AHC: Worst Case Scenario for Post-War Britain

[Deleted member 204809]

I'm looking here for an extreme Britain screw starting with a POD of 1945 with the aim of creating the least populous Britain possible. No nukes or large scale famines or natural disasters or communist takeovers or whatever. Just extremely bad government policies. The worst possible case happens: no drawbacks in nationalisation; anti-NATO pariah state; no cultural exports in '60s and '90s; zero immigration, extremely high emigration; perhaps a coup (?); violent decolonisation; trade unions maintain their political power; a far smaller, less influential London. Anything that goes wrong, goes wrong.

 

[Aetherling]

tories refuse to give up India and fight a war which they lose using anthraw another bio weapons killing their relations while also refusing to back down in suez causing a long war they leave NATO in 56 as well but France remains relations collapse with both sides of the iron curtain leading to the troubles but all over Britain leading to American military intervention and american corporate domination and military occupation after the collapse of order (labour never wins until its to late)

 

[Crazyduck156]

perhaps a gradual slow decline with its politicians being incapable/unwilling to do anything but bend over the barrel for the US and EU, being slowly absorbed into the latter against the wishes of the public with militant unions, a on going terrorist campaign, all while enduring constantly growing levels of immigration upto a net 700k a year, causing infrastructural and societal breakdown, on top of critical underinvestment, flogging off any technological leads it had on the cheap to the yanks or europeans then buying it back at a premium, and pouring every and all spare penny into the new state religion of the Holy NHS which-can-do-no-wrong-and-thou-must-not-speak-of-reform-least-you-be-accused-of-privatisation-heresy, all for the short term purpose of seeing gdp line go up?

Oh

Well I guess we could start speaking french - that would probably be worse

 

[Deleted member 204809]

perhaps a gradual slow decline with its politicians being incapable/unwilling to do anything but bend over the barrel for the US and EU,

Bending over backwards for the EU would happen whether Britain was part of the EU or not as we would have to comply with their regulations and stipulations regarding trade. Difference is, Britain wouldn’t have a say on whether it was beneficial to them or not. So, if Britain never joined the EU perhaps that would be less advantageous.

all while enduring constantly growing levels of immigration upto a net 700k a year, causing infrastructural and societal breakdown, on top of critical underinvestment,

How is Britain supposed to invest with a severely declining labour force? There’s a reason why both major parties have reached a consensus on immigration.

and pouring every and all spare penny into the new state religion of the Holy NHS which-can-do-no-wrong-and-thou-must-not-speak-of-reform-least-you-be-accused-of-privatisation-heresy, all for the short term purpose of seeing gdp line go up?

I’m not sure there has actually been any investment into the NHS, I’m pretty sure they’ve just kept spending up with inflation which gives the illusion there is increased investment. So in real terms while spending hasn’t ever been higher there’s probably less investment than there was back in 2010. Moreover, if you are concerned that “the wishes of the public” are maintained then the vast, vast majority of people want the NHS to remain as is, even if significant reform would be beneficial.

 

[Crazyduck156]

Bending over backwards for the EU would happen whether Britain was part of the EU or not as we would have to comply with their regulations and stipulations regarding trade. Difference is, Britain wouldn’t have a say on whether it was beneficial to them or not. So, if Britain never joined the EU perhaps that would be less advantageous.

Not really. Westminster could have employed the veto more often having dragged Britain in rather than just whining then still implementing whatever rules the EU made up, they could have not extended FoM to the newly joined countries straight away like most of EU nations did, or not push for eastern expansion. They could have not giving up a big part of the rebate because the EU pinky promised to reform the CAP

Or they could have stuck with the commonwealth and not allow a trade block to start setting internal political policy

How is Britain supposed to invest with a severely declining labour force? There’s a reason why both major parties have reached a consensus on immigration.

This might be a point if they invested with that net 700k immigration. But they don't, so its a choice is between massive immigration and all the issues that follow with no investment or low immigration and still no investment.

