"A Greater Britain"

[EdT]

This is all rather tangentally inspired by this thread, so thanks for the inspiration Mr Jackson ...


Part 1: "I feel the hand of History on my shoulder"


(Taken from "My Life" by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)

"...Six weeks before the election in November 1924 I entered the fight in Birmingham. I wanted to give some striking service to the party which had so well received me. The Chamberlains and their machine had ruled Birmingham for sixty years, first as Liberal-Radicals and then as Conservative-Unionists. Their party machine was at that time probably the strongest in the country. We had six weeks in which to smash it. I chose to fight Neville Chamberlain, who sat for the working-class constituency of Ladywood in the centre of the city; his brother Austen was the neighbouring M.P. and their names and abilities made them a formidable combination. Our own organisation had a paying membership of some two hundred, but when we started the canvass only three elderly women and two young men would accompany us...

However, my raging speaking campaign, both indoor and outdoor, and the superb work done by Cimmie in leading the canvassing team, eventually turned the scales. It was a joyous day when in the courtyards running back from the streets in the Birmingham slums we saw the blue window cards coming down and the red going up...

...The count was a drama: there were two re-counts. First I was in by seven, then Chamberlain was in by six, and finally I was in by fifty-three[1]. It was alleged by some of their people that votes had disappeared, and uproar broke out with men fighting in the crowded public gallery and people pointing to the floor as they bellowed-'That one's got 'em in his pocket'. It appeared from our enquiry that their allegations could not be sustained. I was eventually declared the winner, and we left the Town Hall at six o'clock in the morning to find an enormous crowd in the square outside which had waited up all night to hear the result; they were singing the Red Flag. They seized me and carried me around with an enthusiasm which deeply moved me."[2]


(Taken from "Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939" by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)

"...Mosley's return to parliament enabled him to further develop his ideas in the period while Labour was in opposition, and in 1925 he published a series of pamphlets outlining his economic views. He also devoted much time and effort towards securing Birmingham as a Labour stronghold, touring the constituency parties and overhauling their internal machinery- and in the process creating for himself a personal following. Mosley's actions in support of the workers during the General Strike also hugely enhanced his standing in the city, moving Bernard Shaw to write; "You will hear something more of Sir Oswald before you are through with him. I know you dislike him, because he looks like a man who has some physical courage and is going to do something; and that is a terrible thing. You instinctively hate him, because you do not know where he will land you."...

....Mosely's effort was amply rewarded in 1929, when Birmingham saw a huge increase in the Labour vote and Mosley saw his own majority jump into the thousands. A trip to America in the summer of 1926 also developed his theories; as he put it "America had given me a vision, and I shall never forget the debt". When the 1929 election brought Labour to power Mosley was offered the post of Lord Privy Seal[3], effectively acting as a coordinator for the effort against unemployment. That Mosley was given such a key role shows how highly he was thought of by the Labour hierarchy at the time, and also amply demonstrated the growing following he was beginning to attract within the Party."


(Taken from "My Life" by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)

"....Labour at last had the great opportunity in the victory of 1929, because we could be sure enough of Liberal support at least to deal with the immediate unemployment problem. Here was the chance to do what we had promised after long years of effort. What then was the result of all these exertions, requiring some personal sacrifice in leading an arduous existence of incessant struggle in a storm of abuse instead of the good life we so much enjoyed and for which we had ample means? The answer presents a degree of frivolity and indeed of absurdity which it is difficult to credit. Before I became a Minister I used to say that Bernard Shaw's caricatures of the mind, character and behaviour of politicians were hardly funny because they were too remote from reality. After a year in office I felt inclined to say: Shaw's plays are an understatement...

...I was not just the young man in a hurry, as they tried to pretend, or the advocate of 'wild-cat finance', in the phrase of Snowden. My plans were based on the new orthodoxy, of which they understood nothing, and had the backing not only of the dynamic genius of the older generation, Lloyd George-with all the immense authority of his peacetime achievement in office and of his wartime administration- but of the master of the new economic thinking himself, J. Maynard Keynes."


(Taken from "British Unemployment, 1919-1939; a study in policy" by Andrew Jones, CUP 1985)

"Mosley's inclusion within the Cabinet initially seemed to promise victory for the radical reformers, but these hopes were soon dashed. The proponents of economic orthodoxy were firmly entrenched in their control of policy, and Snowden's installation as Chancellor meant that almost any proposal he did not personally approve of could be easily buried...

...Proposal after proposal was ignored by MacDonald and vetoed by Snowden on cost grounds, and by the early months of 1930 Mosley found himself utterly sick and disillusioned with his role in government. His last attempt to ram home his own policy came in May, when he submitted a detailed memorandum to the Cabinet outlining a complete policy shift towards radical interventionism and Keynesian economics. It received a frosty reception, especially from Snowden.. The document was then leaked to the press, possibly by Mosley, although he denied this... Angered by accusations of underhand activities and frustrated by the lack of progress he was making, Mosley resigned on the 16th May, remarking to a friend; "they wanted me to think the unthinkable, and now they criticise me for it!". The long decline of the Labour government had begun."


[1] This is the PoD- OTL Chamberlain won by 77 votes, here he's either not as lucky or the counting isn't as rigorous.

[2] This is all genuine Mosley, tweaked here and there to fit the TL.

[3] OTL he got Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and JH Thomas got Privy Seal. Here, Mosley's enhanced standing within the party means that he gets a more prestigious job- although it's still not enough to let him actually enact any of the stuff that he'd like to.

More to come, there's not a gigantic amount of divergence yet but the butterflies are flapping... Thoughts so far?

 

[Pax Britannia]

Interesting. I hope this doesnt end up as outlandish as the book "The Leader" though.

 

[EdT]

"The Leader"? Haven't come across that particular work before. Sounds interesting...

And no, all going well this is meant to be relatively plausible. Which is a pity in way as a full-blown weird Mosley TL would be quite entertaining. Which is not to say that Oswald will not be a controversial figure in this TL I hasten to add...

 

[EdT]

I wasn't going to post this so soon, but why not? So here goes...

Part 2: "I did not come into politics to change the Labour Party. I came into politics to change the country."

