Excerpt from "Churchill: A Life" by Martin Gilbert, 1992

Miraculously, the heart attack, while nearly fatal, did not kill David Lloyd George. Instead, the Liberal leviathan had survived to live another day, and the day after waking up from unconsciousness, threw himself back into work, sending missives out to the leadership assuring his well-being and the stability of the Party. Churchill would later recall a hospital visit the day after he awoke in which Lloyd George's response to his protege's concerns were assertive snorts and scoffs; as he recalled, "The incident hardly bothered him - rather, he showed almost no signs of ill. The doctors called it a good sign of recovery, considering the severity of his bout."

Yet few were under the illusion that Lloyd George could continue governing much longer. The episode was a drastic, almost tragic reminder that the Party needed a new leader with a fresh face to replace the aged Father of the House. Lloyd George himself, confident in the success of the Federation Act and the economic program, was willing to take the extra step and resign on his own accord while calling a general election to ensure his successor's legitimacy as a leader, though he held out on appointing his successor, since he vacillated between Churchill and Mosley, undecided on which would provide better leadership for the country as of yet. Still, the point was made; when Parliament reconvened following the winter holidays on February 2, 1932, Lloyd George indicated that he would resign as Prime Minister and Party leader and that he would appoint his successor in mid-March following discussion within the Party [1].

Quickly, the party wings coalesced around supporting either Oswald Mosley and Winston Churchill. At first glance, it would have seemed that both had little distinguishing platforms from each other - both broadly supported the continued devolution and federalisation of the British Empire and integration of its realms into a centralised federal government, both were supportive of the Keynesian economic program (though to different degrees), and both were extremely talented orators who could easily captivate audiences with their words and voice.

However, it soon became clear that following the inauguration of Gordon McSweeney to the United States presidency, the consolidation of Adolf Hitler's power into the Führer position, and the beginning of the Stalinist purges, a new issue had come to play in the campaign over the defense and remilitarisation of the British Empire in preparation of these threats, on top of modernising it to cope with the widespread adaptation of technologies and tactics that appeared as early as the First Great War. This was primarily where Mosley and Churchill diverged. Churchill, ever an advocate of the democratic rule of law and wary of the dangerous and unpredictable nature of the regimes in power, spoke of the need to begin a gradual rearmament of Britain, with a dire prediction of a new conflict emerging in Europe and North America between the major powers that echoed French Marshal Ferdinand Foch's prophecy that the Treaties of Versailles and Trenton were but "a ceasefire of 20 years [2]." Mosley, on the other hand, was a strong Germanophile and came out firmly on the sizeable dovish camp of the party, which also included Lloyd George [3]. Both sought to placate Germany with the revocation of some of the Treaty's harsher articles while also granting them favourable trade deals to bolster their economy.

It did not take long for Churchill and Mosley to go on the attack against each other. Churchill accused Mosley of being a soft, weak-minded leader, pliable to foreign influences that would cause the Empire's decline into a lesser position, and eventually irrelevance. Mosley fired back by calling Churchill a "dinosaur," claiming he lived in an archaic worldview that prided Imperial glory far over the more integrated and international system of global governance of the post-First Great War era. He also went further by dredging up old memories of Churchill's involvement in the planning and execution of the Gallipoli Landings during his tenure as First Lord of the Admiralty in the First Great War, lambasting him in his fiery oratory by empathetically asking a rhetorical question, "250,000 men of the Empire gave their lives for one single failed landing thanks to this man. How many more must fall if the rabid Imperial bulldog gets into power? And who? Is it you? Your children? Your children's children?"

