Britain's Tech lead in the 1950s

[Jape]

Military cut backs are a must, while giving the Dominions greater responsibility (Canadian Caribbean anyone?) will also help lessen the drag. Despite the problems with American aid, it should be remembered that combined with Marshall Aid, the UK got a vast fortune that was ultimately thrown away, certainly much more than West Germany and France. While the plans for using it were paled compared to French five year plans. I'd suggest have Dalton stay at the Exchequer and with Gaitskell write up a proper Marshall Aid plan, focusing on industrial development

Keynes told Attlee that rapid and 'shameful' decolonisation was a must, by losing prestige in the short term Britain could come out ahead as a European power in the long run.

Move African independence forward to the late 1940s and early 1950s - I don't think the Commonwealth needs to be 'tightened', simply avoiding brushfire wars and half hearted development plans will save a small fortune, have the FO focus on training native bureaucrats instread and then set them loose with the Queen's compliments. Wont be very gallant but its not like we did much in 1945-65 to prepare the majority of the colonies for freedom.

If the Labour Right can keep control of the Treasury you can avoid the pointless cost of nationalising the steel industry (in 1948 it was stronger than it had been in decades). If Morrisson is in a stronger position (say PM?) he might push for a localised NHS which should do something to reduce the initial costs. It would also mean Bevan could focus on housing.

Really I think to do Britain 'good' post-war you need a stronger and more centrist Labour Party, as it was Labour who were very much the engine of forward momentum despite the Tories dominating in the 1950s, they set the pace. Have Labour due to more successful house building and early end to rationing by Dalton and Gaitskell (and possilbly conscription though not sure how) win the 1950 general election outright.

This will allow quicker decolonisation, better housing (Macmillian is the father of plyboard tower blocks) and possibly better Anglo-European integration as Eden in the 1950s played a paranoid and cack-handed game of bluff around the Steel & Coal Community and Western European Union. If Dalton is still around, his wish to see Germany sat on might see him keen to get Britain in on the ground floor alongside France. He might also push for the Germans to pay a greater share of the cost of NATO garrisons, while a decolonising, post-conscription Labour Government in the 1950s will be pushing for an atomic umbrella to offset its loss of traditional imperial power. Here, Anglo-French cooperation could be interesting. Handwaving deGaulle will be very important.

 

[Simon]

Another thing you'd have to do is break the unions, you somehow have to avoid the fiasco that was the 60s and 70s where certain key ones could effectively shut down the country or the widespread wildcat strikes. If you have a centrist Labour Party then might Barbara Castle's proposed In Place of Strife legislation be able to pass? I'm not really familiar with the proposals but it seems like a good start. Of course even better would be if something like that or Thatcher's reforms could be introduced even earlier to head it off before it even stated and keep the balance between the employers and employees.

 

[Devolved]

Well the problem is the Britain does need the U.S. to finance it post war - the country is broke and needs the cash and has little leeway to make a deal. However, I have had a wee think and I have come up with a basic plan.

1. Tories win 1945 election (near as dam ASB but hey, what the hell). Part of the reason that the terms of the Anglo-American loan were so steep was because the newly elected Labour party was deemed to be socialist in Americas eyes and as such, untrustworth. A good old blue blooded government may be able to get either a better rate of inflation or even a lump grant.

2. Gives keynes a helping hand. Keynes was both a poor negotiator and very ill when he agreed to the Anglo-American loan. on top of that, Atlee was desperate for the money with little regard to its long term cost. If Keynes is less ill, he may be able to be a little more pushy.

1 if the Tories win the 1945 election you have a problem with India. If they stay then Britain gets pulled into a disastrous insurgency. If the Tories pull out of India it would be a catastrophe for a Churchill government. Labour could do it because most Labour voters couldn't care less about India and just wanted houses and free medical care.

2 Keynes was a good negotiator and he got the best deal the Americans were ever going to give to an imperial power with a socialist government! They just didn't understand that Britain could be so broke.

