Talk:Churchill caretaker ministry

Party of Gwilym Lloyd George

• G. Lloyd George, in my view, was a Liberal MP until shortly after the 1945 election.

• British Political Facts, in its lists of ministers, characterises him as "Ind L" which in this article had been misinterpreted as Independent Labour before I corrected this.

• Who's Who of British Members of Parliament Vol. IV describes him as "a Liberal until Oct. 1931, as a member of the Independent Liberal Group 1931-35, as a Liberal from 1935 until he joined the Government in Sept. 1939; allied with the Conservatives from 1939."

• The History of the Liberal Party 1895-1970 explains (in relation to the formation of the caretaker government in 1945) that "Gwilym Lloyd George, though still a Liberal, remained in office". After the 1945 election Lloyd George, the only Liberal MP elected with ministerial experience, was offerred the chairmanship of the Liberal Party in Parliament as well as the chairmanship of the Liberal National allies of the Conservatives, both of which he declined. "When the new House met, he was offered a place on the opposition front bench by Winston Churchill. Gwilym Lloyd George replied that he would only sit as a Liberal, Churchill's reply was characteristic: 'And what the hell else should you sit as?' But Liberals soon came to the conclusion that he was effectively supporting the Conservatives."

--Gary J 12:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at The Times of London report on the formation of the government, in its edition of 26 May 1945. This clearly identifies Lloyd George as a member of the Liberal Party. --Gary J 00:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger

The page Caretaker Government 1945 has been merged into this page, as the two were redundant. This name follows consistent usage, and was retained. I also adjusted the title per WP:CAPS, added an image and provided some small revisions. RGloucester (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just a name

I did a fair bit of reading about this earlier in the year after this cropped up on the main Winston Churchill biography page. Martin Gilbert, the most detailed account, does not talk of Churchill being asked to form "a caretaker government", indeed the only person who does so is Anthony Eden in his turgid memoirs. Most authoritative accounts refer to it by the proper name "the Caretaker Government". Churchill himself (in the final volume of "History of the Second World War") mentions that the government came to be known as "the Caretakers", i.e. a derogatory nickname which he hints that he found irritating.

"A caretaker" administration is one with reduced powers, often led by an individual who is not being expected to stand for re-election. The concept is legally meaningless in the UK - a government is a government, part of "the Crown" and performing under "binding ministerial advice" functions which were still the King's in 1688. That is why many government functions, e.g. declaring war and deploying troops, are conducted by the Prime Minister under Royal Prerogative and (in law) Parliament is asked merely as a courtesy. The idea that the rise and fall of governments coincides exactly with General Elections is one which evolved throughout the nineteenth century and this is one of those few occasions on which it did not happen in the twentieth century either.

If Churchill had won the 1945 election, which (as every schoolboy knows) almost everybody expected him to do, it would now be a piece of political history trivia that the National Government (a de facto Tory government) of 1945-50 had taken office a few weeks before its triumphant election victory, like Campbell-Bannerman's Liberal Government in December 1905. Instead, because it was so short-lived, the name stuck, like the "Who? Who?" Ministry of 1852.Paulturtle (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC) And conversely only political history geeks know that Pitt the Younger's ministry, which lasted for 18 years, was initially known as the "Mince Pie" ministry as it was not expected to last past Christmas 1783.Paulturtle (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Came across a quote which sheds a bit more light on Churchill's view of the nickname, although the book in question makes the error of referring to it as "a caretaker government" a few pages earlier.00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Paulturtle (talk) This comment is referring to Hermiston, who includes Churchill's speech in Woodford "condoning" the nickname, but a few pages earlier talks of "a" caretaker government, erroneously I think.Paulturtle (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I refer once again to my comments of a few years ago - although it is common for books to talk sloppily of this government as "a" caretaker administration, the more authoritative ones don't do so. That includes Martin Gilbert and Andrew Roberts, whose recent brick-sized Churchill biog just says that he was asked to form "a Conservative Government". Churchill himself (in his "History Of The Second World War") implies that it was just a nickname which he found irritating. We don't know exactly what was said between Prime Minister and Monarch (contrary to a lot of erroneous reporting, even our esteemed Supreme Court chose to "take no view" on Prime Ministerial advice to the Monarch last September) although Roberts does claim to have consulted the King's private diary in researching his biography. I did have a quick trawl through Hansard Online, both debates and written answers, but it didn't shed any light - but then you wouldn't necessarily expect it to, as governments are not legally appointed by Parliament. I think if one wanted to dig deeper one would have to find a book which looked at press reports, and whether the BBC and major newspapers talked of "a caretaker government", even if their reports weren't strictly accurate. But that would be digging deeper than any Churchill biography goes.

