A lesser welfare state in post WW2 UK

I often read that if the British hadn't spent so much on the welfare state, they could have remained both a military superpower and on the cutting edge of military technology. At least through the 50s.

This, of course, begs the question of what the long term impacts would be - would greater military power in the 50s lead to the UK keeping more of its Empire or having a stronger economy in the 60s and 70s?

So let's say that the Conservatives win the 1945 election and implement a more austere welfare state (avoiding the welfare state entirely is impossible - the trends building towards it had been going since the turn of the Century) and a better funded military. Somehow (application of handwavium required here, I suspect) this paradigm is made to stick, and no subsequent government deviates from it very far. What effect does this have on the military, on the evolution of British power, on the cold war and on the British people and economy?

Some thoughts of mine:

*The navy is probably the big winner, followed by the RAF, the RAF was always going to do well in the post war military setup, but the British really let their naval power decline during the 50s.

*The British shipbuilding and aviation industries probably do better over the next 50 years - not just because of more military contracts, but also from experience with military building resulting in industries better able to serve civilian demand.
*More emigration to the Dominions and colonies? During the late 40s there was a big spike in emigration to the Empire due to conditions being so unpleasant in the UK, without as strong a welfare state, I could well see that more British would go to Rhodesia, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

*Consequently more immigration from the colonies? The first bulk immigration of Afro-Caribbean and Indian people happened in the generation after WW2 as British industry recruited abroad to address the labour shortages in the British economy at the time. If more Brits are emigrating, that probably means more labour shortages.

*Closer relationship with the Dominions? A more militarily relevant UK would be better placed to maintain military cooperation with the Dominions, particularly Australia and New Zealand. Also, more emigration means more people in the Dominions who still have personal ties to the UK.

*British Middle Eastern policy more successful? A more militarily relevant UK may be accepted by the US as a useful player in the Middle East - or may be able to force the US to accept its interests. This is potentially a big one. OTL, the post-war strategy the British had for their Empire was to get a strong footing in the oil rich parts of the world to guarantee for the UK cheap energy supplies and to maintain a strong footing in the financial industry so the UK could maintain for herself the benefits of having one of the world's reserve currencies. If Britain pulls this off, then there are big knock on effects.

*What happens to education? National health services, unemployment benefits and pensions are all very nice, but all of them pale besides education as a game changer. So I am left wondering - would a Britain who spent less on welfare also tend to spend less on education? If Britain did spend less on education, then we likely see higher population growth in the UK, particularly from the 1970s onward. On the other hand, we also see life expectancy and public health improving at a slower rate.

Anyone have any insights into how this would play out?

fasquardon
 
P.S. I am hoping that we'll be able to avoid any ideological advocacy here and be able to keep focused on possible outcomes without arguing about whether those outcomes are "good" or "bad".

fasquardon
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Conservatives aren't gonna win in '45. It's been near a decade since the last election, and the UK has been through a conflict that has shattered and reformed the national psyche. One of the reasons why Labour won was simply because of what it promised- the NHS, a cradle to grave welfare state, and economic stability. To put it simply, what people didn't care about was having a strong army- the most violent conflict the world had ever seen was in effect over and the UK was on the cutting edge. What they cared about was entering the brave new world.

My bottom line is that it's implausible to have the Conservatives win in 1945 unless the make up of the National Government was dramatically changed during the War, or Labour was run by other people- in that case, you might just see a Conservative Victory.
 
Conservatives aren't gonna win in '45. It's been near a decade since the last election, and the UK has been through a conflict that has shattered and reformed the national psyche. One of the reasons why Labour won was simply because of what it promised- the NHS, a cradle to grave welfare state, and economic stability. To put it simply, what people didn't care about was having a strong army- the most violent conflict the world had ever seen was in effect over and the UK was on the cutting edge. What they cared about was entering the brave new world.

My bottom line is that it's implausible to have the Conservatives win in 1945 unless the make up of the National Government was dramatically changed during the War, or Labour was run by other people- in that case, you might just see a Conservative Victory.

Oh, agreed. It is a very unlikely gimmie. But the question isn't about how this happens, it is about what happens if the gimmie is given.

(I would argue that the most likely way for Britain to avoid a comprehensive welfare state and to follow a more American political trajectory would actually require a PoD 20 or 30 years before 1945, and have the liberal party be more successful at competing with Labour for the votes of the left - or avoid the expansion of the voting franchise.)

fasquardon
 
If the Conservatives had won in 1945 they would have still implemented the Beveridge Report as several of them said in later years, it was just too popular. The main difference is likely to be in implementation - you could well see them introducing a compulsory insurance scheme like Germany or France has rather than a monolithic government run department paid out of general taxation. Even if they did introduce the NHS as we know it I'd expect them to have it devolved into regionally organised bodies rather than a centralised one as we got.
 
Would a minority in 1945 where the Liberals hold the balance of power be plausible? Even if Labour gets to remain in power they might be forced to make some concessions to trim down the welfare state and avoid nationalizing so many industries while also making some effort to maintain military spending.
 
Top