 

[Russell]

1 if the Tories win the 1945 election you have a problem with India. If they stay then Britain gets pulled into a disastrous insurgency. If the Tories pull out of India it would be a catastrophe for a Churchill government. Labour could do it because most Labour voters couldn't care less about India and just wanted houses and free medical care.

Well, India is going one way or another, something most knew. Churchill may be a bit of a problem, Eden may be a bit more accomodating. A slower pull out of india (say 1949) combined with greater efforts to keep the Raj unified would allow the Tories to save greater face. Although, I doubt for the long term stability of such a nation.

2 Keynes was a good negotiator and he got the best deal the Americans were ever going to give to an imperial power with a socialist government! They just didn't understand that Britain could be so broke.

He wasn't a great negotiator. He went into the deal with massivly unrealistic expectations.

Have Labour due to more successful house building and early end to rationing by Dalton and Gaitskell (and possilbly conscription though not sure how) win the 1950 general election outright.

Ending conscription won't be hard as first thought. For instance, both the RAF and RN were massivly opposed to on operational grounds. Conscripts were all too often poorly trained - a real problem in an age of advacing radar and missle technology. Many conscripts only did about two years and then were gone. In the RN some 10,000 full time regular officers and ratings were needed just to train the conscripts. They were seen as a major burden on the forces by many. A part time form of conscription was rposed, similar to the TA. The soldiers would do X number of months training and then be released back to civilian life. They would then have to do so many days a a year training and could be called up for full time service should they be required.

Military cut backs are a must, while giving the Dominions greater responsibility (Canadian Caribbean anyone?) will also help lessen the drag. Despite the problems with American aid, it should be remembered that combined with Marshall Aid

I have my doubts over a Canadian Carribean - nobody wanted it, least of all the Canadians and the West Indians.

More than just cuts to the military can also be made. Rationalisation of procurement would also be a good move, like only building say one V-Bomber and not three.

Russell

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

Another thing you'd have to do is break the unions, you somehow have to avoid the fiasco that was the 60s and 70s where certain key ones could effectively shut down the country or the widespread wildcat strikes. If you have a centrist Labour Party then might Barbara Castle's proposed In Place of Strife legislation be able to pass? I'm not really familiar with the proposals but it seems like a good start. Of course even better would be if something like that or Thatcher's reforms could be introduced even earlier to head it off before it even stated and keep the balance between the employers and employees.

Easier said than done, the whole political class in the post war era was signed up to the Tripartite System of Government, Employers and Unions working together. There were far more unions at this time, especially craft unions who were responsible for certain skilled trades and who jealously guarded their priveleges, in some cases management of a firm would find themselves having to deal with up to 20 different unions! This led to all sorts of Byzantine practices and demarcations than impacted on productivity. Here is a classic Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch parodies how much power shop stewards had at this time, sadly it's only available in audio with stills.

You also need to remember that for all the talk of a New Jerusalem working class Britons had seen little real improvement in their lives since the end of the War, it was the middle classes who had never had it so good. The TV and films of this time do show the sense of working class alienation, especially films like Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, which features Albert Finney as a worker who spends whole days doing backbreaking work at a lathe that makes him so angry towards his boss that he has an affair with his wife! Also look at the original Get Carter set amongst the squalor and decay of industrial Newcastle. To stop this from happening, you need to ensure a higher standard of living for the working class, if pay increases had been made directly linked to productivity improvements and the removal of demarcation then that could have made a big difference. You would also need to sort out workplace safety, health and safety has a bad name today but British factories had a terrible safety record during this period and many strikes were down to workers refusing to work in what they claimed were unsafe conditions.

As you rightly say many strikes were unofficial caused by local greivances or by militant communist shop stewards, the most infamous example was of course Derek "Red Robbo" Robinson at Longbridge. Many union leaders such as Moss Evans and Hugh Scanlon privately admitted at the time that they opposed the strikes but they couldn't control their shp stewards. The worst strikes in the Winter of Discontent, those that led to rubbish in the streets and the dead unburied were unofficial.That was the tipping point as far as public opinion, especially many ordinary union members were concerned. In Place of Strife would have made this impossible and would have changed the 1970's and 80's in Britain, to get it passed I think you need to have Callaghan resign in the wake of the Devaluation or even have an earlier Winter of Discontent.