Or businesses and the state could invest in productivity boosting technology rather than just throwing cheap labour at it, but that would be expensive for those poor poor businesses and they might have to increase wages above inflation and train up their workforce! The horror! No wonder the politicians of both strips are in agreement mass migration is "better" (cheaper)

I’m not sure there has actually been any investment into the NHS, I’m pretty sure they’ve just kept spending up with inflation which gives the illusion there is increased investment. So in real terms while spending hasn’t ever been higher there’s probably less investment than there was back in 2010. Moreover, if you are concerned that “the wishes of the public” are maintained then the vast, vast majority of people want the NHS to remain as is, even if significant reform would be beneficial.

Thats my point. The only thing that has gotten investment has been the NHS, and while people like it its foolish to say it doesn't have substantial problems, problems that wont be solved by just throwing more money at it which has been the default behaviour for the past several decades

 

[Deleted member 204809]

Not really. Westminster could have employed the veto more often having dragged Britain in rather than just whining then still implementing whatever rules the EU made up, they could have not extended FoM to the newly joined countries straight away like most of EU nations did, or not push for eastern expansion. They could have not giving up a big part of the rebate because the EU pinky promised to reform the CAP

That just seems to be things you personally disagree with rather than examples of how Britain couldn’t project power in the EU.

Or they could have stuck with the commonwealth and not allow a trade block to start setting internal political policy

Sticking with the Commonwealth (not really sure what you mean by that) would be far less beneficial economically than creating closer ties to Europe.

This might be a point if they invested with that net 700k immigration. But they don't, so its a choice is between massive immigration and all the issues that follow with no investment or low immigration and still no investment.

There has been money spent, it just isn’t enough. If there is no immigration millions of people will be gone of the labour force, and the middle class would be squeezed with the increased taxes that would come from an economy terminally in decline with little international investment due to poor demographics.

Or businesses and the state could invest in productivity boosting technology rather than just throwing cheap labour at it, but that would be expensive for those poor poor businesses and they might have to increase wages above inflation and train up their workforce! The horror! No wonder the politicians of both strips are in agreement mass migration is "better" (cheaper)

What productivity boosting technology?

Thats my point. The only thing that has gotten investment has been the NHS, and while people like it its foolish to say it doesn't have substantial problems, problems that wont be solved by just throwing more money at it which has been the default behaviour for the past several decades

I’m not really sure there’s an alternative.

 

[Crazyduck156]

That just seems to be things you personally disagree with rather than examples of how Britain couldn’t project power in the EU.

The rebate and CAP is a very obvious examples of Britain not being able to project power in the EU. And Camerons total impotency between 2010 and 2016

There has been money spent, it just isn’t enough. If there is no immigration millions of people will be gone of the labour force, and the middle class would be squeezed with the increased taxes that would come from an economy terminally in decline with little international investment due to poor demographics.

The same thing is happening with the net 700k a year immigration. So what has Britain gain by having it except the growing social unrest and political upheaval?

What productivity boosting technology?

New technology, modern equipment, updated software. Lots of things that already exist and could be invented if businesses and the state put some money into it. Hell even changing the work culture to wfh and 4 day weeks have been shown to increase productivity or at least maintain it while benefitting worker happiness and finances

I’m not really sure there’s an alternative.

Things like stomping out obesity, smoking, alcohol abuse, etc would be infinitely more beneficial than throwing another billion at treating the issues that arise from them.

If people are just going to eat, drink and act more unhealthily then increasing NHS spending is just a downwards spiral.

Allowing people to end their own lives humanely if they are living with incurable or otherwise permanently debilitating illnesses or conditions.
Taking a harder line with people who waste NHS time with missing appointments etc

But we are swerving into current politics, still with the limitations in place about nuclear war, plagues, etc not much else can go wrong post war for Britain and still be based in the realm of possibility.
Maybe losing the Falklands and adopting the Euro I guess

 

[Nick P]

Take away Britain's ability to rebuild post-WW2 and you set the pace for disaster.

Increased repayments on wartime loans - decide to repay it all within 20 years Because We Can. But we really can't.

Increased military spending that includes the atom bomb "We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it." Can't really go much higher than OTL but...
Keeping the British Empire going strong, no matter the cost. But we won't have them over here. It's a matter of British Pride, dammit!

No Nationalization - Railways stay as the Big Four with big govt investment for little return.

Rationing continues until 1965 leading to poorer diets and stunted growth all round. Black market flourishes so lower tax income which means less money for the govt to spend. Psst guv! Wanna nice leg of farm fresh lamb? 2 shillings and that's cutting me own throat.