(Taken from "My Life" by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)

"...The reception of my resignation speech by Lloyd George, Churchill and other speakers in the subsequent debate is well known, but a selection of letters I received from members of all parties may add something. They have never been published before, though none of them was marked private. They reveal the welcome from all sides of the House to an effort at action after years of drift;

'Your speech was the best I have ever heard in the House, and I imagine must be one of the best of parliamentary performances.'-Brendan Bracken.

'The best and most constructive speech I have heard in the House. It was fair and it was splendid.'-Clement Davies.

'It was, I suppose, the greatest parliamentary tour de force this generation will hear.'-Robert Boothby.

'A really great parliamentary performance ... I was enormously impressed by it... I don't believe there is anyone else in this House who could have done it.'-Violet Bonham-Carter.

'May a great admirer express his great admiration.'-John Simon.

Finally, the letter which pleased the speaker most came from his mother in the gallery, saying that 'people of all shades of opinion' thought it 'the finest speech heard in the House for twenty years'.

I depart from the usual practice, to which we English rightly adhere, for reasons I gave before; the whole requires an occasional immodesty. Certainly my life was abruptly changed, at least for a happy interval, by the effect of that speech. I had now moved from the left to the centre of British politics, where in underlying though sometimes unrecognised truth I have remained ever since. As Dalton wrote later: 'Men and women went to Mosley because something had to be done to save society'. The centre and even the right looked towards me, as well as all the more realistic and ardent spirits of the Labour Party.."[1]


(Taken from "Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939" by Simon
Greene, CUP 1982)

"Mosley's resignation speech- a parliamentary triumph- was a long-premeditated claim to leadership designed to appeal to the political centre. Henceforth he constantly spoke about "energetic leadership" and "decisiveness". Working with an increasingly significant parliamentary following, Mosley continued to emphasise his original policy of Keynesian monetary reform, loan-financed public works and massive "state action", all of which would be accompanied by a general reorganisation of the cabinet and civil service intended to improve governmental efficiency...

...interestingly considering his later criticism of the concept of "National Government" in 1931, in his period out of office Mosley was careful to cultivate contacts with figures from across the political spectrum- Macmillan and Oliver Stanley from the Conservatives, and the likes of Nicholson and Sinclair from the Liberals. There was even talk of a cross-party "young alliance" against the older generation of politicians, although this was a pipedream and inevitably came to nothing. Such talk does demonstrate however that Mosley's radicalism was part of the general post-war shift in British politics, as the rising stars of the 1920's increasingly chafed at the relaxed style of their Edwardian forebears."


(Taken from "The Crisis of 1931" by George Barlow, Picador 1990)

"From May 1930, Mosley formed another small group of parliamentary rebels, and attempted to use the extra-parliamentary Party to impose his policies upon the cabinet. To some extent, these pressures could be ignored or contained. The TUC, ILP and Mosleyites tended to be mutually antipathetic, although from November the latter two had forged links and attempted to coordinate their efforts, albeit in an ineffectual way.

Criticisms from all three groups aggravated existing uneasiness within the Labour party. While Party loyalty and the recognition of parliamentary difficulties kept discontent in check to a certain extent, ministers were subjected to a constant stream of complaint from the parliamentary Party, the NEC and Party committees. The near success of a Mosleyite motion at the party conference in October[2] and its originator's subsequent election to the NEC confirmed both Party discontent with government unemployment policy and the existence of a major potential threat to the leadership...

...After his victories at the Party conference, Mosley found himself in a position that his impulsive nature naturally rebelled against. He could be reasonably confident in the fact that he commanded great support in the Labour Party, and his confidants constantly rammed home the point that all he needed to do to progress was to continue his opposition to MacDonald and patiently wait until the Government drifted into a crisis.

Mosley's impatience was never far beneath the surface however, and in an ill-advised speech at Edgebaston in February 1931 he lashed out at the cabinet, calling Snowden a "dull, lethargic mediocrity" amongst other terms. His comments angered many within the party and enraged the government, who saw his criticism as ungentlemanly and a direct challenge to the Prime Minister. In April Mosley's impatience reached its peak, when he even went as far as seriously considering abandoning the Labour party and forming a movement of his own[3]. While Mosley was quickly dissuaded from his quixotic plan by being convinced that his grass-roots support would not follow him outside Labour, the incident shows how his instincts even at this stage were towards decisive action, even to the point of being self-defeating. It was a character trait that would dog Mosley throughout his political career."


(Taken from "The Encyclopaedia of 20th Century British Politics", Eds. June + Peterson. Longman, 1999)

"MAY REPORT, THE: Report issued in July 1931 by the Economy Committee on National Expenditure, chaired by Sir George May. The committee warned that in 1932 the government would have a budget deficit of £120 Million, a gap that would have to be closed by radical budget cuts. Publication of the report caused an economic and political crisis in Britain, and led directly to the fall of Ramsay MacDonald's Labour government as the retrenchment proposals irrevocably split the cabinet."


(Taken from "The Crisis of 1931" by George Barlow, Picador 1990)

"After an 'impassioned appeal' by MacDonald for acceptance of his proposals, each Cabinet Minister was asked to express his or her view. In the event, ten ministers supported the unemployment benefit cut. Ten were opposed. With such an even split, the Cabinet immediately agreed upon resignation. It was decided that the King should immediately be informed, and advised to summon a Baldwin-Samuel-MacDonald conference the following morning.

...MacDonald arrived at the palace at 10.15 pm, looking "scared and unbalanced". The King urged him not to resign, but instead to consider the national alternative, although he admitted that it seemed unlikely that the Conservatives and Liberals would acquiesce to such an arrangement[4]...

....Macdonald then telephoned from the palace to arrange a meeting that evening with Baldwin and Samuel, before returning to Downing St... The Conservatives and Liberals arrived around 11 pm. Baldwin had brought Chamberlain, who attempted to convince the uncertain MacDonald to remain in a "National Government". Although MacDonald would likely have few parliamentary supporters, he could 'command strong support in the country'. Samuel strongly supported Chamberlain, while Baldwin said nothing. Only after the meeting when pressed by Chamberlain did he express approval, adding that he had remained silent because the appeal to MacDonald seemed hopeless.. Ironically it was Baldwin's attitude that finally decided Macdonald. Interpreting his silence as indicating disapproval[5], MacDonald despondently informed the palace that he intended to resign the following day, and the prospect of a Conservative-Liberal emergency government became a reality on the 25th."


