AHC/WI: Britain perform better during the Second Industrial Revolution

.5% extra growth over several decades is not a small amount.

In a modern economy it is, but given US and German growth seemed to be several percentage points higher and the UK had much lower productivity, it could be doable. Electrification and better education seem like tangible, plausible and achievable changes of the right sort of magnitude. I'm less convinced about the govt being able to change management practices, industry-specific process improvements or investment patterns substantially.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I'm less convinced about the govt being able to change management practices, industry-specific process improvements or investment patterns substantially.
I think government can do a lot. They could subsidize businesses in adopting new technology and modernizing factories, they could provide education, infrastructures and support electrification via both actions and legislations. For example, passing laws to standardize electrical standards early would help electrical industries a lot, as it would make mass production easier. Finally, unlike both Tories and Labour, a New Liberal government would eventually take action to reconcile industrial relation.
 
I think government can do a lot. They could subsidize businesses in adopting new technology and modernizing factories, they could provide education, infrastructures and support electrification via both actions and legislations. For example, passing laws to standardize electrical standards early would help electrical industries a lot, as it would make mass production easier. Finally, unlike both Tories and Labour, a New Liberal government would eventually take action to reconcile industrial relation.

In terms of electrification infrastructure that is one I said is conceivable. Subsidies for new technology would have been completely out of the realm of what government should do in 19th Century England.
 
I think government can do a lot. They could subsidize businesses in adopting new technology and modernizing factories, they could provide education, infrastructures and support electrification via both actions and legislations. For example, passing laws to standardize electrical standards early would help electrical industries a lot, as it would make mass production easier. Finally, unlike both Tories and Labour, a New Liberal government would eventually take action to reconcile industrial relation.
Look I like the Liberals as well, but I think we need to be careful not to turn them into superheroes who can solve any crisis...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In terms of electrification infrastructure that is one I said is conceivable. Subsidies for new technology would have been completely out of the realm of what government should do in 19th Century England.
Even without such subsidies, passing a law to unify electrical standards would help massively.

Look I like the Liberals as well, but I think we need to be careful not to turn them into superheroes who can solve any crisis...
Ok. But a surviving Liberals but with strong Labour pressure would be likely become superheroes as an attempt to protect their position, at least until Labour is neutralized completely.

In terms of electrification infrastructure that is one I said is conceivable. Subsidies for new technology would have been completely out of the realm of what government should do in 19th Century England.
Even just passing an act to unify electrical standards would help a lot.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Let's think about some specific PODs.

For a pre-1870 POD, I would prefer giving Lord Russell more chances. Although Ireland was his massive failure, but he did very well in Britain, passing lots of social reforms, even more than both Disraeli (who basically had zero interest in public education) and Gladstone, despite not having parliamentary majority. It was him who fought for the Great Reform Act in 1832. He was also an early and persistant advocate of a national education system (which Gladstone opposed until 1870), public health and town improvements. He was the most reform-minded non-Radical in British Parliament. Finally, he was not a heavy-handed commander like Gladstone, thus the Radicals would be able to exert greater influence after 1867 than IOTL. Here, my ultimate motive is to have Chamberlain gaining more influence during the last Russell ministry 1871-1878 ITTL, and by 1880 becoming powerful enough to discourage Gladstone from introducing Home Rule. I mean, you can't find anyone better than Russell among the Parliament Establishment with a pre-1870 POD (a Radical government can only become possible with a successful Revolution). Both Gladstone before 1865 and Palmerston were Torylite in domestic sphere.

Post 1870: another version of Irish Home Rule, or no Charles Dilkes scandal, means that Chamberlain never defect. He would eventually become PM. Chamberlain would be likely to create a party of producers' alliance against what they call "rent-seeking" interests like landlords or City, with a both labour-friendly and industry-friendly platform.

I have little hope for the Tories since the landowners and City's interests in the Tories were too big.

A small change in 1905: have Charles Mertz successful in persuading the Parliament to unify electrical standards.
 