No NHS so lower birth rates, lower infant survival. Basically lower survival rates all around for all diseases. Could you go cough your lungs up somewhere else, please?

No Abercrombie Reports. We'll just fix up the appalling hovels and do basic repairs of bomb damaged housing. Rats, Pneumonia, and Cholera? It's character forming!
No New Towns - no large scale builds of decent homes for people out of the cities. They can stay in the slums.

No Clean Air Acts. Ignore the effects of the Great Smog and keep pumping dirt into the city air. We'll keep the coal fires burning!

Urban motorways for all! Mainly for the few who can afford cars and the transport firms. This leads to mass demolishing of homes. https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/plan-greater-london That's just London - Newcastle and Manchester had similar grand plans for urban roads.

Results: more Ten Pound Poms, more US/Canada Brain Drain, less immigration.

That little lot should be a good starter for ten!

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Take away Britain's ability to rebuild post-WW2 and you set the pace for disaster.

Increased repayments on wartime loans - decide to repay it all within 20 years Because We Can. But we really can't.

Increased military spending that includes the atom bomb "We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it." Can't really go much higher than OTL but...
Keeping the British Empire going strong, no matter the cost. But we won't have them over here. It's a matter of British Pride, dammit!

No Nationalization - Railways stay as the Big Four with big govt investment for little return.

Rationing continues until 1965 leading to poorer diets and stunted growth all round. Black market flourishes so lower tax income which means less money for the govt to spend. Psst guv! Wanna nice leg of farm fresh lamb? 2 shillings and that's cutting me own throat.

No NHS so lower birth rates, lower infant survival. Basically lower survival rates all around for all diseases. Could you go cough your lungs up somewhere else, please?

No Abercrombie Reports. We'll just fix up the appalling hovels and do basic repairs of bomb damaged housing. Rats, Pneumonia, and Cholera? It's character forming!
No New Towns - no large scale builds of decent homes for people out of the cities. They can stay in the slums.

No Clean Air Acts. Ignore the effects of the Great Smog and keep pumping dirt into the city air. We'll keep the coal fires burning!

Urban motorways for all! Mainly for the few who can afford cars and the transport firms. This leads to mass demolishing of homes. https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/plan-greater-london That's just London - Newcastle and Manchester had similar grand plans for urban roads.

Results: more Ten Pound Poms, more US/Canada Brain Drain, less immigration.

That little lot should be a good starter for ten!

The only one of those that deserves an adverse comment is rationing. Rationing was done to ensure everyone had (just) enough to get by healthily without malnutrition.
Hence removing rationing in 1945 while continuing to export food at OTL levels should have worse outcomes since you'd combine poverty, unemployment, poor housing, with poor expensive food, poor distribution and no minimum supplies, resulting in mass malnutrition of millions. In combination with war-related gender imbalance, expect a sustained population slump and manpower shortage which in this timeline can't be made good through immigration.

Two variants spring to mind.
First, as above but immigration controls are relaxed after a few years, leading to an influx of relatively healthy and wealthy immigrants including some with (shock!) different skin colour. In the mid to late 1950s this would be a recipe for a lot of anti-immigrant resentment and racial tension.

Second, abolish rationing early but don't export food. The comments about malnutrition etc still apply, but those rich enough (or crooked enough) live a live of plenty. Meanwhile, lack of food export revenue significantly slows reconstruction, effectively entrenching an angry and resentful class divide where many people who - for the second time in less than 30 years - were expected to fight for King and Country and to make do with broken promises and inequity as payment.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Brits decide to blame government in general for nazism/communism and listen to Hayek and others like him in 1945 leading to a UK where the Crown's only purpose is to protect property. Not even to stop crime/enforce the law but protect existing property rights via enforcemetn for the rich and a court system where the biggest buyer wins.

No government involvement in the economy, no welfare, no private charity(poverty is character-forming, after all), expansion of property rights to incldue sale of organs, etc. Not libertarian per since libertarians would keep the cops/courts open for things that aren't property-related. Not ancap for the same reason.

 

[CalBear]

This is all current "Brexit" event.

Closed per posted policy regarding Current Politics outside of Chat.