Challenge: UK Still an Industrial Power

[Marix]

1) If Churchill runs a better campaign, Labor isn't elected in 1945. This avoids some of Labor's screw ups.

Clement Atlee is consistently ranked in the top 5 Prime Minister's ever, often as number one. That Ministry was able to rebuild Britain from the ruins of World War 2, and was the most popular labour government ever. It only lost in 1951 because of electoral mischief and the huge decline of the Liberals.

And as was said, Churchill was terrible in peacetime. He spent money and forces we did not have on an Empire which was already dead and made some terrible decisions.

 

[TheMann]

This is a tricky one. I think you will need a POD around 1945 to get this one going, not any later. UK industry went into a heavy decline largely because it failed to modernise. If one compared certain key aspects with Germany for instance where money was invested in new technology one could maybe see a good starting point. in germany, the ship building industry moved to much quicker and more economic modular construction while John Browns was still conventionally building ships right into the 70's. Coal mining was also more automated, as was steel manufacture. Most of this came down to the trade unions who feared job losses would result through automation and generally weak willed governments who dithered over what to do.

Russell

I figured this was going to be a response, because its true. Britain's governments were pretty much stuck kissing up to the unions by the 1970s because of this, and they repeatedly kept nationalizing firms and industries that would have been more competitive. That said, butterflying away much of this borders on ASB territory. I was thinking that perhaps the industries themselves shift gears, and that the government forces companies to rationalize their efforts but doesn't start taking over so many of them.

 

[Arachnid]

Clement Atlee is consistently ranked in the top 5 Prime Minister's ever, often as number one. That Ministry was able to rebuild Britain from the ruins of World War 2, and was the most popular labour government ever. It only lost in 1951 because of electoral mischief and the huge decline of the Liberals.

And as was said, Churchill was terrible in peacetime. He spent money and forces we did not have on an Empire which was already dead and made some terrible decisions.

Atlee is rated highly because he is viewed as a Labour God and Labour voters make up a large share of the Academics who vote in the BBC polls. He actually was pretty awful, nationalizing major industries and thus pretty much killing any chance they had, strengthening the Unions, leading directly to the chaos of the 70's and trying to have both a Welfare state and Warfare state with a Public Debt at 250% of GDP.
That said Churchill wasn't that much better. He was even keener on hanging on to loss-making bits of Empire and didn't have the guts to reverse Atlee's Welfarism.
What needs to be done is:

1.) Biggest problem is the massively overvalued Pound. Devalue by at least 30% in stages (5% every year), preferably more like 50%.

2.) Stop spending money on unprofitable colonies (Africa mainly), and set them on 20 year transition to independence (local elections, civil service reform, army reform etc.) as cheaply as possibly. Ignore the whining from white settlers but try and ensure that post independence governments are sane and friendly people rather than monsters like Mugabe and Amin.

3.) Try and Pull Canada and Australia out of US orbit into Commonwealth Free Trade Zone. Difficult as the US isn't going to like it. Also try and add the Nordics and other British Aligned nations in as well but NO EU!!!!.

4.) Much smaller Welfare state, no NHS but Public Insurance system like Australian MediCare, etc.

5.) Get Nukes quick but retrench forces to Arab Oil States (big money earner in long run), and Malaysia. Treat these colonies really nice as you want to keep them in Commonwealth Free Trade Zone to make it work.

6.) Sign Deal on Suez pronto on favourable terms (free passage for British Ships, gradual Egyptian buyout of British Shares in the Company)

7.) Big Tax breaks for Companies to re-investment. In 1945-1970 British companies re-invested under 3% of turnover, German companies over 8%. No wonder the overtook us.

8.) Try and weaken the Unions but not so much as to cause a backlash. Abolish the Closed Shop.

9.) Don't Nationalise things, and if you do offload them as soon as possible.

10.) Build lots of Nuclear power-plants asap so as to weaken the insane Mining Unions. As soon as North Sea comes on line dash for Gas to finally kill Coal.

11.) Start running Budget Surpluses as try and get the Debt down to a manageable (sub 50% of GDP) level by 1960. It will hurt but it'll be good for the economy in the long run to have much smaller foreign debt load, easing the balance of payments problems.

 

[Some Bloke]

Possible PM List/PODs.

Here's 1 idea.

Perhaps Churchill has a hearts attack sometime in 1945 and decides to withdraw from Politics. An earlier Eden may be in a better position to reverse or curtail some of Atlee's more questionable reforms? Maybe in this TTL Eden won't be remembered as the Proto Blair who's imperialist delusions put the final nail in the coffin of our world power status.

After this, Let the Butterflys roam wild and free!

P.S. We'd need to offer something in return for closer links with Canada & Australia, perhaps express an interest in the Arrow.

