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

Thomas1195

Banned
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.
1910-1914: The development was a joke compared to US and Germany, not to mention France, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and so on, except for the North East.

1919-1939: The development was very fast, and by 1938, electricity output per head exceeded several leading European competitors like France, and equaled Germany level. However, the OTL interwar development only really began in 1926 with the formation of CEB, while Liberal Coal and Power Report was proposed two years earlier, despite the fact that they had spent 6-8 years on infighting. Also, in IOTL, Lloyd George in his development plan in 1928 wanted to shorten the time period of CEB's electrification works by putting more investments and accelerating the progress.
 
Last edited:
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.
That's geographically incorrect because Yorkshire and the North East isn't the whole North of England. You have left out the North West of England, which before the 1970s re-organisation was Cheshire, Cumberland, Lancashire and Westmoreland.

IOTL NESCo began as the Newcastle upon Tyne Electric Supply Company in 1889 and after it expanded changed its name to the North Eastern Electrical Supply Company in 1932. However, I rather like the idea of the Firm expanding west of the Pennines in the early 1900s ITTL to become the Northern Electrical Supply Company, still abbreviated as NESCo.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
That's geographically incorrect because Yorkshire and the North East isn't the whole North of England. You have left out the North West of England, which before the 1970s re-organisation was Cheshire, Cumberland, Lancashire and Westmoreland.

IOTL NESCo began as the Newcastle upon Tyne Electric Supply Company in 1889 and after it expanded changed its name to the North Eastern Electrical Supply Company in 1932. However, I rather like the idea of the Firm expanding west of the Pennines in the early 1900s ITTL to become the Northern Electrical Supply Company, still abbreviated as NESCo.
Maybe also include Scottish Lowland
 
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.
Deptford working would have helped, but I doubt that it would have been as good as the big stations that NESCo built in the 1900s because the Parsons Turbine wasn't available when Ferranti built Deptford.
 
Were there any companies as large as NESCo in the South?
I'll tell you after I've come back from the pub.

AFAIK the biggest power station in the South was Lots Road. It was owned by the Yerkeys Group (pronounced as in turkeys) and provided the electricity that ran its trams, trolley buses and tube lines.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
However, the development of telephone was quite slow at the same time, and the progress was peacemeal. Lloyd George (again) proposed a systemic telephone development plan in his 1928 manifesto.

Deptford working would have helped, but I doubt that it would have been as good as the big stations that NESCo built in the 1900s because the Parsons Turbine wasn't available when Ferranti built Deptford.
Well, Midland and Wales had none. So lets NESCo cover the whole North + Midland + Wales + Scotland. Now, you would need state money and planning because NESCo might not be strong enough to be able to cover all of these region themselves. State pre planning would be also required because you need to identify locations and coverage before building for such a large program.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
About telephone development in Britain: According to LG in his 1928 plan:

Britain's backwardness: At the end of 1927, this country is tenth in density after the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, and Germany. That this lowly position is not accounted for wholly or even largely by the notorious underdevelopment of telephones in ours rural areas is shown by a few comparisons of towns. Thus, London, with a population of about 7½ millions, has a telephone density below many smaller towns on the Continent. Berlin, for instance, with a population of about 54 per cent that of London, has 80 per cent of the number of telephones in London. New York has one telephone for every three inhabitants; London only one to every ten. Thirty-one cities in the world have over 100,000 telephones.

Telephone is the swiftest known form of communication between persons at a distance from one another; and especially as the tool of industry and commerce it is a vital necessity, enabling capital to be turned over more quickly.

Well, not to mention the manufacturing of telephones, a part of electrical industry
.
 
Last edited:
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.
Also bare in mind that in this period the Indian taxpayer paid for about a third of the British Army, not the British taxpayer.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Also bare in mind that in this period the Indian taxpayer paid for about a third of the British Army, not the British taxpayer.
The dominions, Malaya, Burma and India, as well as Falkland, Malta, Gibraltar and Suez were either profitable or vital or both. But I am not sure that various inland African colonies taken from the Scramble of Africa were worth keeping. If they were unprofitable then they should be abandoned, only keep a minimal area to link North and South Africa.

Oh, IOTL, Asquith in 1923 or 1924 also planned for railroad construction in dominions and colonies.
 