In autumn 2019 there was talk of "a caretaker government" being formed, pending a general election, if Boris Johnson's government had fallen and the Opposition had been able to unite behind another Prime Minister. But that was last year, and we are concerned with the events of May 1945.Paulturtle (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Paul, and thanks for your improvements to the article. I entirely agree about the name and I think the label where it has been used is actually erroneous because, as you've said above, a "caretaker" is normally an acting or interim leader who isn't seeking election. Margaret Beckett is a good example, following the death of John Smith. This government was really a return to the Chamberlain one which ended on 10 May 1940 but I'm not sure how best to illustrate that in the article title, perhaps simplify it as "Churchill ministry, May–July 1945". Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Margaret Beckett insisted that she actually was briefly leader of the Labour Party back in 1994, and she did stand for the leadership, coming third. It was much remarked at the time that if she'd just stood for deputy again she might have held on to that job instead of losing it to Prescott. But enough of her.Paulturtle (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• We refer to things by their common names here, just like with the Who? Who? Ministry mentioned above. I'm not sure this name is 'erroneous' (it would certainly be possible for a government to be called 'caretaker' without fitting squarely into the usual form of a 'caretaker government'), but even if it is, it is the common name, and appears in a substantial number of what are usually considered reliable sources. I'm not sure any change will be beneficial, per WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester — ☎ 12:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The title of the article is fine - of course it's known as the Caretaker Government, a nickname which stuck because the government was so short-lived. I'm not disputing that this should be the name of the article, My point is that although some books talk sloppily about Churchill being asked to form a caretaker government, the more authoritative ones don't do so, nor have I come across any contemporary references to him being given such a commission. According to the best sources, and we must strive for accuracy, he was simply asked to form a government. And let's not forget the elephant in the room, so massive that it's easy to lose sight of it - most people assumed Churchill would be triumphantly re-elected like Lloyd George had been in 1918. The (so-called) Caretaker Government was not actually a caretaker government, strictly speaking. (I must come across as having a bee in my bonnet on this topic - I got interested in it when I got into a stupid argument back in 2015 with somebody who refused to accept that any such government ever existed!)Paulturtle (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I except that argument, and I think that can be explained in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Churchill caretaker ministry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have begun reviewing this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. Will try to help with all questions. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

A nicely done article as far as it goes, but needs to go a bit further

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources okay but can be broader, see below

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Some additional topics can be covered, see below

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality intent is fine but sources should be broader, see below

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Top image needs replacement, some others could be added, see below

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Regarding sources, this article leans heavily on the Jenkins biography. That's a well-received work and there is nothing wrong with using it, but as you know there have been a bunch of other treatments of Churchill and it would be good to incorporate some of what they have to say about this period. In particular the Gilbert volume that covers this ministry could be used as a source.

I've got my copy of Gilbert back now and there is some useful stuff in the "Iron Curtain" chapter which I'm adding to the article. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Getting additional perspectives is especially important for the description of Churchill at Potsdam. Do other authors agree with the conclusion that Churchill's performance there was weak? And would it have made any difference in the outcomes with Stalin if his performance had been better? Besides Churchill biographies, a good source to consult might be Michael Neiberg, Potsdam: The End of World War II and the Remaking of Europe (2015), which seems to have a more positive interpretation of Potsdam than the usual historical account.