On a more general point, while it's important to boost Britain's infrastructure and ensure more capital is available for new products in the immediate post war period, you will also have to do something about the management of many British firms that ranged from the just complacent to the totally incompetent. This is why British aircraft firms spent money on developing the Brabazon and the Princess flying boat only to find that the airlines didn't want to buy them. The worst offender is this regard was the motor industry thanks to people like BMC boss Leonard Lord who when it was suggested that BMC needed to develop cars specific to cope with Australia's unpaved roads retorted "Well why don't they just sort out their bloody roads?!"

The demise of volume car production in Britain is often attributed to the unions and while they didn't help, the management of firms like BL was utterly awful. Check out the Austin Rover Online website to see plenty of examples of this, especially the Austin Allegro BL cars have a deserved reputation for unreliability but contemporary Fords, Vauxhalls and Renaults were just as bad, the difference was they had designed their cars in response to extensive market research and they were what car buyers wanted so many of them forgave their tendencies to leave you stranded at the side of the road. BL didn't and therefore it failed.

 

[Shevek23]

....
Keynes told Attlee that rapid and 'shameful' decolonisation was a must, by losing prestige in the short term Britain could come out ahead as a European power in the long run.

Move African independence forward to the late 1940s and early 1950s - I don't think the Commonwealth needs to be 'tightened', simply avoiding brushfire wars and half hearted development plans will save a small fortune, have the FO focus on training native bureaucrats instread and then set them loose with the Queen's compliments. Wont be very gallant but its not like we did much in 1945-65 to prepare the majority of the colonies for freedom. ...

This will allow quicker decolonisation, better housing (Macmillian is the father of plyboard tower blocks) and possibly better Anglo-European integration as Eden in the 1950s played a paranoid and cack-handed game of bluff around the Steel & Coal Community and Western European Union. If Dalton is still around, his wish to see Germany sat on might see him keen to get Britain in on the ground floor alongside France. He might also push for the Germans to pay a greater share of the cost of NATO garrisons, while a decolonising, post-conscription Labour Government in the 1950s will be pushing for an atomic umbrella to offset its loss of traditional imperial power. Here, Anglo-French cooperation could be interesting. Handwaving deGaulle will be very important.

Well, the best way I can think of to hold deGaulle at bay would be if the Fourth Republic didn't collapse, as the rock that ship broke up on was colonial policy.

Your approach points the way, it seems to me, to earlier European Union across the board. Making the question not so much how can Britain, on her own, hold a technological lead, as how can Britain's existing post-war lead (or at any rate, equivalency with the USA) seed a general European renaissance, one where left-center regimes in both Britain and France have the vision to back out of colonialism gracefully while retaining key ties to the more sympathetic and strategic centers overseas--I'd think Britain, or rather the Commonwealth generally, might hang on to Singapore for instance. And focus mainly on rebuilding Europe itself with a policy of making it good for the working classes. Hence the leftism; I demur discussion of how to channel leftist sentiment in a more centrist, less wildcat radical fashion.

Broadening the coalition to basically include all of Western Europe (eventually including West Germany as an equal partner)--the Netherlands, Belgium, the Scandinavian countries, Italy (Spain and Portugal would be on the outs with their quasi-Fascist regimes, until Franco and Salazar die off, which wouldn't be until the 1970s) seems very tricky but also the goal.

When considering just Britain alone I don't think the USA dared to be too manipulative, at least not in the covert fashion of known US secret interventions in French and Italian elections; considering a broad coalition forming though, one comes face to face with American manipulations. In Germany of course the country was under occupation for most of a decade (with, to be sure, the US zone being only part of it, the other parts being run by Britain and France).

This suggestion of mine that the real need is to create some kind of European confederacy is far astray from the OP focus, but insofar as cooperation at least with France and the prevention of de Gaulle from rising to power is important, it seems we'd be drawn that way logically.

