Best ways to imporve the British economy in the 1920's and 1930's?

I second avoiding the return to the Gold Standard. Getting rid of Churchill as Chancellor would help. It's pretty tricky though because most people at the time viewed the Gold Standard as being a magic talisman that would bring back economic prosperity, rather than being a consequence of economic prosperity as it actually was.

Even then, it wouldn't have been so bad if the UK had returned to gold at a level that took into account domestic inflation since 1914.

If, by some chance, there was a stable, non-Tory government in the 1920s, you could pull something off. The Liberals probably had the better plans at the time.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Even then, it wouldn't have been so bad if the UK had returned to gold at a level that took into account domestic inflation since 1914.

If, by some chance, there was a stable, non-Tory government in the 1920s, you could pull something off. The Liberals probably had the better plans at the time.

The UK would be better off, but the ratio would be near 3 new pounds for 1 old pound. It would be seen as a sign of the decline of the empire, and it would force the English population to deal with the true/full cost of WW1. The "weakening of the empire" cause by the devaluation would have profound consequences on the politics/diplomacy of the area.

For example, wages rose 2 to 1 in the war, so a laborer could believe he was better off than in 1913, but with a 3 to 1 devaluation, he would know he trade 1/3 of his future wages for "winning the war". Labor unions would likely demand immediate 50% price hikes. It would be very interesting times.
 
Julius

Sorry, been replying to other points and missed you're reply. Don't know if devolution would be that important, as a strong central government can be very useful for prompting reform. This was important in Germany in the period of rapid development after 1871 for instance [plus earlier] and it was only really Britain after about 1850 and the US that were rich enough to see major development without it.

Definitely agree that the removal of entrenched interests is needed and there needs to be the will to prompt major reforms rather than bumbling through without changing anything. [Both in the intra-war period and today].

One things where centralisation does seem to be damaging is again in the financial sector. Britain has seen what used to be called the 'county' banks, which used to provide a lot of funds for local development, disappear. Instead we have a centralised system that was more used to providing funds for central governments and is now more for its own short term enrichment regardless of the effects. This makes it very uncompetitive as a source of funds for anyone outside its own small clique. [But then I'm probably showing my own bias here:)].

Steve


Devolution is not a magic bullet, I do agree, however it generally is a good solution for many governance problems. I'm not sure how obvious it is to people from England, but one thing that was immediately apparent when I arrived here was that England is a very big entity, in a way I hadn't really considered prior to actually living here.

Sure, it is pretty small compared to an India or China, but 51 or so million people in 130,000 square km makes for a rather high population density and therefore a lot of different classes, groups, peoples, communities, governance entities and the like. Which one sees when one wanders around anywhere outside of perhaps the far North. How all of those different interests and people can be adequately served, in an efficient manner, with one central government, is unknown to me. I am even more surprised that it sort of seems to work!

Re Germany - so far as I understand the country was still very loosely organised until WW1 and the post War re-ordering. Very much a federal system of sorts, obviously noting Prussia was very big and spread across the breadth of the entire country. I have a very limited understanding of quite what the division of powers was amongst the various constituent members of the Empire though
 

Flubber

Banned
Re Germany - so far as I understand the country was still very loosely organised until WW1 and the post War re-ordering. Very much a federal system of sorts, obviously noting Prussia was very big and spread across the breadth of the entire country. I have a very limited understanding of quite what the division of powers was amongst the various constituent members of the Empire though


You're understanding is absolutely correct.

Pre-WW1 Germany was not the monolith too many people unthinkingly presume. There's a famous quote from an imperial German diplomat in response to someone calling the Kaiser the diplomat's monarch. The diplomat, who happened to be Bavarian, told him that something along the lines of "My king is in Munich. The Kaiser is merely the president of our federation."
 
So how can I dig them out in the 20's? It appears the Tories were solidly in control during the period with the Liberals declining and Labour still finding it's feet so how possible is reform? With 20/20 hindsight, particularly from a left of centre POV, the need seems obvious, but how apparent was it too politicians at the time and how much chance did they have of achieving not just reform but the right reform? Were the Tories of the period as hidebound as I'm thinking they were?

Landshark

Depends on you're POD. Something a bit earlier makes it a hell of a lot easier than something by about 1920.