(Taken from "Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939" by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)

"The resignation of MacDonald and the abrupt entry of Labour into opposition necessitated a general reorganisation of the Party. At a meeting called on the 25th August MacDonald's resignation was accepted. The contest for the Party's leadership seemed destined to be between youth and experience, the extroverted radical Mosley being pitted against Arthur Henderson, a veteran widely regarded as a 'safe pair of hands'...

...In the event however, the long-promised showdown between Labour's establishment and radical wings never materialised. Henderson was naturally inclined not to seek the leadership[6], and his belief that the Party could not be reformed in time to avoid a crushing defeat at the next election made him go as far as to tell friends that the position would be a 'poisoned chalice'. Against the advice of his allies then Henderson indicated to Mosley on the evening of the 30th that he would not contest the leadership. The following day the Party returned Mosley as leader by a huge margin. Amongst the general jubilation a single delegate rose and began shouting 'An English Hitler!' He was swiftly silenced by his neighbours[7]..."


[1] This is all pretty much verbatim from Mosley's OTL biography- the man really does remind me of Enoch Powell in his complete lack of any self-doubt.

[2] OTL: Mosley put his 'manifesto' to the Labour conference of 1930- it was rejected by a relatively narrow margin of 1,046,000 for compared to 1,251,000 against. ITTL Mosley's greater influence and popularity in the Party is enough to make things closer, 1,112,000 for to 1,185,000 against.

[3] Of course, in February 1931 OTL Mosley did exactly this, setting up the "New Party". ITTL he has rather better advice, and realises that he has a far greater chance of achieving his objectives within the Labour movement.

[4] OTL, George V overplayed the receptiveness of Baldwin towards National Government, which made Macdonald feel that it was a practical alternative. Here the King is a more reliable messenger, which discourages a Prime Minister already far more aware of the potential party schism he could cause then OTL.

[5] The meeting occurred OTL, but here MacDonald is already more inclined to dismiss National Government as unworkable, which colours his perceptions somewhat.

[6] OTL the only reason he did it really was because he felt he was the only option in the dire straits Labour found itself. That's not the case ITTL.

[7] No, the heckler was not an 8-year old Jewish kid from Frankfurt.. I can promise however that Walter will make a conference-based cameo towards the end of the TL.

 

[Shadow Knight]

Looking good EdT.

 

[Pax Britannia]

Shaping up nicely.

 

[EdT]

Last part for a bit as term's ending and I need to start packing...


Part 3: “Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile.”



(Taken from “The Crisis of 1931” by George Barlow, Picador 1990)

“When Parliament reconvened after the summer recess, it was to a completely changed political situation, and to a looming crisis. The new government was determined to stay on the gold standard, and government MP after government MP stood to declare their financial orthodoxy. The opposition response was muted. Mosley used his first commons speech as leader to ram home his scepticism about government policy; “why is the government so worried about inflation in a period where prices are sharply falling?” he asked, to an uneasy silence from the opposition benches behind him… Labour disquiet was soon swallowed by outrage however. After Mosley’s speech the former Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald rose from the backbenches and pointedly gave his blessing to the new government, first to a stunned silence and then to boos and shouts of ‘Judas!’ from around him and cheers from the government benches[1]…. for a time there was thought to be a real possibility that MacDonald would join the new government; however this was never more then a persistent rumour, and one quashed by MacDonald’s own decision to retire at the next election.”


(Taken from “Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939” by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)

“Mosley’s insistence on his anti-gold standard position in early September began to cause serious divisions within the Party. Even the far-left began to question his vehement belief in the total wrong-headedness of government policy, though many Labour MPs were distinguished by their total lack of economic knowledge and followed Mosley on trust. By the third week of September Labour’s perceived saviour of a month before appeared to be courting disaster, amid mounting moves by sections of the Party to “stop the train wreck”. The Unions in particular were beginning to turn against Mosley, going as far as to send demonstrators to meetings at which Mosley spoke…”[2]


(Taken from “My Life” by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)

“…Our meetings had been orderly except for a lively heckling, which helps rather than hinders a speaker. But the climate changed completely when a Union man threw eggs at me during a speech in Newcastle… John Strachey reported afterwards that following the incident I remarked that 'This is the crowd which has prevented anything being done in England since the war'. This is true, but it is clear that I did not mean they were merely averse to change. What I meant then and mean now is that the long-experienced and entirely dedicated agents and warriors of the vested interests always play on the anarchy inherent in sections of Labour to secure the confusion, disillusion which is essential to their long-term plan. In a crisis they will attempt to prevent any major reform or ordered progress through the medium of the Labour Party.”


(Taken from “Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939” by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)

“On the 20th September however Mosley’s gamble paid off handsomely. The Cabinet was left with no choice but to accept the Bank of England’s advice to suspend fixed-price gold sales, and so the government finally “did what it was formed not to do”. To the surprise of all those who had been predicting disaster, the apocalyptic results of the move resolutely failed to materialise… Several days after the gold standard was dropped, Snowden’s prediction of unemployment rising to ten million and the Pound halving in value seemed utterly ridiculous, and Mosley’s economic judgement was completely vindicated…

…Two weeks later, the Labour conference gave Mosley a rapturous reception. Against all odds he had hugely embarrassed the government and had been able to position the Labour party as a genuine alternative to the economic orthodoxy espoused by all the other parties save the Lloyd-Georgites… In a speech to delegates Mosley was in a bullish mood.”

(Extracts from Oswald Mosley’s speech to the Labour conference, October 1931)

“…Let us make no mistake; let us have no concealment at all. This Movement is a revolutionary Movement, a Movement which seeks no compromise, a Movement that will stand for no unity with the Parties of betrayal. We stand for the union of the British people in a system consistent with our traditions, but a system purged and cleansed of this corruption. Our Movement, therefore, is a Movement of revolution, a Movement which will be given its power by the declared will of the British people, not merely with their consent, but with a passion of enthusiasm…

…We remind the British people of something that nowadays we seem to forget: that we possess an Empire which contains one-quarter of the globe, one-fifth of its inhabitants, which contains within it every single raw material, every material resource that mankind can possibly desire; that the output of our machinery can be enormously increased, and even multiplied…. Not a single technician in industry either can deny that granted a market for which to produce, within Britain and the Empire alone, without any reliance on outside supplies, within the Empire alone, we can enormously increase our present, production and wealth….