Last edited:
And Britain would not fight a land war with Russia even if a war occurs. It would be just naval blockade.

No, the signs only became clearer in mid-to late-1880s.

If Russia invades Afghanistan and threatens India, or if Russia invades Persia (which it sort of did once before in Catherine the Great's reign) then Britain gets a land war whether it wants one or not

The Crimean War also shows you that you can blockade an enemy but you have to land and attack them to force a conclusion
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If Russia invades Afghanistan and threatens India, or if Russia invades Persia (which it sort of did once before in Catherine the Great's reign) then Britain gets a land war whether it wants one or not

The Crimean War also shows you that you can blockade an enemy but you have to land and attack them to force a conclusion
Well, I mean Britain would be unlikely to fight a land war with Russia if another GP did not join its side.

And by 1880s, stuffs like "Bulgarian horrors" means that declaring war against Russia would be politically suicidal.

Signs of industrial decline wouldn't be observable before 1880s.
 
I think part of the problem can be traced back as far as the French Revolution. The aristocracy and rich were paranoid about organised rebellion from the lower classes and for good reason. Consequently laws were passed that stamped down on anything that represented an organised movement of workers ala Unions. There are pros and cons to unions, but one thing you can't deny is that they force companies to be inventive. If it costs x to run a looms factory and they union demand you pay y, then you either go out of business or you find a way to increase your income. New techniques and technology would see a better performance across the board.

The problem becomes stopping the upper class from stamping out these reforms without seeing total revolution. The best way to do this is to offer the right to vote for everyone sooner and not just landed gentry. For this you probably need to see mass protest against the government during the Napoleonic wars.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
There are pros and cons to unions, but one thing you can't deny is that they force companies to be inventive. If it costs x to run a looms factory and they union demand you pay y, then you either go out of business or you find a way to increase your income. New techniques and technology would see a better performance across the board.
British unions had a tendency of opposing new technology. Also, before 1914, both the US and Germany were far less unionized than Britain. Educational reforms, combined with town improvements (a.k.a public works, you can read about Chamberlain's career as mayor of Birmingham) would be the best approach, because it would improve human capital, and both would mark a first move away from laissez-faire.

If you want more people eligible to vote, then we can butterfly away Palmerston. The Reform Act 1867 would be passed a decade earlier.
 
British unions had a tendency of opposing new technology. Also, before 1914, both the US and Germany were far less unionized than Britain. Educational reforms, combined with town improvements (a.k.a public works, you can read about Chamberlain's career as mayor of Birmingham) would be the best approach, because it would improve human capital, and both would mark a first move away from laissez-faire.

If you want more people eligible to vote, then we can butterfly away Palmerston.

Yes, unions have a tendency to oppose technology that reduces employment immediately, and, as with most non-economists, don't appreciate that the extra demand from the higher income generates replacement employment elsewhere in the economy.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
And you know what, during the first world war IOTL, Britain was incapable of manufacturing HE shells for artillery properly, and had to relied on superior American machine tools to process shell fuses.

And this is only one of many signs of British industrial backwardness that were exposed by ww1.
 
How did Canada or Australia cope with the 2nd Industrial Revolution, I know they have even less people than Germany, but as 'newer' economies with more space to expand could innovation, technology etc come from there and be exported back to Britain?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How did Canada or Australia cope with the 2nd Industrial Revolution, I know they have even less people than Germany, but as 'newer' economies with more space to expand could innovation, technology etc come from there and be exported back to Britain?
Their human capital was far behind Europe and US
 
Admittingly ignorant on the subject, however was wondering if there is a way to lay the groundwork for more (e.g. larger and significantly decentralized) car body manufacturers / coachbuilders to be established compared to OTL via an expanded / wanked British steel industry from the Second Industrial Revolution onwards?
 
The decisive difference in per capita in come tend to be institutions, there isn't a much higher quality economic-political institution in the UK compare to Germany.

This happened in OTL - Germany's militaristic government picked fights it couldn't win, twice.
 
Top