I'm not too sure about giving extra coverage to Potsdam because the second half of it is outside the scope of this article. I found a Google extract of Neiberg's book but it was limited to some of the preparations only and doesn't (as usual!) give the page numbers. The book concurs with Jenkins in terms of Eden's assessment. According to Neiberg, Eden thought Churchill was "tired and unwell" through Potsdam and, along with advisors, greatly concerned by how Churchill was no longer interested in reading official documents. Neiberg claims that Eden and other ministers were losing faith in Churchill but keeping it quiet with the election campaign underway. I don't currently have the Gilbert "Life" to hand but it should be back shortly and I'll see what he had to say. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gilbert doesn't record Eden's comment. He quotes Montgomery being worried about Churchill's health but otherwise his account reads as if Potsdam was business as usual for Winston conducted with customary vigour, especially his opposition to the Oder-Neisse Line. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Even though this ministry only last two months, there was a lot going on during that time, so it would be good to have some sort of historical assessment of the caretaker government. This 2001 article "Churchill and the Conservative Party" by Stuart Ball p 328 says, "The 'caretaker' government of 1945 is sometimes unfairly dismissed, but it was a sound and capable team." But it sounds like there are other views out there.

This should certainly go in. When I get the Gilbert book back, I'll see what he can add for one. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Gilbert has much to say about what the government intended to do if re-elected. Their main domestic concern was housing but that of course is a long-term policy. They promised to respect Beveridge by introducing national insurance and creating the NHS but, bearing in mind that this is the Tory party, regardless of Churchill's personal zeal in such matters, would it have happened as it did under Labour, or at all? No Great Shaker (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It would also be good to cover what if any changes were made regarding social/domestic/quality-of-life issues during this time. Civilians were no longer under threat of attack, did the government take advantage of that to relax any restrictions? What about rationing and the like?

I need to look into this but I'm fairly sure there were no rationing changes. Hansard might help here but it is of course a primary source. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There were a few rationing cuts in 1945, which I've noted: bacon and soap, for example. I had thought civilian petrol was restored in 1946 but it was 1945. I've found a list of all the Acts that received the Royal Assent at prorogation and decided to mention the family allowances as arguably the most significant. All of this legislation was first proposed during the previous administration, of course, but even so it was enacted in June 1945. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Another aspect that can be drawn out more is the change Churchill as prime minister had to undergo switching from a coalition government to a party-oriented one. This 2010 article "Winston Churchill's "Crazy Broadcast": Party, Nation, and the 1945 Gestapo Speech" by Richard Toye explores the disastrous 'Gestapo speech' and analyzes why someone who was so good at finding the right public words during the war could go so off-base here. Part of his conclusion is that Churchill didn't realize the level of political trouble he was in. He was also used to being Prime Minister on a non-partisan pedestal and had trouble dealing with that no longer being true.

I hadn't seen this article before. It's very good and should certainly be referenced. I like the quote by Amery which said it all, really. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Some of those themes are also brought out by this 1980 article "The 1945 General Election Reconsidered" by Henry Pelling. And the Geoffrey Best book Churchill: A Study in Greatness talks about how Churchill didn't want to return to regular politics given that the war with Japan was still going on (chapter 21).

The Pelling article is a good one and can be used as a citation in a few places. I've no access to the Best book so I've added it to a further reading section along with Neiberg.

Regarding images for the article, I think the top image should be something that was taken during the caretaker ministry, not before. A good choice would be File:Winston Churchill during the General Election Campaign in 1945 HU55965.jpg from 27 June 1945, which is from the right time and also shows him more in a political pose than statesman pose, which is appropriate for the nature of the caretaker period. Another possibility is File:British Political Personalities 1936-1945 HU59722.jpg but I think the first one is better.