As for the Toryish suggestions, that labor just needed to be broken--I'd think not only US interests (American leadership would be fine with breaking unions, unfortunately, but they'd stand in the way of any sort of resurgent Euro-imperialism, which would be the payoff of veering right, without success in those fields, a right turn would lead straight into a wall of failure) would block it but also the global situation. The European right stood foursquare for colonialism and the colonial peoples themselves were generally having none of it, along with large sectors of each metropolitan nations' working classes--and of course drawing out colonial struggles was seen by both Americans and Russians as an opening for Soviet interventionism, at least on the scale of aiding insurgencies and seeking alliances in the UN.

In the end, the Kremlin was frequently disappointed with their new Third World "friends;" either they'd take Soviet alignment as a temporary negotiating position while ruthlessly suppressing their own domestic Communists along with the left in general and turn on a dime to line up with Western powers when that was offered to them, or they'd have something like a genuine worker's party rule revolution all right--and turn into loose cannons like Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Tito, or Castro, setting their own policies with little more than lip service to, and sometimes open rupture with, the Kremlin. But that's how it turned out after the fact--during the periods when European colonialists had a hard time letting go, it did seem, on both sides of the Cold War divide, like the upshot would be handing Stalin and his successors a world empire to rival the British one at its height!

It's my impression that we had quite enough, or really far too much, of right-wing bluster and white-supremacy and all that nonsense OTL (far too much of it coming from my USA, sadly) and any more of it could only leave Europe that much more damaged.

So I'd think there would be far more hope in thinking about how the European moderate left could have been more successful, probably involving closer cooperation between the nations--a Britain that decolonized faster and more cleanly might have had a good influence on an uncertain French Republic to do much the same, and that might butterfly away any kind of Gaulleism from taking power.

And actually then the conflict with the USA's corporate regime might have come to a head more visibly; possibly a Europe that is visibly putting itself back on its feet on populist-socialist terms might have a good effect on US domestic politics.

Or if you prefer, might cause American reaction to get really toxic...

 

[Lord Douglas]

You overestimate the extent to which the right (in Britain anyway) was attached to colonialism.

It was the Conservative Party that decolonised most of the British Empire in Africa within a few short years, it was a Tory Prime Minister that made the Winds of Change speech, while it was a Labour government that instituted a pretty disastrous programme of crash industrialisation in the African empire which actually sparked off demands for self-government.

Most Tories probably wouldn't object too much to the Empire mutating rather more quickly into a Commonwealth or informal empire which preserves Britain's influence to a greater or lesser degree. It was well-recognised at the time that much of the UK's power came from its informal empire in the Middle East and its more or less autonomous possessions in SE Asia.

I also think people here are too optimistic about the prospects for a 'radical centre' Labour Party. It's not going to happen in a Labour Party which is dominated by trade unions and filled with either left wingers or downright conservative (with a small c) backbenchers beholden to various vested interests (i.e. one James Callaghan).

 

[Dunois]

While I tend to agree with you, I'm not sure how much cargo could be primarily exported from the UK they couldn't be handled by upgrading already existing fascilities (and thus helping tackle unemployment in these regions). Rotterdam and Antwerp will still probably re-export a lot of British goods while the Chunnel will help reduce the need further. However, a joint dockyard/refinary is still a good idea, i'm just not sure of the costs and location you propose. As a side note, Pembroke dockyard is quite shallow in places. As you said, Hinckly point would be a better option, especially if you can integrate the power plan into it.

A refinary at Hinckly point could also mean that the Exxon Mobil refinary in the Solent (Fawley) could be moved - with all the shipping in the Solent its a ecological diaster waiting to happen.

As a side idea, once the Fawley refinary closes the site could be used to house a new naval base seeing how Portsmouth and Devonport are too small to operate vessels over 55,000 tons safely (and that both lack the drydocking fascilities big enough to house them). Either that or Southampton docks could be closed, their commerce transfered to the Hinckley Point terminal and the docks redeveloped for the Royal Navy, closing both Devonport and Portsmouth in the process. (A bit of a strange angle to look at but it's a naval problem AH naval problem that i've been trying to get my head around - please feel to comment further).

