AHC: Make British industry as strong as possible during 1920s-1930s

Thomas1195

Banned
What was the full scope of what LG wanted?

fasquardon
I did not remember the source, but he wanted to borrow for public works in 1921, at around £250m, but was opposed by Coalition (Conservatives) and Treasury. But in this case, if a radical was put on the Chancellor position, or even McKenna, then he would act together with LG.

IOTL he also planned to develop electricity industry by building state-backed standardized super-power stations two years before the Weir Committee IOTL (despite the fact that Liberals had just reunited not long).
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
1) The best PODs would be having Asquith retires or swallows his pride and cooperate with DLG, or having another POD where DLG goes back to stand for the Liberals and win (but this is unfeasible).

2) No further interventions in Russia and Turkey would allow for deeper and earlier military cuts. I would recommend the OTL naval spending and even lower army speding. The later increase in naval spending would be financed by the gains from the programs I mentioned below. Meanwhile, demanding Soviet to honour the debt obligations by offering a trade deal. This would form another escape path during the Depression besides Keynesian policies. Commit to all these things despite Tory opposition would save lots of money for public works and national development (of course better to cut defense speding as in this case the money would be spent on national development).

3) Reforms should be enacted like IOTL, but without Geddes Axe. The far-sighted Fisher Education Act being fully implemented would improve British education permanently. Similarly, the Addison Act in 1919 about house building and town planning would both fulfill the Homes fit for Heroes promise and be an integral part of the large public work scheme in 1920-1921 which was IOTL proposed by LG in 1921 and 1924 to develop electricity systems, roads, forests, agriculture...Meanwhile, I expect the Coal and Power, Towns and the Land, Land and the Nation reports would be completed much earlier without Liberal infighting. Specifically:
- Electricity industry would be developed by building state-backed standardized super-power stations, under a national scheme like CEB like IOTL, but earlier and with bigger invesment and faster progress.
- For agriculture, the introduction of state-backed credit facilities for farmers and state-assisted co-operative marketing like in the US, as well as Land Reform (including a national scale Land Value Tax of 15-20%) would be great moves.
- Railway system must be at least partially nationalized in order to be electrified nationally. Also, a further program to replace bullhead rails with flat-bottomed rails would be a crazy boost on steel industry. Many Liberals actually supported nationalization.
- A large scale expansion and construction of roads for motor vehicles would be a big boost for auto industry and encourage the production of high-performance vehicles.
- For coal industry, coal royalties would be nationalized. By a levy on the purchase price at which mining royalties are taken over by the State, funds will be provided for rebuilding and bettering the mining villages, as well as for modernizing and rationalizing the industry.
- Well, and finally, the large programs of building houses, building new towns and clearing slumps.

5) ICI formed like IOTL.

6) I expect the Liberal Yellow Book would be completed earlier than 1928. This would add to the above programs the following schemes:
- Rationalization and modernization of textile and shipbuilding (the Book did mention shipbuilding).
- Introducing industrial democracy and industrial cooperation between Labour, Management and Capital would tackle industrial unrests.
- A systemic national telephone development program.
- Development of London Transport Network, including building new electric railways (like OTL We Can Conquer Unemployment).
- A National Investment Board to control and facilitate domestic investments by channelling funds to industries and National Development schemes.
- Nationalisation of Bank of England.

7) No returning to prewar Gold Standard. This is not ASB under a Liberal government, unlike under the Tories, if the Chancellor was a radical from LG wing or McKenna. Well, a even more radical approach would be breaking off from Gold permanently from 1925, which then would allow BOE to adopt a low interest rate policy for a long period.

8) The Great Depression. Well, breaking off the Gold permanently (if not done in 1924), lowering interest rate further, devaluing the pound, continuing and even accelerating national development public work programs, later combining these with rearmament program.

9) How would the schemes above be funded? Well, many. First is the savings from earlier and bigger military spending cuts and land force demilitarizing. Second is the savings from unemployment doles. Third would be a national scale Land Value Tax of 15-20%...or more, someone in Pipisme's Keeping Liberal Party Flag Flying High thread mentioned that this was a really huge tax. Fifth is scaling back foreign investments for domesric investment via capital control measures. Sixth is levy on coal royalties (mentioned above). Seventh is borrowing from the domestic bond market. Finally, the last financing tool is the BOE, especially after going off Gold and nationalizing BOE.
 