As Lord Douglas said it wasn't totally the Tories fault. For instance Labour formed a minority government in Jan 24 because the Liberals supported them rather than the Tories as the latter were committed at the time to tariffs and both other parties opposed them. If you could have a clear Tory victory [me saying that:eek:] or for some reason the Liberals support the Tories then you might get tariffs in earlier which, if used properly, I would say could ease both financial and economic problems as you might see some revival of British industry.

However really need something a few years earlier. Avoiding the distraction of the Greeco-Turkish conflict and the intervention in Russia would allow military spending to be cut a lot earlier, as near wartime spending on the navy continued for a couple of years.

Most of all some of the immediate post-war ideas for reviving British industry and society could be applied but how to get them in. The Liberals are split between Lloyd-George and Asquith at this point so cease to be a unified factor until its too late. Also while they have some radical ideas that would help they still have a strong element opposing more government intervention. The Tories are the Tories and will generally oppose drastic change or allowing more opportunities for ordinary people [since the latter requires investment and hence taxes]. Labour has some ideas but also idealogical baggage that makes it difficult for them to unify the country rather than divide it further.

I think you would need to go back to at least mid-late WWI to have much hope of squaring that circle but then so much else could change. It all depends on what sort of world you want to develop.

Even without major reform of society and the economy Britain will still be one of the great powers and, presuming the US slips back into isolationism and with Russia prostrate by the war and the communists it will be the major one in most fields unless/until the next major challenge comes along. This gives opportunities for further improvements but something needs to generate the will and unity for change.

One option with less butterflies might be to sacrifice the 20's and have them pretty much as OTL. Possibly a few changes as I presume you're thinking of a TL with no or modified Washington Treaty. Also possibly some resolution of the gold standard issue.

While I disagree with Phil on Britain's wealth at this period, see debate elsewhere, to get a consistent programme extra spending is probably required. This could improve some things by inadvertent Keynesian-ism, with money being cycled through some of the poorer northern regions that were economic stricken by the 20's. Also, if new construction is seen as necessary, say due to a new naval race, the challenge is where to find it and there is plenty of wealth available if there is the will to tax elements of the wealthy more. This could help unify people against the status quo.

Then say the depression hits, which is virtually inevitable with the shape of the US economy and nature of war debts. The butterflies mean that the Liberals are in a stronger position and come through the centre with clearly Keynesian ideas, as actually suggested in 1929 I believe, and are able to prompt major changes to bring the economy out of depression by investment in infrastructure. This starts off being to get the economy moving again, has a period when its targeted more at improvement in 'human capital' by spending on education, health etc, then increasingly gets moves into military spending as the threat of fascism grows.

Anyway, a few ideas that might be of use.

Steve
 
Julius

OK, I see what you mean. It did used to have a lot more regional strength until the Victorian period and regional identities are still quite strong but abilities to influence events have collapsed more into the twin areas of central government and big business.:(

By Germany do you mean that there was no central management outside Prussia, as that made up the majority of imperial Germany? Or that there was a large measure of decentralisation within Prussia? As I think I mentioned it did have [and still has I believe] a good decentralised banking system, which unfortunately Britain has lost.

Steve

Devolution is not a magic bullet, I do agree, however it generally is a good solution for many governance problems. I'm not sure how obvious it is to people from England, but one thing that was immediately apparent when I arrived here was that England is a very big entity, in a way I hadn't really considered prior to actually living here.

Sure, it is pretty small compared to an India or China, but 51 or so million people in 130,000 square km makes for a rather high population density and therefore a lot of different classes, groups, peoples, communities, governance entities and the like. Which one sees when one wanders around anywhere outside of perhaps the far North. How all of those different interests and people can be adequately served, in an efficient manner, with one central government, is unknown to me. I am even more surprised that it sort of seems to work!

Re Germany - so far as I understand the country was still very loosely organised until WW1 and the post War re-ordering. Very much a federal system of sorts, obviously noting Prussia was very big and spread across the breadth of the entire country. I have a very limited understanding of quite what the division of powers was amongst the various constituent members of the Empire though
 
I'm not sure getting rid of Churchill as Chancellor would help. By his own account, and according to Roy Jenkins, Churchill initially was sceptical of the case for going back onto the Gold Standard but was persuaded by the weight of official and Cabinet opinion. None of the plausible alternatives would be likely to go against the tide on this matter, and the likely Labour Chancellor, Snowden, would also be unlikely to reject the Treasury advice.
 
Top