If French experience in building Harbour Industrial Zones as they were called is a guide, it can either end up as a success or as a failure. A combined, harbour, refinery, steel mill, chemical works project was built in Fos near Marseilles. It was a success until the eighties, then it stagnated and now its growing again.
What acts as a huge hindrance to growth there is the low productivity and huge labor issues affecting the harbour.

I can easily see a refinery being proposed to complement an Hinckley container port, especially to go along an ultra modern Petroleum reception harbour. But moving the Esso Fawley refinery might be tricky, the company will want guarantees of some kind for a start.

I like the idea of merging Devonport and Portsmouth, it would cost a lot of money at first but it would be worth it down the road. I might atcually include it in Sword of Freedom if you don't mind, since at least one harbour out of Brest/Devonport/Portsmouth is going to have to be closed there. Devonport and Portsmouth could be kept as training facilities and command centres while Solentport hosts the fleet.

The Commonwealth is a given but the problem is trying to keep them interested post 1945. Britain is broke and both Canada and Australia are keen to assert their own identities. Meanwhile, the U.S. has replaced Britain as their chief protector.
However, co-operation with the French in the 1960's on everything from rocketry to Nuclear weapons would be a good shout.

Something like a full free trade, free movement of people/goods and general cooperation treaty might be the trick to create a strong alliance. You could even include full sharing of nuclear weapons technology as well, it would be bad from a proliferation point of view, but it would bind the Commonwealth countries closer together.
A strategic alliance with France is a must have here, De Gaulle won't be as much of an issue as you think if Britain clearly sides with her own allies and not the US. The aerospace industry of both sides will have to be integrated into a single unit, something which had already began on its own during the fifties OTL anyways. To remedy their lack of production facilities in Britain, parts of the VC7 or whatever jetliner is launched, could be made in France and shipped over to Britain. Meanwhile, Sud Aviation would probably use some of these aircraft parts for their Caravelle project (it did use the Comet nose OTL).

If there is no trident, then a common Franco-British missile should happen, possibly alongside land versions of this. Eventually you could end up with a strong space programme as well, posssibly including manned flights if there is a lot of money/will available.

Perhaps, but it really depends if they end up being an economic drag on Britain or not. Island garrsions may be nice to think about but only if they activly contribute to the overall grand scheme of things.

If the territories are run at at arm lenght from London, ie the social benefits available in Britain don't apply there on the same scale, the finances should be ok. Considering the relative poverty of some of these places as well, perhaps encouraging emigration from there to Britain would also be a good idea.

 

[Russell]

If French experience in building Harbour Industrial Zones as they were called is a guide, it can either end up as a success or as a failure. A combined, harbour, refinery, steel mill, chemical works project was built in Fos near Marseilles. It was a success until the eighties, then it stagnated and now its growing again.
What acts as a huge hindrance to growth there is the low productivity and huge labor issues affecting the harbour.

I can easily see a refinery being proposed to complement an Hinckley container port, especially to go along an ultra modern Petroleum reception harbour. But moving the Esso Fawley refinery might be tricky, the company will want guarantees of some kind for a start.

I will admit, the idea of a Severn Channel port is growing on me. However, I do still have some issues. I did a little bit of looking into it and discovered that Hinkley point has both strong tides and strong winds. A massive basin would have to be built. Furthermore, the West country has had an active environmental force for some time. The region is very green and will face massive opposition, especially since I don't see such a port being built until the late 60's and 70's at the earliest, once Britains older ports become obsolete. I did think that a new port facility could be built beyond the mouth of the Severn, maybe at Avonmouth, giving it a huge local supply of labour from Bristol. Maybe on the other side in Wales, drawing upon the labour force in Cardiff. As you did point out, such a large fascility would require a massive labour force, something lacking near Hinckley Point.

