AHC: Have Conservatives lead the UK from 1929-31, Labour Party rule from 1931

Hmm avoid the British economic stagnation in the 1920s. Thats the only plausible way tbh.
Having the Tories win a narrow majority in 1929 isn't difficult - in OTL, it was a hung parliament with a narrow Labour lead. So basically have something like:

Tories - 300
Labour - 250
Liberals - 50

This means that the Tories are the ones left holding the baby, with no margin for error. That gets you through to 1931, perhaps due to a vote of no-confidence or something.

The problem there is twofold:
  • Neither of the two wings of Labour had any clue about fixing the Depression at this point. The Snowden wing thought that Free Trade, Balanced Budget, and Gold Standard was the only way. The Socialist wing thought that they just needed to wait for the final death-throws of capitalism. The only party with anything like a real plan was Lloyd George's Liberals, and they aren't winning 1931 - so if you do have a post-1931 Labour Government, it doesn't end well.
  • The Tories were less wedded to the Gold Standard than Snowden. This means that the Depression is going to be less nasty generally.
Its actually not that difficult. The Liberals ran on a Keynesian platform (actually largely written by the man himself), If they had been just slightly more successful in getting their vote in the "right" seats then the Tories could win They polled 8 million too evenly distributed. This leaves the Tories in office in 1929.
 
It's important not to conflate American schemes with British politics at the time, neither the New Deal nor "Share Our Wealth" were around as concepts in 1931, nor did they have any particular following in the Labour party. Lloyd George became rather smitten with the New Deal later on but his proposal for a British version was rejected by the National Government.


It's important not to conflate American schemes with British politics at the time, neither the New Deal nor "Share Our Wealth" were around as concepts in 1931, nor did they have any particular following in the Labour party. Lloyd George became rather smitten with the New Deal later on but his proposal for a British version was rejected by the National Government.


I am sorry but the Liberal Party manifesto of 1929 the famous yellow book contained all of the relevant policies that later would be called "new deal". It is factually incorrect to say the idea did not exist in Britain in 1931. Lloyd George did not "become smitten with the new deal" he already favoured Keynesian economics as developed by Keynes personally for the Liberal Party of which he was a member.
It is true to say that the Labour party and the Tory party leaderships did not favour these policies, and LLoyd-George did not make a serious pitch for them in 1931 because he was very ill at the time. If he had not been and had joined the National Government who knows , but he was and did not, so it is incorrect to say that they were rejected at that point.
As for thinking Macdonald was a leftist driven to Nationalisation two words cods and wallop. The problem with National Labour was their extreme financial orthodoxy, and keenness on austerity. A conservative-led government, especially if somehow the LLoyd-George faction can be cajoled into it might be less damaging to the economy than Labour were. Snowden was the worst possible man to have as chancellor, and about as left wing as Enoch Powell or Milton Freidman.
 
I am sorry but the Liberal Party manifesto of 1929 the famous yellow book contained all of the relevant policies that later would be called "new deal". It is factually incorrect to say the idea did not exist in Britain in 1931. Lloyd George did not "become smitten with the new deal" he already favoured Keynesian economics as developed by Keynes personally for the Liberal Party of which he was a member.

I'd be hesistant to describe the New Deal as Keynesian in theory or in practice, when you look at the correspondence and meetings between Keynes and Roosevelt the two men expressed admiration for each other but also broadly disagreed when it came to policy. We Can Conquer Unemployment was a far more radical proposal for the British economy than the British version New Deal that Lloyd George proposed in 1935.
 
Last edited:
I'd be hesistant to describe the New Deal as Keynesian in theory or in practice, when you look at the correspondance and meetings between Keynes and Roosevelt the two men expressed admiration for each other but also broadly disagreed when it came to policy. We Can Conquer Unemployment was a far more radical proposal for the British economy than the British version New Deal that Lloyd George proposed in 1935.
well I would accept that to a certain degree. But I stand by the view that it is completely wrong to say there were no British solutions proposed until after the new deal. I also would say that the a reason L-G put his proposals in the form he did in 1935 was because he thought that it would be more successful politically if he posed it that way, rather than him being smitten by it as such.
 
well I would accept that to a certain degree. But I stand by the view that it is completely wrong to say there were no British solutions proposed until after the new deal.

I wasn't saying that there weren't any proposals, there were plenty; the Yellow Book, the Mosley Memorandum, Britain's Road To Socialism, even MacDonald had his sanguine musings about land reform. The point I was trying to make was that it's not particularly helpful to compare them to the New Deal or Huey Long's scheme.

I also would say that the a reason L-G put his proposals in the form he did in 1935 was because he thought that it would be more successful politically if he posed it that way, rather than him being smitten by it as such.

I agree but it's a rather semantic point, Lloyd George was trying to stage a political comeback and wanted to attach an increasingly popular title to his new plan. Given that the proposals essentially boiled down to alleviating unemployment via expanded public works paid for by borrowing, it was much closer to the American New Deal than the strategy Keynes outlined in We Can Conquer Unemployment.
 
Its actually not that difficult. The Liberals ran on a Keynesian platform (actually largely written by the man himself), If they had been just slightly more successful in getting their vote in the "right" seats then the Tories could win They polled 8 million too evenly distributed. This leaves the Tories in office in 1929.

If there had been a three percent swing from Labour to Liberal in the constituencies contested by both parties compared with the actual result, and no change in the Conservative vote, the Conservatives would have gained 22 seats from Labour, the Liberals would have gained 12 seats from the Conservatives and 11 seats from Labour. So the Conservatives would have had a net gain of 10 seats, the Liberals would have gained 23 seats and Labour would have lost 33 seats. Therefore the composition of the House of Commons would be as follows:
Conservative: 270 seats
Labour: 254 seats
Liberal: 82 seats
Irish Nationalist: 3 seats
Independents: 6 seats
-----------------
Total: 615 seats
----------------

The Conservatives would need an additional 48 seats compared to the actual result to have 308 seats and an overall majority of one.
 
If there had been a three percent swing from Labour to Liberal in the constituencies contested by both parties compared with the actual result, and no change in the Conservative vote, the Conservatives would have gained 22 seats from Labour, the Liberals would have gained 12 seats from the Conservatives and 11 seats from Labour. So the Conservatives would have had a net gain of 10 seats, the Liberals would have gained 23 seats and Labour would have lost 33 seats. Therefore the composition of the House of Commons would be as follows:
Conservative: 270 seats
Labour: 254 seats
Liberal: 82 seats
Irish Nationalist: 3 seats
Independents: 6 seats
-----------------
Total: 615 seats
----------------

The Conservatives would need an additional 48 seats compared to the actual result to have 308 seats and an overall majority of one.
Even in those circumstances I think Labour would still govern with Liberal support - Baldwin and Lloyd George despised each other, and Baldwin (not to mention Chamberlain) would prefer to go into opposition rather than govern with Liberal support. You would need someone like Churchill leading the Conservatives for a Conservative/Liberal coalition or pact to transpire.
 
Top