Churchill and Britain's 'Financial Dunkirk'

At the end of World War II, the UK, on the verge of bankruptcy,was threatened with ‘a financial Dunkirk’. WinstonChurchill was eager to help the new Labour government tacklethis crisis. However, his ability to give such help, in hisposition as Leader of the Opposition, was constrained by importantdivisions within his own party. These caused him considerablepolitical difficulties as 1945 came to a close, prompting amajor Conservative rebellion against his leadership on the questionof the proposed US loan to Britain. Yet, in spite of his discomfitureon this issue in the domestic sphere, he went on, during his1946 trip to the USA, to play a key role in overcoming congressionalopposition to the loan. Moreover, he did so in close collaborationwith Clement Attlee’s government. In reciprocating thespirit of unity that Labour had showed in 1940, Churchill revived,during Britain’s ‘financial Dunkirk’, thespirit and the ethos of the original. Using previously unpublishedevidence, this article tells the story in full for the firsttime.     

The Rhetorical Premiership: A New Perspective on Prime Ministerial Power Since 1945

The long‐standing debate about the power of the British prime minister has focused excessively on formal instruments of control exercised within Whitehall. By contrast, not enough attention has been paid to the ways in which prime ministers use rhetoric, formally and informally, to maintain themselves in power and to achieve their policy aims. The term ‘rhetorical premiership’ is used here to denote the collection of methods by which prime ministers since 1945 have used public speech to augment their formal powers. Set‐piece oratory remained consistently important throughout the period, in spite of new technology and the rise of the sound‐bite. However, parliamentary rhetoric underwent some important changes, and prime ministers spoke outside the Commons with increased frequency. Historians of the premiership should draw instruction from those scholars who have studied the rhetoric of US presidents, although caution must be exercised when drawing comparisons. Future study of the rhetorical premiership should involve close textual analysis of prime ministerial speeches, but this should not be at the expense of archival sources, from which important insights into the speech‐making process can be gleaned.