I like the idea of merging Devonport and Portsmouth, it would cost a lot of money at first but it would be worth it down the road. I might atcually include it in Sword of Freedom if you don't mind, since at least one harbour out of Brest/Devonport/Portsmouth is going to have to be closed there. Devonport and Portsmouth could be kept as training facilities and command centres while Solentport hosts the fleet.

If you can manage both new super container terminals and HSR freight going through the Chunnel, Southampton is going to suffer badly. The MOD could easily buy over the site in the 80s if it goes bust, saving vast sums of money in the long term and giving Southmapton new life. A really big bonus is that King George the V graving dock in Southampton which is big enough to house even a Nimitz Class carrier (not that Britain will be building such monstrosities). OTL Britain only has docks big enough in Rosyth to house big ships and the location is less than ideal.

Obviously some commercial shipping will remain in the form of cruise ships, but the terminal for those isn't part of the Western Dockayrds. Failing that, if the refinary at Fawley can be moved it would also be a good site but would require many time more to redevelop for use as a naval facility than Southampton.

As for Portsmouth and Devonport. A large, centralised training fascility for naval ratings could be opened up and either. Portsmouth in particular would be a good location for its history. The old historic dockyard could become a centralised Royal Navy Museum - HMS Victory, HMS Warrior, Mary Rose and other vessels could be preserved there. The port might even be able to continue to house the smaller Amphibous forces and the Marines. however, my personal favourites is for the site to become the HQ for an enlarged coastguard. It prime loaction on the worlds busiest shipping lane makes it perfect for its role.

Feel free to use any such ideas in you TL.

Something like a full free trade, free movement of people/goods and general cooperation treaty might be the trick to create a strong alliance. You could even include full sharing of nuclear weapons technology as well, it would be bad from a proliferation point of view, but it would bind the Commonwealth countries closer together.

It's been suggested before. Joint development and access to British technology would be a big boost to CANZ et al but the U.S. can still offer more. Perhaps a semi isolationist U.S. government post war might be best to push CANZ back to Britain to a certain extent - President taft in 1948 anyone? (shudders). You also have to get the British political elites to stop taking CANZ for granted.

A strategic alliance with France is a must have here, De Gaulle won't be as much of an issue as you think if Britain clearly sides with her own allies and not the US...If there is no trident, then a common Franco-British missile should happen, possibly alongside land versions of this. Eventually you could end up with a strong space programme as well, posssibly including manned flights if there is a lot of money/will available

De Gaulle could actually be quite willing to work in a purely business like relationship with the British - at least we're not Americans or the Soviets. Together britain and France could develop a full nuclear triad, although in the long term I'm not sure that this is such a good thing.

If the territories are run at at arm lenght from London, ie the social benefits available in Britain don't apply there on the same scale, the finances should be ok. Considering the relative poverty of some of these places as well, perhaps encouraging emigration from there to Britain would also be a good idea.

Some areas could be encourages to stay - Singapore and Hong Kong among the most obvious. I also like the Idea of a strong Dominion in the West Indies, one which stays longer under British rule and develops slowly, gaining independence in the 80's/90's. The area has a lot of develop potential.

You overestimate the extent to which the right (in Britain anyway) was attached to colonialism.

It was the Conservative Party that decolonised most of the British Empire in Africa within a few short years, it was a Tory Prime Minister that made the Winds of Change speech, while it was a Labour government that instituted a pretty disastrous programme of crash industrialisation in the African empire which actually sparked off demands for self-government.

Indeed, with the exception of 1952 (the height of the Korean War) the Tories spent less and less on defence and more colonies were jetisoned.

Russell

 

[whatisinaname]

Air to air missiles would be another area of advancment for the UK, not stopping in the 1960/70s and purchasing Sidewinder, instead developing 'Taildog' missile and others?

 

[Jape]

You overestimate the extent to which the right (in Britain anyway) was attached to colonialism...