Churchill held on despite these attacks. Prominent endorsements for him from senior Party allies like Lord Beaverbrook proved a more than effective counterweight, and polling in plenty of Liberal constituencies indicated confidence in Churchill's leadership. He also received support from the supporters of Indian Home Rule, with whom he was associated more than anyone else in the government for its success. Yet for every card Churchill had, Mosley seemed to have two. For one, Mosley, for his part as Chancellor and the brains behind the successful economic recovery program, had much of the support of working class voters, who were even more powerful than before thanks to 20 years of fighting off and even pushing back Labour gains in that circle. Mosley further exploited this by promising welfare reform, which appealed not only to the working classes but to much of the Liberals' left wing and even Lloyd George himself, who had played an important role in laying the foundations for the British welfare state during the Liberal governments of the 1900s and 1910s [4]. Mosley contrasted his sympathy for the workers with his opponent by handily pointing out Churchill's continued commitment to monetarism and his unpopular but well-known desire to restore Britain to the Gold Standard during the 1920s Shadow Cabinet, which made him appear far too much of a dedicated ideologue to make rational, pragmatic decisions. This was enough for Labour, whose leadership, on February 20, 1932, declared that they would withdraw from any coalition with the Liberals if Churchill was made leader. That was enough for Lloyd George to decide, and at midday on March 1, 1932, he declared that Oswald Mosley was to replace him as Leader of the Liberal Party and as Prime Minister.

Upon hearing the news, Churchill narrowly avoided exploding into a drunken outburst fueled by several glasses of whiskey and hours of anxious, restless waiting at his home. As his son Randolph, who was present at the time, would later recall, "As I glanced back at him, Father looked ready to utterly explode. I thought little of what he would say to Lloyd George the next day. But after a tense moment, he started giggling, then burst into hysterics. This held for a full minute, and then he turned to me and said, 'Well, I suppose now's the time to concede and begin plotting my revenge from the shadows, isn't it?'" As his doctors observed in his medical files, Churchill's moderation through the preceding years had had a positive effect on his psychology too, giving him better self-control over himself and his actions. This proved to be a positive effect on his character during the preparations for Indian Home Rule, and eventually his management of the Empire's federalisation and his tenure as Prime Minister.

A few days later, Churchill gave what amounted to a concession speech in an interview published in The Times, accepting and recognising Mosley as Lloyd George's successor. He offered a conciliatory message, but at the same time highlighted his repertoire as a Member of Parliament for the previous years to continue pointing out his independence and credentials. That being said, as Mosley took to accepting his new role, he did offer acknowledgement of Churchill's record as a reformer and compromiser, a far cry from the strongly right-wing views of his early years, and for his part as one of the other major Liberal leaders, promised to keep him as Colonial Secretary in his Cabinet. Both leaders also projected a readiness and eagerness to begin the campaign, and noted that they were willing to work with each other for the best electoral result.

Mosley ran a tireless campaign through the spring, appearing at rallies for local candidates and making island-wide tours. A major focal point of his campaign was his appeal to working class communities, which he readily took advantage of by pivoting himself as a man of the people sympathetic to the plight of workers, and highlighted his work in the economic program that staved off further economic crisis. He also outlined his economic agenda as Prime Minister, which would include promotion of inter-Empire trade, nationalisation of some key industries and utilities, expansion of public works spending, and the expansion of old-age pensions to those aged 60 and above [5]. His highly expressive and captivating oratory also gave him a strong edge over the comparatively quiet campaigns of Baldwin and MacDonald.

These proved to be highly popular, and when voters took to the polls on May 26, 1932, this pivot had paid off immensely - the Liberals successfully expanded into constituencies previously held by Labour, though falling just short of an outright majority. Still, with Labour agreeing to retain the coalition until economic recovery was well under way, it was enough to solidify the incoming government's power. On the evening of May 31, 1932, David Lloyd George formally tendered his resignation as Leader of the Liberal Party, and vacated 10 Downing Street as its resident for the last time. The following day, Oswald Mosley was inaugurated as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

[1] This was before British political parties had leadership elections; at this time, leaders merely appointed their successors. However, since Lloyd George has such a hard time choosing between Churchill and Mosley to succeed him, it falls on him to rely on outside input, effectively turning this matter into the genesis for future party leadership elections.

[2] Keep in mind that this quote was Foch saying the Treaty was not harsh enough rather than too harsh, as Wehraboos and neo-Nazis believe for some reason.

[3] This is true; though he supported the war effort, Lloyd George had still supported appeasement and regretted his role in the Treaty of Versailles, which he saw in hindsight as being too punitive. He and Churchill split over this in the 1930s.

[4] This was true of Lloyd George too. He was a firm progressive in the Liberals when he was in government, and as Chancellor of the Exchequer implemented labour reforms that improved working conditions and wages.

[5] Many of the proposals here are derived from the post-Second World War Labour government's welfare state policies, though watered down and moderated to various extents.