…We must exclude from Britain and the Empire the flood of cheap sweated goods which drag down our standard of life. Behind that insulation, by Law of the corporate system, we shall raise wages over the whole field of industry and give to the British people at last the power to consume the goods which the British people produce. The Finance and Credit system of the country will no longer be used for the creation of foreign competition and other purposes inimical to the British people. The Finance and Credit of Britain at last will be used for the purposes of the British people as laid down by British Government!”[3]


(Taken from “The Crisis of 1931” by George Barlow, Picador 1990)

“…As Labour met in Scarborough, the government was deciding to dissolve itself. Baldwin judged that the immediate crisis was over and saw no reason to prolong a coalition when in his view an entirely Conservative administration was achievable at the polls. The Samuelite Liberals for their part were uneasy about being part of a government with a predilection towards protectionism, and were in any case convinced that an election would put them in a far more advantageous position for negotiating with whichever new administration that was formed. Accordingly, on October 5th Baldwin asked the King for the dissolution of Parliament…”


(Taken from “Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939” by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)

“The calling of new elections in the autumn of 1931 seemed to promise a further re-alignment in British politics. All parties were confident of improving their situation; Baldwin was certain that voters would reject Labour by enough of a margin to secure a straight Tory majority, while Mosley felt that he had repaired enough of the damage caused to Labour by their time in office to be in with a chance of government. For their part, even the Liberal factions looked forward to increasing their shares of the vote and influencing any new administration…

In the febrile atmosphere of the campaign, Mosley’s energy and drive came to the fore. He was determined to pre-empt Conservative attacks on the Labour government’s record by repudiating the administration’s legacy in its entirety;

“Mr Chamberlain says that the former government’s failure speaks for itself, and I am inclined to agree… Indeed, I concur so completely with his views that our former Chancellor Mr Snowden says that this party has ‘run mad’! The facts do speak for themselves, and the fact that Messers Snowden and MacDonald appear to wish the Conservative Party well in the forthcoming election is a fact that speaks very loudly indeed to me…”

…On the 11th October Labour launched its manifesto, the grandly-titled “Britain arise”. The document was a hugely radical one compared to its 1929 predecessor; it was essentially the “Mosley Manifesto” of the year before adopted as official opposition policy. Making a speech marking the launch, Mosley waved a copy of the document in the air and made the break with the past explicit;

“We are not the party of the ‘old women’ who dithered and procrastinated while crisis loomed. The ‘old gang’ have even got over the pretence of fighting each other now. They are all in one camp, huddled together. This is not their party any longer. This is a New Labour party!”


(Taken from “The Crisis of 1931” by George Barlow, Picador 1990)

“…The Conservative election campaign was a savage one. Despite Mosley’s (largely successful) attempts to distance himself from the MacDonald administration the Labour party was constantly attacked as being manifestly incompetent at best and criminally negligent at worst. Labour policy was described as ‘naked Bolshevism’ that would ruin the country, and Mosley himself was characterised as a disingenuous aristocrat who swapped his Rolls-Royce for an old Ford and his frock coat for a boiler suit as he went out canvassing…

…On the eve of polling, both sides were confident of victory. Labour canvassers had reported the best response in years, especially from working class Conservatives who seemed to have been won over by Mosley’s combination of patriotism and interventionism. The Conservatives by contrast had found that voters were unwilling to reward Labour for the mistakes of the last parliament…”



[1] OTL MacDonald decided that if he was not going to be part of a National Government then he would give his blessing to a Tory/Liberal coalition- this is what he's doing here, made more pressing in his mind because he believes a Mosley government and a swing from financial orthodoxy would lead to national disaster.

[2] OTL, Labour was wedded to the financial orthodoxy for a lot longer, and fought the 1931 election on a platform of 'prudence'- here, Mosley's really pushing the Keynesian approach. Large sections of the Party still are taking some convincing though.

[3] This is pretty much all OTL Mosley, tweaked slightly to fit the TL.

 

[Pax Britannia]

Excellent. This has the makings of another 'A Shot Heard Around the World'.

 

[EdT]

Part 4: “This party will, ultimately, be judged on its ability to deliver on its promise.”


(Taken from “The Encyclopaedia of 20th Century British Politics”, Eds. June + Peterson. Longman, 1999)

“1931 ELECTION: The 1931 election was held in the autumn of that year after Stanley Baldwin’s Conservative-Liberal emergency government dissolved itself. After a hard-fought campaign that both major parties were confident of winning, the result was another hung parliament. Labour lost seats to the Conservatives, but not enough to enable a majority administration. As consequence, Baldwin was forced to reluctantly enter into coalition with the Samuelite Liberals for a second time.

The results were as follows:

Conservative: 291 (+31)
Labour: 257 (-30)
Liberal (Samuelite): 31 (+1)
Liberal (Simonite): 27 (-2)[1]


(Taken from “Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939” by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)

“…The continuation of a hung parliament after the General Election united almost every major political figure in disappointment. Baldwin found himself in a situation practically unchanged from before the election… he still had to depend on the Liberals for survival, but the protectionist lobby in his party was becoming increasingly vocal. For Mosley’s part, he regarded the results of the election as a personal humiliation. He felt that the victory that was in his grasp had been snatched away by the machinations of the press barons, and three days after the election he condemned the national media;

“In Britain we have censorship given not to any Government, but censorship in the hands of money, and censorship used, by money, to sell to the people false news, to sell to the people lies, to push the vested interests, to raise the interest of the faction and the section above those of the people and of the nation”

Over the following six months however Mosley’s attitude towards the press would shift remarkably…”


(Taken from “Conservatives in the 1930s” by Robert Lodge, OUP 1991)

“…Almost as soon as Baldwin’s new government was formed it began to strain under the weight of its own contradictions… The Conservative dilemma was simple; the Government required the support of the Liberals to survive, but the free-traders could never accept the protectionist agenda that seemed all but certain to be Baldwin’s policy…[2]

…In one of the many ironies of British politics in the inter-war years, the arch anti-coalitionist Baldwin found himself obliged to lead a fundamentally divided coalition government with militants on both sides of the protection issue. For a time though, it seemed like the fears of many within the party were unfounded, and that somehow a balance could be struck. Baldwin’s attempts to forestall the tariff issue were largely successful at first, as he committed himself to a review of foreign trade policy to appease the protectionists, and then privately informed the Liberals that the review would find in favour of the status quo…[3]