The Tories did do alot more decolonisation but I dare say that was due to them being in power for three terms in the 1950s/early 1960s. My points regarding it were not ideological but practical - Labour WILL win in 1945, and be there until roughly 1950 at the least - this period is crucial. The 1950s was a period of conservatism in the Trade Union movement, barring wildcat stewards. A conitinued government under the Labour Right might be able to do something, which frankly the Tories of the period wouldn't dare do. 1945-1979 was a period were Labour whether they were conscious of it or not, had much more influence on the political goalposts than the Tories - as such to create a better Britain, you need a better Labour Party (Conservative one-party rule for decades is unlikely and unlikely to remain healthy), my suggestion was one based along European ordoliberal lines, something Hugh Dalton and others were keen on: let them win a victory (even temporary) in the 50s rather than the holding actions of late Attlee and Wilson rule and British politics as a whole might be healthier for it.

 

[Riain]

Air to air missiles would be another area of advancment for the UK, not stopping in the 1960/70s and purchasing Sidewinder, instead developing 'Taildog' missile and others?

The Red Top was possibly the best all-round AAM in the world in 1965, and the SRAAM looked good on paper too.

 

[Devvy]

Some areas could be encourages to stay - Singapore and Hong Kong among the most obvious. I also like the Idea of a strong Dominion in the West Indies, one which stays longer under British rule and develops slowly, gaining independence in the 80's/90's. The area has a lot of develop potential.

While I agree HK is, demographically speaking, a realistic target to encourage to stay, how would you resolve the territory question? China isn't going to easily give up on gaining HK back, Britain wants HK to stay, and the majority of HK lands will revert back to China in 1997, logistically slicing HK in half.

 

[Russell]

While I agree HK is, demographically speaking, a realistic target to encourage to stay, how would you resolve the territory question? China isn't going to easily give up on gaining HK back, Britain wants HK to stay, and the majority of HK lands will revert back to China in 1997, logistically slicing HK in half.

Indeed. Even a Hong Kong without the New Territories is difficult to sustain. I had thought out as part of the TL that as part of a more drawn out Chinese Civil War, Britain could offer to supply the Nationalists with cheap war surplus equipment in return for a permament lease on Kowloon. Just an idea, a decent POD would have to be worked out.

Russell

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

Indeed. Even a Hong Kong without the New Territories is difficult to sustain. I had thought out as part of the TL that as part of a more drawn out Chinese Civil War, Britain could offer to supply the Nationalists with cheap war surplus equipment in return for a permament lease on Kowloon. Just an idea, a decent POD would have to be worked out.

Russell

Personally I think the best POD is simply to have Kowloon and the New Territories ceded outright after the Second Opium War. From what I've read about the KMT in this period they were very anti-imperialist and I think they would have been unlikely to agree to such a deal.

 

[whatisinaname]

The Red Top was possibly the best all-round AAM in the world in 1965, and the SRAAM looked good on paper too.

Yes SRAAM was good on paper, medium range misssiles with the follow on to Sky-Flash, a British AMRAAM, can't remember the designation though ??

 

[abc123]

Indeed. Even a Hong Kong without the New Territories is difficult to sustain. I had thought out as part of the TL that as part of a more drawn out Chinese Civil War, Britain could offer to supply the Nationalists with cheap war surplus equipment in return for a permament lease on Kowloon. Just an idea, a decent POD would have to be worked out.

Russell

True, but with the growth of China, continuing with ownership of HK is simply unsustainable for UK, sooner or later UK would have to give HK back to China, if not by force of law ( expiry of lease ) than by force of arms, and for UK it's better that it's OTL way...

 

[abc123]

OK, people here offently blame Labour for mass nationalisations in post-war period.
But, in your opinion, were all nationalisations were justified and good for Britain?

 

[Devolved]

OK, people here offently blame Labour for mass nationalisations in post-war period.
But, in your opinion, were all nationalisations were justified and good for Britain?

Most of the industries nationalized by Labour 1945-51 were in a terrible state in 1945. They had been starved of investment, suffered war damage and loss of skilled workers.

If Britain adopted a free enterprise approach then many of the industires would have gone to the wall and there would have been little no investment. Most private capital wanted to go to North America which was why exchange controls were introduced.