 

[Arachnid]

P.S. We'd need to offer something in return for closer links with Canada & Australia, perhaps express an interest in the Arrow.

With regards to pulling the White Dominions in:

New Zealand is pretty easy, their entire economy is based around exporting agricultural products to the UK and would be very happy to ensure even better access to their key market.

South Africa also is pretty easy. The National Party is pretty anti-British and would thus veto political integration. However in OTL South Africa remained very closely tied economically (main trading partner etc.) to the UK till the 70's and thus would be amicably to a Commonwealth Free Trade Zone (CFTZ) though issues would appear in the 70's over apartheid and earlier over political independence.

Australia with Robert "British to our bootstraps" Menzies as PM a CFTZ would be popular but since 1942 Australia has looked to the US for its defence and is aware the Britain can't protect it, as such if the US wants to scupper the CFTZ it probably could especially after the Cold War gets going.

Canada is Australia times 10. While the UK was still Australia's largest market the US has been Canada's main trading partner for decades and while residual loyalty and fear of being swallowed by the US might push some people towards Britain simple economics mean the Canada really would be better off aligned with the US than the UK. As such I reckon is would be the hardest to pull into a CFTZ.

 

[Riain]

I'd have Britain push its aviation industry as hard as possible immediately after the war. They had a jet airliner in the wings and jet fighters in production, and with this lead could build up a large market share before serious competion kicked in.

 

[TheMann]

I'd have Britain push its aviation industry as hard as possible immediately after the war. They had a jet airliner in the wings and jet fighters in production, and with this lead could build up a large market share before serious competion kicked in.

They already beat others to the punch. Didn't save them once the Boeing 707 was out there. You could easily enough make the Comet have round windows, better engines and a larger capacity, mind you, or just have the VC10 out in 1958 instead of 1964.

As for Canada, they didn't commit entirely to free trade with the US until 1988, but instead did many individual deals to each others' benefit. The same could be true here, and not just on military stuff, either. Canada could easily supply Britain with lots of oil and natural resources, but Canada is doing to want access for its value-added industries, too.

 

[Arachnid]

As for Canada, they didn't commit entirely to free trade with the US until 1988, but instead did many individual deals to each others' benefit. The same could be true here, and not just on military stuff, either. Canada could easily supply Britain with lots of oil and natural resources, but Canada is doing to want access for its value-added industries, too.

I thought Canada wasn't a major Oil exporter till more recently, and as much as I like Canada working hard and if necessary being nasty to keep Kuwait and the U.A.E. firmly in the British orbit is more sensible. With them you have more oil then you need.

 

[TheMann]

I thought Canada wasn't a major Oil exporter till more recently, and as much as I like Canada working hard and if necessary being nasty to keep Kuwait and the U.A.E. firmly in the British orbit is more sensible. With them you have more oil then you need.

The tar sands were well known, and the first big Alberta oil strike was in 1947. Canada was a major oil exporter by 1960. The slow decline of conventional oil reserves in Alberta and Ontario are why the tar sands and offshore projects are gaining more traction now.

I don't disagree on keeping the smaller Gulf states in Britain's orbit, but it won't be easy. They got real nationalistic after WWII, and Britain is going to be heavily inclined to support Israel as a result of the Holocaust, which is going to aggravate the Arabs in a big way. Keeping them in the picture would require not helping the Israelis, which isn't going to please many British, or the Europeans or the Americans. Oil wealth or not, the small Arab states are not worth that. I can seem them being kept in the sphere by helping to ensure they stay out of the orbits of Saudi Arabia and Iran, but that would require keeping a military presence in the Gulf, which is expensive and potentially inflammatory.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Yes, NZ would be pretty happy for a Commonwealth trade zone. Although in practice, I don't recall that there was much in the way of trade or investment barriers between the two countries up until the engagement with the EEC.

 

[Arachnid]

The tar sands were well known, and the first big Alberta oil strike was in 1947. Canada was a major oil exporter by 1960. The slow decline of conventional oil reserves in Alberta and Ontario are why the tar sands and offshore projects are gaining more traction now.

I don't disagree on keeping the smaller Gulf states in Britain's orbit, but it won't be easy. They got real nationalistic after WWII, and Britain is going to be heavily inclined to support Israel as a result of the Holocaust, which is going to aggravate the Arabs in a big way. Keeping them in the picture would require not helping the Israelis, which isn't going to please many British, or the Europeans or the Americans. Oil wealth or not, the small Arab states are not worth that. I can seem them being kept in the sphere by helping to ensure they stay out of the orbits of Saudi Arabia and Iran, but that would require keeping a military presence in the Gulf, which is expensive and potentially inflammatory.