9) How would the schemes above be funded? Well, many. First is the savings from earlier and bigger military spending cuts and land force demilitarizing. Second is the savings from unemployment doles. Third would be a national scale Land Value Tax of 15-20%...or more, someone in Pipisme's Keeping Liberal Party Flag Flying High thread mentioned that this was a really huge tax. Fifth is scaling back foreign investments for domestic investment via capital control measures. Sixth is levy on coal royalties (mentioned above). Seventh is borrowing from the domestic bond market. Finally, the last financing tool is the BOE, especially after going off Gold and nationalizing BOE.
Instead of all that only do half the Geddes Axe. People remember that he drastically cut Government spending, but not that he cut taxes by just as much. Therefore don't cut taxes as much but cut the spending just as much and spend the money saved on your pet projects.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Instead of all that only do half the Geddes Axe. People remember that he drastically cut Government spending, but not that he cut taxes by just as much. Therefore don't cut taxes as much but cut the spending just as much and spend the money saved on your pet projects.
Well, you reduce half, and justify the decision to retain the other by Land Value Tax. Non-Tory politicians and normal people mostly did not oppose LVT.

The military cut would be significantly bigger than OTL if you decide to choose a more radical approach: basically disband British Army, and selling the weapon stock to anywhere you can sell. Only retain the Navy and Airforce, and 100k-200k land soldiers.
 
Last edited:
- Electricity industry would be developed by building state-backed standardized super-power stations, under a national scheme like CEB like IOTL, but earlier and with bigger invesment and faster progress.
- Railway system must be at least partially nationalized in order to be electrified nationally. Also, a further program to replace bullhead rails with flat-bottomed rails would be a crazy boost on steel industry. Many Liberals actually supported nationalization.
The electricity supply industry and railways modernised more that you will admit between 1910 and 1939, but unlike you I acknowledge that there was room for improvement.

In the case of the electricity supply industry the National Grid must be built at the earliest feasible moment. I would like to bring the Electricity Supply Act (1926) forward to 1901 so that the Grid was finished in 1908 instead of 1933. However, that is outside the scope of the OP because the starting date is 1910 and 132kV AC 3-phase at 50 Hz in the Edwardian Era is probably ASB, to paraphrase Oscar Goldman, "We probably didn't have the technology!" OTOH bringing it forward to 1919 with a completion date of 1926 sounds more plausible.

On the subject of railway electrification. Merz & McLellan include single-phase AC as one of their options in their 1911 Electrification Report to the North Eastern Railway in addition to 3rd rail and overhead DC at 800V and 1,200V. However, instead of the low(ish) volume and low frequency schemes previously tried in the UK (IIRC the LB&SC and Midland Railways both used 6,600V AC, but it was 16 2/3Hz or 25Hz) they used the North Eastern Electrical Supply Companies voltage and frequency. IIRC by 1911 they were up to 11,000V AC 3-phase at 40Hz.

IOTL the schemes proposed in the 1911 report had by June 1912 been reduced to a scheme from Shildon to the Cleveland Mines via Redcar and Guisborough plus the passenger service from Darlington to Saltburn at an estimated cost of £294,000. Though I don't remember if the voltage had been increased from 1,200V DC to 1,500V DC at this point. This was in turn reduced to the Shildon to Newport scheme approved in 1913 IIRC. The Shildon to Newport Scheme was 18.5 route miles or 42.5 single track miles plus 5.5 miles of sidings. I don't know the route mileage for the June 1912 Scheme, but it was 154 single track miles and 103.5 miles of sidings.

If the POD had been 1900 instead of 1910 I would have had the NER do the Quayside and Tyneside Suburban schemes as 6,600V AC at 40Hz, but it isn't so it was still 3rd rail DC. But ITTL A.K. Butterworth was less cautious and approved the June 1912 Scheme immediately using Industrial Frequency AC because the cost of the overhead wires was less and NESCo could charge less for the electricity because it needed to build and man fewer sub-stations.

Then in 1919 when they came study the electrification of the ECML from York to Newcastle and Northallerton-Stockton-Shildon they were thinking of using 22,000V AC or even 30,000V AC, which cut the cost of installing the overhead wires by about 25% compared to 1,500V DC and reduced the cost of the electricity because NESCo needed to build and operate considerably fewer sub-stations.

Edit

Sorry Thomas1195 I thought this was the Brit Bashing Thread with the 1910 POD and it is also better with a 1900 or earlier POD because NESCo builds its supply grid with a frequency 50Hz instead of 40Hz.
 
Last edited:
Well, you reduce half, and justify the decision to retain the other by Land Value Tax. Non-Tory politicians and normal people mostly did not oppose LVT.