Last edited:
How about by 1915 the British establishment realise that there's a dearth of technically qualified young men to design and operate all the new fangled devices that the Generals at the front love to play with like airplanes, motor vehicles and artillery. A national scheme to improve the teaching of science, maths and engineering at schools is implemented combined with generous scholarships for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) based courses at universities perhaps with guaranteed employment/training at postgraduate level. Indeed it is the lack of STEM graduates that has been argued to have done the most damage to British competitiveness for the last century when compared to the comparative advantage achieved by more technically educated countries like the USA, Germany and Japan.

This of course does nothing for the war effort but ties into the Land Fit For Heroes rhetoric post WW1 so the scheme continues. By the early t0 mid 1920's their is a significant increase in STEM graduates compared to OTL. These "wealth generators" trickle into all sectors of the economy; problem solving, improving, innovating and generally increasing productivity. This also helps develope a move away from heavy industries that with hind sight are doomed by the 1950's onwards towards light industries like electronics and automotive. The same is also true of a generally more technically skilled workforce who would also be better prepared and more willing to change working practices.

I like this idea as its a one shot solution that doesn't start a debate on who has the best short term pet project like these threads tend to descend into. It also has the ability to continue to give the goodies up to the present day.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How about by 1915 the British establishment realise that there's a dearth of technically qualified young men to design and operate all the new fangled devices that the Generals at the front love to play with like airplanes, motor vehicles and artillery. A national scheme to improve the teaching of science, maths and engineering at schools is implemented combined with generous scholarships for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) based courses at universities perhaps with guaranteed employment/training at postgraduate level. Indeed it is the lack of STEM graduates that has been argued to have done the most damage to British competitiveness for the last century when compared to the comparative advantage achieved by more technically educated countries like the USA, Germany and Japan.

This of course does nothing for the war effort but ties into the Land Fit For Heroes rhetoric post WW1 so the scheme continues. By the early t0 mid 1920's their is a significant increase in STEM graduates compared to OTL. These "wealth generators" trickle into all sectors of the economy; problem solving, improving, innovating and generally increasing productivity. This also helps develope a move away from heavy industries that with hind sight are doomed by the 1950's onwards towards light industries like electronics and automotive. The same is also true of a generally more technically skilled workforce who would also be better prepared and more willing to change working practices.

I like this idea as its a one shot solution that doesn't start a debate on who has the best short term pet project like these threads tend to descend into. It also has the ability to continue to give the goodies up to the present day.
Have the Fisher Education Act 1918 not torpedoed by Geddes Axe, while making Liberal Radicals like Haldane, Fisher or Crewe responsible for education policy
 

Thomas1195

Banned
IOTL, between 1920-1929, there weren't any profound reforms in education to remedie the damages that Geddes Axe had imposed on Fisher Act 1918.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How about by 1915 the British establishment realise that there's a dearth of technically qualified young men to design and operate all the new fangled devices that the Generals at the front love to play with like airplanes, motor vehicles and artillery. A national scheme to improve the teaching of science, maths and engineering at schools is implemented combined with generous scholarships for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) based courses at universities perhaps with guaranteed employment/training at postgraduate level. Indeed it is the lack of STEM graduates that has been argued to have done the most damage to British competitiveness for the last century when compared to the comparative advantage achieved by more technically educated countries like the USA, Germany and Japan.

This of course does nothing for the war effort but ties into the Land Fit For Heroes rhetoric post WW1 so the scheme continues. By the early t0 mid 1920's their is a significant increase in STEM graduates compared to OTL. These "wealth generators" trickle into all sectors of the economy; problem solving, improving, innovating and generally increasing productivity. This also helps develope a move away from heavy industries that with hind sight are doomed by the 1950's onwards towards light industries like electronics and automotive. The same is also true of a generally more technically skilled workforce who would also be better prepared and more willing to change working practices.

I like this idea as its a one shot solution that doesn't start a debate on who has the best short term pet project like these threads tend to descend into. It also has the ability to continue to give the goodies up to the present day.
Oh I forgot, they should have also send men to the US and Germany to study things like electrical engineering, mechanical engineering or chemical. This was how Japan and later the four Asian Tigers emerged.
 

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
The Liberals IOTL proposed an agricultural development plan that involved all of what you have said AND land reform, because they realised that ww1 had proved that British dependency on imported food was dangerously high.