In the spring of 1932 however, the lid could no longer be kept on the tariff issue. Preparations for the postponed Imperial conference in Ottawa were well-underway, and the fragile understanding hammered out by Baldwin was finally shattered on the 3rd April, when the die-hard protectionist Henry Page-Croft submitted a Private Member’s Bill calling for a ten-percent tariff on many non-Imperial imports. The bill caused uproar in the Commons as protectionist Tories cheered their spokesman and waved their ballot papers at the government front-bench, while the incensed Liberal coalitionists angrily passed notes to the Prime Minister…

By the following week Page-Croft’s intervention had been quashed by the whips, but the damage had been done. The bill had utterly laid open the extent of backbench opinion against free-trade, and alienated both the Samuelite Liberals and their potential replacements the Simonites… Perhaps more ominously the affair impelled Lord Beaverbrook, the perennial thorn in Baldwin’s side, to re-open his long-running campaign for Imperial preference and change within the Conservative party…”


(Taken from “Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939” by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)

“As the spring of 1932 wore on it became increasingly obvious to Mosley and the party as a whole that despite their disappointing performance in the autumn elections Labour remained in an extremely strong position… The Opposition merely had to wait for Baldwin’s government to implode, a task made even easier by Labour’s own vehement support for Imperial preference. In a series of speeches in April and May Mosley rammed home the notion that only Labour could be trusted to enact proper protection, or ‘insulation’ as he preferred; any Conservative administration would merely bring in a watered-down set of reforms, if any at all... By implying on April 14th that Labour would vote for any protectionist motion tabled by Tory dissidents, Dalton handed a powerful weapon to the rebels and dismayed the Liberals…”


(Taken from “Conservatives in the 1930s” by Robert Lodge, OUP 1991)

“…By resurrecting the ‘Empire Crusade’, Beaverbrook intended to justify his previous efforts and avenge earlier setbacks. He was aware that Baldwin was in a potentially impossible situation, and was determined to ‘go out more violently then ever’, forcing Baldwin to ‘give in or give up’. Increasingly he meant the latter… Beaverbrook was aware that a coalition government involving the Liberals could never provide the policies he was determined to see enacted, and over the course of the spring of 1932 came to the conclusion that only through the government’s collapse could the ‘masses who want to wipe out the present Conservative hierarchy’ be persuaded to take action.

There was also the matter of Labour… Despite his manifest distrust of the Left Beaverbrook had a favourable opinion of Mosley, and approved of his patriotic emphasis on ‘insulation’ within the Empire. In early May the two men met and Beaverbrook’s opinions were confirmed, as he later recalled; “I sensed that in Mosley there was a man who we could do business with… He was a man of action, and had the interests of the Empire at heart”. While at this stage Beaverbrook still thought in terms of securing a protectionist Conservative government his previous horror at the prospect of Labour in power was considerably diminished, and in the early summer he even went as far as to float the concept of a ‘National Party’ comprising of a union of the Mosleyite Labour members and the Tory protectionists…”


(Taken from “Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939” by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)

…for his part, Mosley’s meeting with Beaverbrook produced a complete change in his attitude towards the press. Realising that he did have potential allies on Fleet St., Mosley began a concerted effort to cultivate contacts in the media, even going as far as to meet Lord Rothermere in early June. While neither party found the other entirely agreeable Rothermere approved of Mosley’s focus on the Empire, and in the early summer of 1932 there was a noticeable shift in the tone Labour was referred to in the comment columns and editorials of British journalism…”[4]


(Taken from “Conservatives in the 1930s” by Robert Lodge, OUP 1991)

“…In the end, the final expiration of the short-lived coalition came in late May, when the sudden death of the Liberal MP Donald Maclean[5] necessitated a by-election in the constituency of North Cornwall. The seat was relatively marginal and could be won by the Conservatives, but Baldwin decided that to appease the already grumbling Liberal element in the coalition it should remain uncontested by the Conservative party… Baldwin reckoned without the connivance of his enemies however, and on June 2nd it emerged that a young Tory named Alan-Lennox-Boyd[6] would stand in North Cornwall as an “Independent Conservative” candidate, sponsored by Beaverbrook. The following day the Labour party announced that it would not contest the seat, and requested its voters to align with Lennox-Boyd as the only candidate for ‘protection’…

…The North Cornwall campaign was a bitter one, as the Liberals poured every resource they could into the constituency, while Beaverbrook and Rothermere’s publishing Empires produced editorial after editorial extolling the virtues of their candidate. Baldwin’s already shaky authority was undermined further when on the eve of the poll Leo Amery and a group of Tory protectionists visited the area and made speeches on behalf of Lennox-Boyd… By this stage the result of the count was immaterial as the damage had already been done. Feeling betrayed and angry, Samuel’s Liberals resigned their posts on the morning of the 15th, hours before the news that Lennox-Boyd had been elected by a hair’s breadth majority…

…After desultory negotiations with the Simonite Liberals collapsed that afternoon, Baldwin found himself forced to admit that he could not form any effective government. He went to the palace in the evening and requested the dissolution of parliament for almost the second time in six months…”


(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)

“The election campaign of 1932 was short, vicious and decisive. Both Labour and the Conservatives realised that a straight majority had to be secured for any new administration to survive, and relentlessly harried the Liberals for their remaining seats… Baldwin had been released from the fetters of coalition and was free to campaign on a platform of Imperial Preference, but his actions over the previous six months had discredited him in the eyes of many protectionists and it seemed unlikely that any wing of the Conservative party would ever fully trust him again…

On the Labour side, Mosley fought a relentlessly energetic campaign, under the slogan ‘New Labour, New Britain’. He continued to emphasise the break with the past in the hope of obtaining votes from working-class Tories wary of socialism but supportive of protection, social reform and the Empire; a strategy that began to cause increasing concern to the Conservatives… by the final week of the campaign it seemed like Labour were on course to victory, despite Tory attempts to stoke up fears of the ‘red menace’; In a bloodcurdling speech in Newcastle for example the Ulster MP William Allen claimed that ‘behind Labour members who made statesmanlike speeches there are great masses of subversive and bloodthirsty savages who want to deluge this land of ours in blood' …”[7]


(Taken from “My Life” by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)