The military cut would be significantly bigger than OTL if you decide to choose a more radical approach: basically disband British Army, and selling the weapon stock to anywhere you can sell. Only retain the Navy and Airforce.
If you disband the British Army how do you police/subjugate the British Empire?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In the case of the electricity supply industry the National Grid must be built at the earliest feasible moment. I would like to bring the Electricity Supply Act (1926) forward to 1901 so that the Grid was finished in 1908 instead of 1933. However, that is outside the scope of the OP because the starting date is 1910 and 132kV AC 3-phase at 50 Hz in the Edwardian Era is probably ASB, to paraphrase Oscar Goldman, "We probably didn't have the technology!" OTOH bringing it forward to 1919 with a completion date of 1926 sounds more plausible.
I know, but all major parties were not interventionist enough to be willing to do so. The Liberals were also at the first steps towards interventionism. Very very few were similar to Joseph Chamberlain. The war, however, woke them up and changed their approach fundamentally.

We should even go back to 1880s-1890s and handle the Deptford case better, as well as make the central government take the responsibility of electrification instead of local authorities like IOTL. You would require PM Joseph Chamberlain forming a full Liberal Radical government. But this was far out of scope of discussion.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If you disband the British Army how do you police/subjugate the British Empire?
Oh wait, I want to make a POD before 1900 in which a bunch of rabbid anti-colonists who opposed colonial expansion dominate Britain.

Well, we would leave the dominions to be responsible for their own peacetime defense tasks. Retreat from various unprofitable colonies, and take no more colonies following Versailles. However, I feel that we would still need more than 200k British soldiers.
 
I know, but all major parties were not interventionist enough to be willing to do so. The Liberals were also at the first steps towards interventionism. Very very few were similar to Joseph Chamberlain. The war, however, woke them up and changed their approach fundamentally.

We should even go back to 1880s-1890s and handle the Deptford case better, as well as make the central government take the responsibility of electrification instead of local authorities like IOTL. You would require PM Joseph Chamberlain forming a full Liberal Radical government. But this was far out of scope of discussion.
The state can intervene in more subtle ways that spending money.

That is the Central Government can set the standards. For example in the late 1890s the Board of Trade could have agreed with Charles Merz and issued an order that the electrical supply industry had to use 3-phase AC at 50 Hz in multiples of 6,600 or 11,000 volts for the Industrial Electricity supply. Then there would still have been lots of small supplies, but unlike OTL they would have all connected with one another. That would also have avoided the cost of standardising the nation's electricity supply later on.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The state can intervene in more subtle ways that spending money.

That is the Central Government can set the standards. For example in the late 1890s the Board of Trade could have agreed with Charles Merz and issued an order that the electrical supply industry had to use 3-phase AC at 50 Hz with the voltages in multiples of 6,600 or 11,000 volts for the Industrial Electricity supply. Then there would still have been lots of small supplies, but unlike OTL they would have all connected with one another. That would also have avoided the cost of standardising the nation's electricity supply later on.
Leaving the task to local governments is very unsuitable to build Deptford-size stations, even though Central Gov can regulate the standards

What about Deptford and Ferranti. We should handle this, it occurred quite long before Merz, and at that time it was unsually huge even by US standard.

But to make the things you mention possible before 1900, you must make the Radicals dwarfing Gladstone.
 
We should even go back to 1880s-1890s and handle the Deptford case better, as well as make the central government take the responsibility of electrification instead of local authorities like IOTL.
When I re-read the source on that it said that Ferranti ran his power lines alongside the railway lines, something I had forgotten or not noticed in the first place. If his scheme had worked then it would have made electrification of the railways on in London with low voltage DC feasible in the 1890s, because the electricity supply was already there. All they had to do was lay the third rails and build a sub-station every 3 miles and plug it into LESCo's cables.
 

BooNZ

Banned
1. ramping up industrial production prior to the Great Depression crushing global demand seems daft.
2. in the absence of alternative employment, increasing efficiency ordinarily increases unemployment, which was probably the most prominent issue.
3. abandoning the gold standard (and the requisite gold reserves) prior to the Great Depression means the British treasury does not benefit from the huge hike in gold prices.
4. if we are talking about non-intervention, staying home in 1914 has merit
5. in a nation that imports 50% of its own food, state assisted marketing for the agricultural sector seems daft - state assisted agricultural research and education would make some sense. A state facilitated program to work marginal/abandoned land may be a valid interim step, since the marginal cost of employment would be low and any additional food production improves community welfare/ resilience and reduces overall national food imports.

Overall, unless infrastructure investment creates significant growth or removes significant bottlenecks to production, infrastructure/industrial investment would have been better deferred until after the Great Depression hits. IMO
 

Thomas1195

Banned
5. in a nation that imports 50% of its own food, state assisted marketing for the agricultural sector seems daft - state assisted agricultural research and education would make some sense. A state facilitated program to work marginal/abandoned land may be a valid interim step, since the marginal cost of employment would be low and any additional food production improves community welfare/ resilience and reduces overall national food imports.
Oh, I forgot, the Liberal plan OTL also had agricultural research and education, yes, they had.