I agree. I've inserted the 27 June one because it is topical. As you say, it is much better than the other. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

For the section about plans to extend the coalition, a good one to include would be File:Winston Churchill waves to crowds in Whitehall in London as they celebrate VE Day, 8 May 1945. H41849.jpg, because it shows Bevin right next to Churchill and gets across the idea of the need for the coalition coming to a close.

Yes, I've included that one. It's already used in the main Churchill article. I've got a book which has an excellent photo of Churchill and Attlee together on the front cover but I'm afraid it's copyrighted. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There is also this odd cartoon, File:Caretaker Churchill on the Job (16547321940).jpg, which explicitly refers to him as a caretaker, but I'm not sure what the point of it is (the explanation in the Commons description doesn't make sense to me). Finally, File:Voters arriving at a polling station in the Italian Hospital, Queen Square, Holborn, London to cast their vote in the General Election of 1945. D25102.jpg might be a good image to illustrate the general election section - it's got the feel of the time.

The one of the ladies at the polling station is very illustrative so that's a good find. The cartoon is a take on Churchill's bricklaying hobby – he enjoyed building garden walls at Chartwell and even joined the building trades union at one time. I think it's another good illustration so I've included it too. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added some images from other articles of various ministers. In general there's no particular reason for the ones I've chosen except I think the two from the Ministry of Food are relevant and the two women should be included (so Florence Horsbrugh qualifies on both counts – three counts with her trip to San Francisco). No Great Shaker (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, the article is very good as far as it goes, I just think it needs to cover a bit more in places. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, WTR. That's an excellent review. Very thorough with some good suggestions for expansion and improvement. Can you leave it with me a few days and I'll see what I can do. Will come back to you soon. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, take your time, no rush. The standard GAN boilerplate text says seven days to respond to comments but I don't hold to that, especially under the current circumstances we are all dealing with. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, WTR. I think I've just about finished now. I've answered each of your points individually above. Would you like to take another look when time allows and see what you think? Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

@No Great Shaker: The article is definitely much better now, definitely more comprehensive, good work. A few further comments here and there on content:

It might be good to add to the lede the thing about the election being on 5 July but votes not counted until 26 July due to so many overseas service personnel. It's interesting, it was relevant then in terms of how Potsdam was handled, and it has some relevance to current times what with elections taking longer to count due to effects of the pandemic.

Agreed. Sentence expanded. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the caption of the V-E day photo should explicitly state that Anderson continued on in the caretaker ministry but Bevin did not. Saying so illustrates the effect of the end of the coalition.

Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the discussions about extending the coalition, it's important to add that at the time many people expected the war against Japan to continue well into 1946. Thus Labour proposing an election in October 1945, which to modern readers may look like they wanted an election after the war with Japan was over, was not that. And it should be made clear that once Labor wouldn't agree to extending the coalition to the end of the Japan war, the Conservatives wanted to hold it as soon as possible to capitalize on Churchill's wartime popularity (hence July) whereas Labour wanted to delay it a few months to let that popularity wear off (hence October). Pelling p 401 is a source for all this.

These are good points. I've revised the relevant paragraph. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the Potsdam section should begin by describing how the status of Eastern Europe, and especially that of Poland, was of great concern to Churchill during the entire time after V-E day – it wasn't just at Potsdam that this came up. Adding material on this will also set up the he was much more interested in what was happening in Eastern Europe than in Great Britain remark that is made later in the article.

Sentence added. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think a broader quote from the Gestapo speech should be provided in the article, to give a more complete idea of what Churchill actually said and how it showed a lack of political feel on his part. The start of the Toye article has this: "No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance."

I've put it into a quote paragraph. Much better. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A couple of usage things:

What is the significance of the same day that King George VI visited the recently liberated Channel Islands,[21]? I'm not seeing the connection to the rest of the sentence. And that's a run-on sentence in any case, I would suggest breaking it up. For saying in a letter that he (Churchill) had – since this isn't part of the quote, you can simply say saying in a letter that Churchill had.