“…Protection was made the main issue of the 1932 election by Baldwin, after the collapse of his coalition on the issue. Mr. Amery, the chief apostle of protection, came to Ladywood with a great nourish to introduce a new Conservative candidate against me. We exchanged amities: he called me a 'Bolshevik', and I called him 'the busy little drummer boy in the jingo brass band'. Then followed a serious and well-reasoned debate on protection before a highly expert audience…

…for me the highlight of the campaign came when I addressed a large crowd from the steps of Birmingham’s council house on the eve of polling… all the fighting was over, but a huge audience was assembled, all of whom I had to try to convince and some of whom I had to lift to further heights of enthusiasm. It was a tremendous effort of the mind, will and spirit for the sake of the cause in which I passionately believed. That period of waiting before a speech is a time of awe. In the end, the moment comes and you go over the top. All the intellect, the faith, the preparation of the spirit, is then of no avail without the effort of the will…”


(Taken from “The Encyclopaedia of 20th Century British Politics”, Eds. June + Peterson. Longman, 1999)

“1932 ELECTION: The 1932 election was held in the summer of that year as the Conservative/Liberal government established the previous autumn collapsed following the North Cornwall By-Election. The campaign was a vicious one, marked by Conservative disunity over the free trade issue and the growing slump in support for the Tories amongst the working classes. The result was a major swing away from the Conservatives and Liberals, producing the first ever majority Labour government…

The results were as follows:

Labour: 318 (+61)
Conservative: 251 (-40)
Liberal: 36 (-22)
Independent: 1 (+1)[8]


[1] The 1931 election isn't the Labour rout of OTL for several reasons. Mosley's efforts at re-branding the party and turning it into a strong alternative to the Conservatives is one reason, as is MacDonald's absence from the scene- however, the big change is that there aren't the anti-Labour electoral pacts all over the country that there were OTL because of the National government. In OTL 1931 the Labour vote fell, but not catastrophically- it was astute playing of the British electoral system that hurt them so much.

[2] I feel very sorry for Baldwin in this TL- the election has given him perhaps the worst result possible and it would take a miracle for anyone to salvage anything successful from the situation. He's leading a party with sections that won't accept anything less then outright protectionism, while being in charge of a coalition that depends on the continuation of free-trade policies.

[3] OTL there were huge tensions within the National Government on the issue of protection, but the Liberal free-traders were utterly outnumbered by the vast new intake of Tory MPs and were outmanoeuvred by MacDonald. Here, they hold the key to the government's survival, so Baldwin has to bend over backwards to keep them onside.

[4] OTL of course Rothermere ended up supporting Mosley's BUF in 1934- which gave us the Daily Mail's wonderful headline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!". His politics remain the same ITTL, and while he finds Mosley's Labour roots a little pink for his liking he approves of is protectionism.

[5] The father of the Donald Maclean of Philby and Burgess fame- he died in 1932 OTL and precipitated a small crisis in the National Government

[6] Alan Lennox-Boyd was one of the many young Tories elected in the 1931 election OTL. He later went on to become Churchill's Transport Minister and Eden's Colonial Minister.

[7] OTL Allen was an ally of Mosley and a member of first the New Party, then the BUF. Here, his anti-communism is getting the better of him.

[8] Why these results? Well, voters are sick of weak governments amidst a general feeling of crisis, and turn against the Liberals so strongly because there's a general perception that they are blocking desperately-needed reforms. The Tories for their part are experiencing a haemorrhage of working-class voters to Labour, as Mosley's appeal to "Patriotism and Protection" with social reform has paid off.

Thoughts?

 

[Pax Britannia]

It seems you've turned Mosely into a 1930's Tony Blair! Interesting premise indeed. I would like to see the international reaction to this recent election, especially from the Dominions.

 

[EdT]

It seems you've turned Mosely into a 1930's Tony Blair! Interesting premise indeed. I would like to see the international reaction to this recent election, especially from the Dominions.

Well, there are elements of Blair in there, although they're not meant to be too overpowering. This TL certainly isn't going to be a Turtledove-esque shoehorning of one bit of history into another era. Having said that, elements of Mosley do seem quite Blairite- his 'napoleonic' style of government and disdain for cabinet politics will be quite similar to what Britain has seen post-1997, and he has the same quixotry that Blair sometimes displays. The whole "Labour desperately elects a popular figure with little in common with party traditions" thing can be seen as a common link as well. Mosley also was rather keen on the whole 'third way' thing as well...

International reaction will be covered to a certain extent in the next part, as the Ottawa Imperial Conference takes place... For the most part however there isn't too much discussion; by and large, people in 1932 have more pressing concerns.

 

[Pax Britannia]

Even though I am enjoying this TL its a shame we dont get to see what a Fascist Britain with Mosely in charge looks like. I guess I will have to contend myself with New Labour Mosley

 

[EdT]

To be honest I think that it's pretty much impossible to get a Fascist Mosley in power without some serious handwaving or ASBs- the BUF was never going to become popular enough to be anything more then a fringe movement. The joy of Mosley is that he's not bound inextricably to the BUF, he was an MP for both the Tories and Labour after all and could have risen to power in many different ways. New Labour Mosley is probably the closest you can get...

For a proper fascist Britain, I recommend this wonderful thread from SHWI- it's pretty much the most authoratitive discussion on the plausibility of such a thing that I know of, and really rings true to me.

 

[Wendell]

This is a good story. It leads one to wonder what the next decade will bring...

 

[EdT]

Part 5: "The art of leadership is saying no, not saying yes. It is very easy to say yes."



(Taken from "New Britain" by Oswald Mosley, Flag Press 1931)

"...I believe in the following simple principles: (l) give a man a job to do; (2) give him the power to do it; (3) hold him responsible for doing it; (4) sack him if he does not do it. Labour principles, therefore, abhor the fugitive irresponsibility of a committee but do not descend into the morass of dictatorship. I have seen the committee system in action within our political system and have observed its consequence. If several men are in name responsible no one is, in fact, responsible, and no one can be held to account for failure... Everyone shelters behind his colleagues and disclaims personal responsibility; all wanted to do the right thing, but none could persuade their colleagues to do it. Not only does the committee system dissipate action in endless talk; it breeds cowardice and evasion in leadership in place of courage and responsibility. Therefore, in the building of our Movement and in the building of a Government I believe inthe leadership principle, which means personal and individual responsibility...