1. ramping up industrial production prior to the Great Depression crushing global demand seems daft

2. in the absence of alternative employment, increasing efficiency ordinarily increases unemployment, which was probably the most prominent issue

You can improve the efficiency of coal, textile, shipbuilding and steel by modernization and rationalization, and also improve all industries via better industrial relation and also modernization. Also, no returning to prewar gold would make the exports of staple industries in the North more competitive than IOTL.

I disagree. We need a civil servant that agrees with Charles Merz in the right place and right time in the Board of Trade.
If it led to increasing government spending then it would provoke Gladstone and Co. And even so, the problem of too many small stations would be still there.
 

BooNZ

Banned
In response to
1. ramping up industrial production prior to the Great Depression crushing global demand seems daft.
2. in the absence of alternative employment, increasing efficiency ordinarily increases unemployment, which was probably the most prominent issue.
you state
You can improve the efficiency of coal, textile, shipbuilding and steel by modernization and rationalization, and also improve all industries via better industrial relation and also modernization. Also, no returning to prewar gold would make the exports of staple industries in the North more competitive than IOTL.
which is the exact mischief I was referring to...
 
If it led to increasing government spending then it would provoke Gladstone and Co. And even so, the problem of too many small stations would be still there.
I agree, however..

Two even greater problems were:
  1. They used low voltage and low frequency transmission systems so that the electricity they produced didn't travel very far;
  2. The different companies transmission systems were incompatible. It was as bad as a Break of Gauge for the railways.
If the Board of Trade had made the NESCo Electricity Transmissions System the national standard 1900 (and it did do so over 20 years later as part of the creation of the National Grid) the electricity would be transmitted over greater distances and the systems would interconnect where they met.
If it led to increasing government spending then it would provoke Gladstone and Co. And even so, the problem of too many small stations would be still there.
I have changed my mind. I disagree because making the NESCo Electricity Transmissions System the national standard in 1900 would discourage the building of small stations and encourage the construction of larger ones.

Being able to supply a larger area = more customers = you need to supply more electricity to meet the demand = you have to build a bigger power station to make the extra electricity.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I agree, however..

Two even greater problems were:
  1. They used low voltage and low frequency transmission systems so that the electricity they produced didn't travel very far;
  2. The different companies transmission systems were incompatible. It was as bad as a Break of Gauge for the railways.
If the Board of Trade had made the NESCo Electricity Transmissions System the national standard 1900 (and it did do so over 20 years later as part of the creation of the National Grid) the electricity would be transmitted over greater distances and the systems would interconnect where they met.I have changed my mind. I disagree because making the NESCo Electricity Transmissions System the national standard in 1900 would discourage the building of small stations and encourage the construction of larger ones.

Being able to supply a larger area = more customers = you need to supply more electricity to meet the demand = you have to build a bigger power station to make the extra electricity.
Well, then we may even award the contract to NESCo for the electrification of the whole North of England (East + West + Yorkshire) as a start.

But the best approach would be central government taking Deptford seriously during the 1880s, 20 years earlier than NESCo, because if it was a success, it could bring Britain to the world leading position alongside with the US and Germany. Also subsidizing electricity to protect it from gas competition. Electrical industry was still at a very immature stage at that time, so the distance between UK and US, Germany was not as big as in 1913.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
OTOH bringing it forward to 1919 with a completion date of 1926 sounds more plausible.
Oh, I forgot, this was what I mean, if take a POD post ww1. The Lloyd George Liberals IOTL (and a little later even the Asquith wing) were interested in many of the things I had said above. So either having Lloyd George as the sole Liberal leader or having the two cooperate with each other would help. I expect things like systemic and standardised national electrification, Coal and Power report, and CEB would be put forward earlier due to earlier whole-hearted efforts to find new policies (as there would be no infighting).
 

BooNZ

Banned
But the best approach would be central government taking Deptford seriously during the 1880s, 20 years earlier than NESCo, because if it was a success, it could bring Britain to the world leading position alongside with the US and Germany. Also subsidizing electricity to protect it from gas competition. Electrical industry was still at a very immature stage at that time, so the distance between UK and US, Germany was not as big as in 1913.

If the British took your oft recommended strategy of implementing electricity upgrades in the 1880s, they could then update those obsolete electrical networks again circa 1914 with those they installed OTL, thereby using twice the resources for no practical gain - genius!
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If the British took your oft recommended strategy of implementing electricity upgrades in the 1880s, they could then update those obsolete electrical networks again circa 1914 with those they installed OTL, thereby using twice the resources for no practical gain - genius!
Say that to the US and Germany

Also, all country would have to face this situation. For example, Britain in 1950s had to changed from bulhead rails to flat-bottomed rails.

Also, an earlier development in British electrical industry by British natives would result in better expertise and skills.
 
Last edited:
Top