All done. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

And a few comments on citing practices:

The three cites to the Patricia Nicol book are missing page numbers.

I "borrowed" this from the UK rationing article as an extra source. It doesn't have page nos there either. I've moved it into the FR section as it isn't actually needed for citation purposes. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

For the Pelling journal article, which is cited in six different places, you can move it into the Bibliography and then short-form cite it to specific pages (i.e., the same way you do for the Toye journal article).

Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A couple of the Toye page ranges use a hyphen when they should have an endash.

Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent about whether books cited only once are included in the Bibliography and short-form cited (Butler & Buter, Roberts) or are not in the Bibliography but instead are full-cited in place in that one footnote (Mercer, Leonard, Fenby, couple of others). I've seen it done both ways in WP articles, but the second approach is more common.

I've full-cited Roberts (someone else had added that one). Butler & Butler are actually cited three times, though always for the same page range. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

And I understand about your having no access at present to certain books and thus putting them in Further reading. The good thing about WP is that articles are never finished, so you can always modify the article if you get access to those books down the road. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Wasted Time R, and thanks for the feedback. Sorry I've been unavailable for the last two days but have caught up now. Could you please take a look at the changes and see if they are okay? All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have listed the article as GA. Good job again. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Wasted Time R. You made a major contribution to the article yourself by doing such a thorough review and suggesting additional content and sources. I'll try to think of a couple of possible hooks for the DYK. Thanks again and well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Winston Churchill speaking in the 1945 general election campaign

• ... that the Churchill caretaker ministry reduced the British bacon ration from 4 ounces (110 g) to 3 ounces (85 g) per week? Source: The Independent, "75 years on from rationing, what did we learn?" 8 January 2015 ([1]).
  • ALT1:... that the Churchill caretaker ministry promised free milk for the under-fives? Source: Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life (1991), page 847. London: Heinemann. 978-04-34291-83-0.

• Reviewed: Exempt from QPQ (2 DYK credits) but have reviewed Tom Corbin

Improved to Good Article status by No Great Shaker (talk). Self-nominated at 21:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC).

• Hi No Great Shaker, review follows: article promoted to GA on 8 September; article is of good length; Article is cited to reliable sources throughout; I don't have access to many of the sources but I checked those I could. I found one passage seems to be taken from this BBC source: "a new social order that would ensure better housing, free medical services and employment for all", that needs rewording; hooks are both interesting and mentioned in the article. The milk hook is cited offline and I am happy to AGF that it supports this, bacon checks out to the online source; QPQ checker confirms one is not required. If you can paraphrase the one passage then I think this is good to go - Dumelow (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dumelow, and thanks for the review. I've revised that clause which now reads: "...so Labour's manifesto promised full employment, improved housing and the provision of free medical services". Please take a look and see if that's okay. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks No Great Shaker, looks good to me now - Dumelow (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre material removed

I've just removed some bizarre material claiming that the Japanese called a ceasefire in May 1945, leading the Allies to land in western Malaya and enter Thailand. Nothing of the sort ever happened - this seems to be confusing what happened after the cease-fire when the Japanese announced their intention to surrender in mid-August 1945. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right, that was wrong and it slipped through the review too. It was partly borrowed from another article, including the source, but the wires must have crossed somewhere along the way. Embarrassing. Well spotted and thanks for correcting it. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I'm at fault for missing this on the GA review – when I read the article my attention was grabbed by the next section on the Potsdam conference where I had some immediate concerns. But I'm not the first reviewer to miss it – the exact same text and source is in Battle of Elephant Point#Aftermath, and has been since that article's creation in 2009, and that is a GA article too. From a root cause analysis perspective I'd be curious to see what the Tugwell book pp 284–85 actually says – from some snippet looks at its index I can tell it does have something to do with Elephant Point and Singapore and Thailand, but I don't know what. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)