...We have rationalised industry and most other aspects of life, but we have not rationalised the State. Sir Arthur Salter has said that "private society has developed no machinery which enables industry as a whole to contribute to the formation of a general economic policy, and secure its application when adopted." It is this machinery of central direction which the Corporate State is designed to supply - and that, not as a sporadic effort in time of crisis, but as a continuous part of the machinery of government."


(Taken from "My Life" by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)

"...At the time there was much loose talk of 'business government' without any clear definition of what this term meant. I gave a definition in my first days in office: 'The proper relationship of government to Parliament is that of company directors to shareholders- the shareholders should decide broad policy and then give the directors complete freedom to carry it out'. If 'business government' meant anything clear and practical, it meant government given the power to act by the people's representatives in Parliament, in the same way as a board of directors is given that power by the shareholders, subject to their right to interrogate and if necessary dismiss the directors at a shareholders' meeting.

This makes a practical proposition of the term 'business government', which as a vague phrase is no aid to clear thinking. Otherwise, business government can only mean that government should itself conduct the whole country directly, as management conducts a business; namely, universal nationalisation or interference, the last thing the business world wants. The job of government is to make possible the job of industry, not to do it. This bedrock fact must stand out of the spate of nonsense now talked about government and industry..."


(Taken from "The Mosley Era" by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)

"...As soon as he entered Downing St, Mosley set about enacting the legislation he felt his country so desperately needed. Dalton was appointed Chancellor and Graham[1] Home Secretary, while the ever-dependable Henderson returned to the Foreign Office...The new government's first move was to submit an Import Duties Bill to parliament, creating a strong tariff barrier and in the process setting out Britain's position on the protection issue to the Dominion governments preparing to meet at Ottawa the following month[2]. The legislation sailed through parliament with little difficulty, impelled both by the general sense of crisis and a large degree of support from the Tory backbenches, in disarray after the resignation of Baldwin...

...After dismantling generations of British economic policy in a stroke, Mosley's new government used the summer recess to deal with its own internal structure. A key facet of Mosleyite political thought was the concept of the government as corporation, and in a bid to improve governmental efficiency the administration's entire decision-making apparatus was overhauled...


(Taken from "The British presidency; Government in the Mosley period" by Ivan Henderson, Longman 1991)

"Mosley's 'corporatism' was based upon the need to escape from established outlooks and orthodox practices, in order to release a pragmatic inventiveness that would lead to more workable ways to address immediate problems. Given these values and motive forces, together with the Prime Minister's determination not to be sucked into the kind of leadership-sapping spectacles of government disintegration that marked the MacDonald and Baldwin administrations, Mosley viewed the cabinet and its system of cabinet committees with personal misgivings and suspicion... After six months of a Mosley administration, an embittered George Lansbury wrote;

'This is a government in thrall to its triumph in July and the leader that produced it... Its collective membership permits him to run it as a personal fiefdom, consulting here and there with selected colleagues, running the show through an inner 'war' cabinet, not all of whose members belong to the real thing or have any other base then as a Mosley familiar. Few these days talk of the cabinet as a centre of power, or its meetings as occasions where difficult matters are thrashed out between people whose convictions matter to them'[3]

While the forms of cabinet government were adopted, the essence remained in doubt. Cabinet committees never had the status and reach that they had possessed under previous administrations, and full sessions of the cabinet were preceded by more substantial strategy meetings by the 'Big Three' (in 1932, Mosley, Graham and Dalton) and selected aides. The overall effect was later described by Attlee as a system whereby 'Mosley presided over a cabinet not of comrades, but of strangers'. The use of the word 'strangers' was strongly suggestive of the United States Cabinet...

...The doubling of the Prime Minister's staff in the first year of the Mosley premiership, the introduction of Party men from Labour positions to strategic posts relating to policy advice in government departments and the Civil Service reforms of 1932-3 all contributed to a closer association between Number 10 and the 'centre'. The drive by Mosley to provide a dynamic and professionalised 'centre' was exemplified by the influx of senior advisors from outside the world of politics... In September 1932 the government invited representatives from industry, the unions, academia and banking to join a 'National Council', a further dilution of cabinet power..."


(Taken from "Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939" by Simon
Greene, CUP 1982)

"While Mosley stayed in Britain to supervise the construction of his new government, in August Dalton and a large team of negotiators travelled to Ottawa and the Imperial Economic conference. Their negotiations were relatively successful. While the Imperial Free Trade Area that the government truly wanted was not realised, the British negotiators were able to walk away with an agreement that could be presented as a victory for the Imperial ideal...[4]

When Parliament reconvened in September, it had a busy legislative schedule ahead of it[5]. The centrepiece of this legislation was the Unemployment Act, which not only restored the level of benefit to the level it had been before the controversial cuts the previous year, but also established a 'National Relief Organisation' which aimed to take unemployed volunteers and place them in camps from where they would be able to carry out public works schemes... Plans were also announced to give tax-breaks and other incentives to companies who established factories and light industry in the depressed parts of Northern England and Scotland, and the creation of the 'National Council' was designed to help coordinate the actions of business, the unions and act as a breeding-ground for new ideas. In October an Agriculture Act was passed to protect British farmers via subsidy, although many still complained about the ease of imports from the Dominions..."


(Taken from "Conservatives in the 1930s" by Robert Lodge, OUP 1991)

"...The defeat of 1932 and Baldwin's subsequent resignation gave Conservative politicians the chance to redefine their party and become a coherent alternative to Labour... At first it seemed that there would be little controversy in the choice of new leadership. Neville Chamberlain was the obvious frontrunner, and his ministerial experience and long-held protectionism made him an appealing successor to Baldwin. However, many within the party believed that only by emulating Labour's choice of a charismatic younger man as leader could the defeat of the election be reversed.