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

Here is one of many areas that need improvements as early as possible:
About telephone development in Britain: According to LG in his 1928 plan:

Britain's backwardness: At the end of 1927, this country is tenth in density after the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, and Germany. That this lowly position is not accounted for wholly or even largely by the notorious underdevelopment of telephones in ours rural areas is shown by a few comparisons of towns. Thus, London, with a population of about 7½ millions, has a telephone density below many smaller towns on the Continent. Berlin, for instance, with a population of about 54 per cent that of London, has 80 per cent of the number of telephones in London. New York has one telephone for every three inhabitants; London only one to every ten. Thirty-one cities in the world have over 100,000 telephones.

Telephone is the swiftest known form of communication between persons at a distance from one another; and especially as the tool of industry and commerce it is a vital necessity, enabling capital to be turned over more quickly.

Well, not to mention the manufacturing of telephones, a part of electrical industry
.

Other aspects include electricity supply, roads and bridges, railway electrification, as well as inefficient coal mines and textile sheds (should have been improved earlier, at larger scale and faster progress than IOTL).
 
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.
IIRC the British Army had been reduced to 145,000 IIRC by 1934 IOTL.

Furthermore Billy Bragg was wrong. The Government did not put prosperity down at the armoury between 1919 and 1934 it put penury there. Spending on warlike stores was cut down to a ridiculously low level, especially for the Army. Spending on warlike stores for the British Army was a pathetic £1.5 million to 2.6 million between 1924 and 1933. The figures in millions of pounds for subsequent years were as follows:

1934 - 6.9
1935 - 8.5
1936 - 12.5
1937 - 21.4 plus 1.5 to the ROFs
1938 - 44.3 plus 8.7 to the ROFs
1939 - 67.6 plus 12.7 to the ROFs

When the purse strings were untied after 1936 Rearmament created demand pull inflation and a balance of payments deficit because the factories needed to build the arms weren't there or they were in Czechoslovakia in the case of the infamous armour purchase or the USA in the case of the Harvard and Hudson purchases.

Had more money been spent before 1933 the massive increases that took place from 1936 could have been reduced because there was less ground to make up. Therefore there would have been less inflation and an improvement in the balance of payments.

E.g. buying more trucks to accelerate the motorisation of the Army could have been justified on the grounds that it supported the British motor industry.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
IIRC the British Army had been reduced to 145,000 IIRC by 1934 IOTL.

Furthermore Billy Bragg was wrong. The Government did not put prosperity down at the armoury between 1919 and 1934 it put penury there. Spending on warlike stores was cut down to a ridiculously low level, especially for the Army. Spending on warlike stores for the British Army was a pathetic £1.5 million to 2.6 million between 1924 and 1933. The figures in millions of pounds for subsequent years were as follows:

1934 - 6.9
1935 - 8.5
1936 - 12.5
1937 - 21.4 plus 1.5 to the ROFs
1938 - 44.3 plus 8.7 to the ROFs
1939 - 67.6 plus 12.7 to the ROFs

When the purse strings were untied after 1936 Rearmament created demand pull inflation and a balance of payments deficit because the factories needed to build the arms weren't there or they were in Czechoslovakia in the case of the infamous armour purchase or the USA in the case of the Harvard and Hudson purchases.

Had more money been spent before 1933 the massive increases that took place from 1936 could have been reduced because there was less ground to make up. Therefore there would have been less inflation and an improvement in the balance of payments.

E.g. buying more trucks to accelerate the motorisation of the Army could have been justified on the grounds that it supported the British motor industry.
I agree with you about earlier rearmament in 1930-1933, but in 1920 you need to cut as much as possible to get money for public works to improve imfrastructures and industries so that British economy would perform much stronger than IOTL and in this scenario, they would have also get past the Depression quicker due to experience from a succesful dealing with the Postwar slump by using Keynesian policies.

Finally, I prefer infrastructures first, equipment later, as equipment can be obsolete quickly. Meanwhile, better infrastructures would allow for more efficient production of equipment later.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
While spending on trucks for army would certainly boost motor output, investments on large-scale motorway construction, as you said above, would raise the industry both qualitatively and quantitatively by boosting the production of higher performance motor vehicles.
 
Top