OTL Labour's economic record was very good. Full employment maintained when no one believed it possible. By 1951 all of Britain's industries had been maintained and even enhanced, both heavy and light industry.


Also self sufficiency in defence had been re established eg

Best tank = Centurion

Jets in service and new jets coming through

atomic bomb programme underway

Still the best electronics and surveillance systems

Landrovers challenging the jeep.

Exports 175% above pre war level.

The decline hit in the 1950's when Britain was governed by Tories who thought things were just fine when they weren't.

 

[Dunois]

I will admit, the idea of a Severn Channel port is growing on me. However, I do still have some issues. I did a little bit of looking into it and discovered that Hinkley point has both strong tides and strong winds. A massive basin would have to be built. Furthermore, the West country has had an active environmental force for some time. The region is very green and will face massive opposition, especially since I don't see such a port being built until the late 60's and 70's at the earliest, once Britains older ports become obsolete. I did think that a new port facility could be built beyond the mouth of the Severn, maybe at Avonmouth, giving it a huge local supply of labour from Bristol. Maybe on the other side in Wales, drawing upon the labour force in Cardiff. As you did point out, such a large fascility would require a massive labour force, something lacking near Hinckley Point.

Avonmouth is another option, but this will require a huge expansion of the facilities there. A side effect especially if heavy industry like refining, steelmaking/aluminum smelting is encouraged to set up near the port, will be to turn the Greater Bristol area into a huge industrial centre, something made much easier by the fact that users for some of the products already exists in Bristol (aviation for the aluminum).
Transports links will have to be improved, but there is already a good enough base to begin with, electrification of the railways alone would be a huge boost.
For power supply, 4 to 6GW of nuclear power in the Severn valley will do the trick.

If you can manage both new super container terminals and HSR freight going through the Chunnel, Southampton is going to suffer badly. The MOD could easily buy over the site in the 80s if it goes bust, saving vast sums of money in the long term and giving Southmapton new life. A really big bonus is that King George the V graving dock in Southampton which is big enough to house even a Nimitz Class carrier (not that Britain will be building such monstrosities). OTL Britain only has docks big enough in Rosyth to house big ships and the location is less than ideal.

Obviously some commercial shipping will remain in the form of cruise ships, but the terminal for those isn't part of the Western Dockayrds. Failing that, if the refinary at Fawley can be moved it would also be a good site but would require many time more to redevelop for use as a naval facility than Southampton.

Sounds good to me, Southampton will probably keep a few million tons of goods every year but not much else.

The refinery will stay I think, though it may not become as large as it became OTL.

De Gaulle could actually be quite willing to work in a purely business like relationship with the British - at least we're not Americans or the Soviets. Together britain and France could develop a full nuclear triad, although in the long term I'm not sure that this is such a good thing.

France did develop a full nuclear triad on her own OTL, the submarines are still supplemented by air dropped bombs from Mirage 2000 and there even used to be IRBM silos in the south as well (only 18). The army even had tactical nuclear missiles as well until the mid nineties.

Considering the geographic location of both countries in western Europe, I however don't think that a full triad makes any sense. Submarines are best, possibly supplement by planes. ICBMs silos would be too expensive, unless the rocket ties in very nicely with the space programme.

Some areas could be encourages to stay - Singapore and Hong Kong among the most obvious. I also like the Idea of a strong Dominion in the West Indies, one which stays longer under British rule and develops slowly, gaining independence in the 80's/90's. The area has a lot of develop potential.

Russell

Singapore is definitely a possibility, though will it develop along the sames lines as OTL as an integrated overseas territory remains to be seen in my opinion. I would say yes, but I think that overall the place might be less populated than OTL.

For Hong Long, the New Territories have to be kept which either means a treaty with the KMT/China or a China too isolantionist (like in Fear Loathing and Gumbo) that it does not care about the place anymore.
Regardless even if a treaty is signed with the KMT, the Reds could renege it if they win the civil war, possibly leading to tense relations between Britain and China for decades.