There was also the influence of Lord Beaverbrook to consider. While he had appalled many Conservatives by his destructive actions in the spring, the fall of Baldwin and the triumph of protection within the Tory party had hugely increased his influence, and the demonstration of Beaverbrook's ability to seriously damage the party at the polls convinced many that only with a leader with his blessing could prove a success... In a series of hastily convened meetings in the first week of August a disparate grouping of Tories tried to convince the party grandees that Chamberlain was too old and too familiar a face to allow the Party to make a new start, and what was needed was youth and charisma; all qualities exemplified by the young former under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Anthony Eden...[6]"


(Taken from "The Mosley Era" by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)

"...After the flurry of legislation passed by the Commons in the autumn of 1932 the Labour government settled into its role, giving Britain its first period of political stability since the beginning of the decade. Mosley still had ambitious plans for the reformation of the House of Lords amongst other things, but he was advised by his colleagues that it would be wise to allow his initial programmes to 'bed down' before anything new was attempted. The government's popularity had soared due to the radical steps Labour had taken to reduce unemployment, and the period was a bleak one for Eden's Conservative party, whose dark warnings of disaster if Labour policies were adopted now looked ridiculous and opportunistic...

...In the spring of 1933 the government suffered its first major crisis, when the new German government informed the Geneva disarmament conference that unless other countries were obliged to disarm to their level, Germany would have the right to build up its own military to parity with its neighbours. While this proposal angered the French, the Mosley government saw it as an ideal opportunity to press for full disarmament in a general sense, and publicly endorsed the German proposal[7], suggesting a disarmament plan proposed by the US President Herbert Hoover as model for the reduction of forces. This failed to impress either the French or the Germans, and in June the German delegation withdrew from the conference, refusing all attempts to entice them back. The resulting outcry over the government's lack of resolve towards the prospect of German re-armament came as a surprise to many, and at a debate on the issue on May 7th Eden[8] caught the mood of the House when he remarked that; "I think. this country ought to say that we will not countenance for a moment the yielding to Hitler and force what was denied to Stresseman and reason"[9]. The controversy deeply embarrassed both Mosley and Henderson, and in July the latter resigned for health reasons, to be replaced by Clement Attlee...

...With one of the most fervent supporters of disarmament out of the cabinet and the Geneva conference in disarray, the Prime Minister increasingly came to the opinion that the attempts to disarm had been a noble failure, and only through a gradual program of military expansion could Britain feel secure. This view would put Mosley at loggerheads with much of his own party for the first time since he had arrived in government, but most certainly not for the last..."


[1] William Graham was a highly promising figure in the Labour Party who was President of the Board of Trade in MacDonald's Labour administration. OTL he died very suddenly in 1934- this is very likely to be butterflied away in this TL.

[2] This bit of legislation will be similar to OTL's Import Duties Act, only more wide-ranging and with higher tariffs.

[3] Lansbury is exaggerating somewhat here- he is not a fan of the Mosley administration and has been a leading light in Labour's small anti-Mosley faction. His quote has been reproduced by the author partly because of the benefits of hindsight.

[4] OTL the conference resulted in a series of bilateral agreements between Britain and the Dominions and was regarded as something of a fudge- ITTL the government is more ideologically wedded to Imperial Preference and so is more willing to make concessions. This breaks the deadlock to a certain extent, and Britain is able to walk away with a treaty signed by the various Dominions agreeing to coordinate their efforts. This is not good news for Estonia, Argentina and Denmark amongst others- their depression will be more severe then OTL.

[5] One effect of the flurry of legislation coming out of Downing St in the days following Mosley's election will be a tendency for later historians to compare his first 'hundred days' to that of FDR's. Roosevelt will almost certainly be described as a 'Mosleyite' in this TL, and for his part Mosley will be regarded as somebody who 'Americanised' the British system of government.

[6] Poor, poor Anthony Eden. OTL he's remembered as the man who was forced to wait too long for the top job- in this TL he's the promising man who had greatness thrust on him too early. At least he's not bald though.

[7] The German demand happened OTL, indeed it was one the first acts of the 3rd Reich. In this TL however the British government has a different attitude towards disarmament then OTL's- Henderson as Foreign secretary is a great supporter of the idea, as is the Labour party as a whole. OTL, Mosley's stance on the issue was that if possible, all nations should disarm- however, if agreement could not be reached then Britain had every right to build up her armed forces to whatever level she saw fit. His alignment with Germany then is his attempt to secure general disarmament to forestall an otherwise-necessary military build-up.

[8] So, why Eden over Chamberlain? Well firstly, because Chamberlain is too obvious, and I wanted a young, promising but over-promoted Tory leader to be facing Mosley. In terms of the political situation, I felt that the meteoric rise of Mosley would make many Tories feel that they needed to find their own equivalent, and make a fresh start- plus I'm thinking that Chamberlain would be too closely associated to Baldwin and his final government. Plus, the Tory succession has a habit of turning against the obvious contender, as Rab Butler and Ken Clarke would doubtless tell you...

[9] OTL Attlee said something very similar.

Thoughts/Comments?

 

[Shadow Knight]

Another good installment EdT, what about the responses from other nations to this higher tariff wall? Might this backlash a bit in foreign trade? The Dominions might feel Britain is dumping industrial goods on them because their foreign trade was hurt with the counter tariffs which in turn hurts their own industries.

 

[Pax Britannia]

I think Mosley is trying to make the best of the Dominions. Britain had kind of a raw deal, we were obliged to defend them yet didnt benefit from the tax revinues.

 

[EdT]

The Dominions are looking on the Labour government quite favourably- they got a somewhat better deal at Ottawa then they did OTL, as the government was more ideologically committed to the concept of 'Imperial Preference' then the National Government was, and so was more willing to compromise.

The backlash is going to come from countries outside the Empire that Britain does a lot of trade with, places like Denmark, Estonia and Argentina mostly (although over on SHWI the ever-expert Noel Maurer argues that this will not affect the latter's economy quite as badly as I first thought). This will either result in a certain souring of relations, or more likely, a series of bilateral trade pacts as seen OTL.

 

[17inc]

so how dos this time line deal with R&D in to wepons porjects for the UK i think i rember reading that sir frank whiite trying to get funds from the goverment for his jets iders in OLT EDT

 

[EdT]

Well, this TL will see Britain beginning to re-arm a little earlier and a little more enthusiastically then OTL, although Mosley's going to face quite a political struggle within the Party to get certain sections of Labour to accept this... This does mean however that weapons research will get a little more money then OTL, although not gigantic amounts- government expenditure is far highter then OTL anyway so there's not that much more money to go around.

As for Whittle in particular, that's a little in the future as at present in this TL he's still studying at Peterhouse. By the time the late 1930's come round he may well get more funding then OTL however.