals and Conservative that moved, not him. He will pin them under him. While he likes Eden, will Eden shine in such a party? Churchill is opposed to the collectivism of the socialists, for the same reason he is opposed to the patronising patricians. He wants maximum freedom of the individual within a responsible society. Utilitarianism.

A reform group was mentioned in the quotes of my first post. Does anyone know who might form a Radical Tory front bench after a reshuffle in February of 1943?

Were any of the Coefficients dining club still active in politics (Leo Amery aside) ?
I'm currently researching the position of the Glamour Boys to see how radical they were.