Without wanting to sound crude the UK needs a cash cow come the 70's when continental Europe has recovered from the War and Breton Woods is breaking down. The Gulf States can provide that no matter their opinion. As the are all absolute monarchies all you have to do is make sure that the Monarch is pro-British and if he's not pro-British enough I'm sure he has an ambitious cousin. The population's are small enough that general consent isn't needed. As for defence a battalion of Ghurka's in Kuwait and Bharain plus a RN frigate squadron in the Gulf with the promise that if anything goes awry 16th Air Assault will be on their way pronto should do the job.
Then charge the locals a whacking great big sum for the protection they are getting and a guarantee that all the drilling and extraction is done by British firms who can then by milked by the Exchequer, also lean on the Shieks to spend their petro-dollars in Britain e.g. private VC-10's for every member of the family.
People are going to criticise it and its going to inflame tensions and possibly cause an earlier start to Islamic terrorism, but there is enough oil in the Gulf to make it worth while.

Yes, NZ would be pretty happy for a Commonwealth trade zone. Although in practice, I don't recall that there was much in the way of trade or investment barriers between the two countries up until the engagement with the EEC.

There wasn't, but that dependence means that the UK can say that continued access is contingent on signing up.

As for Canada, they didn't commit entirely to free trade with the US until 1988, but instead did many individual deals to each others' benefit.

Yes but since the inter-war period Canada had free-er trade with the US than with the UK and a much greater volume. As such convincing it to join a Customs Union and thus weaken access to its main market is a hard ask.

 

[abc123]

What needs to be done is:

1.) Biggest problem is the massively overvalued Pound. Devalue by at least 30% in stages (5% every year), preferably more like 50%.

2.) Stop spending money on unprofitable colonies (Africa mainly), and set them on 20 year transition to independence (local elections, civil service reform, army reform etc.) as cheaply as possibly. Ignore the whining from white settlers but try and ensure that post independence governments are sane and friendly people rather than monsters like Mugabe and Amin.

3.) Try and Pull Canada and Australia out of US orbit into Commonwealth Free Trade Zone. Difficult as the US isn't going to like it. Also try and add the Nordics and other British Aligned nations in as well but NO EU!!!!.

4.) Much smaller Welfare state, no NHS but Public Insurance system like Australian MediCare, etc.

5.) Get Nukes quick but retrench forces to Arab Oil States (big money earner in long run), and Malaysia. Treat these colonies really nice as you want to keep them in Commonwealth Free Trade Zone to make it work.

6.) Sign Deal on Suez pronto on favourable terms (free passage for British Ships, gradual Egyptian buyout of British Shares in the Company)

7.) Big Tax breaks for Companies to re-investment. In 1945-1970 British companies re-invested under 3% of turnover, German companies over 8%. No wonder the overtook us.

8.) Try and weaken the Unions but not so much as to cause a backlash. Abolish the Closed Shop.

9.) Don't Nationalise things, and if you do offload them as soon as possible.

10.) Build lots of Nuclear power-plants asap so as to weaken the insane Mining Unions. As soon as North Sea comes on line dash for Gas to finally kill Coal.

11.) Start running Budget Surpluses as try and get the Debt down to a manageable (sub 50% of GDP) level by 1960. It will hurt but it'll be good for the economy in the long run to have much smaller foreign debt load, easing the balance of payments problems.

I agree, those are pretty good ideas.

 

[abc123]

Without wanting to sound crude the UK needs a cash cow come the 70's when continental Europe has recovered from the War and Breton Woods is breaking down. The Gulf States can provide that no matter their opinion. As the are all absolute monarchies all you have to do is make sure that the Monarch is pro-British and if he's not pro-British enough I'm sure he has an ambitious cousin. The population's are small enough that general consent isn't needed. As for defence a battalion of Ghurka's in Kuwait and Bharain plus a RN frigate squadron in the Gulf with the promise that if anything goes awry 16th Air Assault will be on their way pronto should do the job.
Then charge the locals a whacking great big sum for the protection they are getting and a guarantee that all the drilling and extraction is done by British firms who can then by milked by the Exchequer, also lean on the Shieks to spend their petro-dollars in Britain e.g. private VC-10's for every member of the family.
People are going to criticise it and its going to inflame tensions and possibly cause an earlier start to Islamic terrorism, but there is enough oil in the Gulf to make it worth while.

Yep. I agree completly.

 

[Blackfox5]

Clement Atlee is consistently ranked in the top 5 Prime Minister's ever, often as number one. That Ministry was able to rebuild Britain from the ruins of World War 2, and was the most popular labour government ever.

Let me be more specific then on Labor's screw ups: 1) nationalizations and 2) price controls. They did immense damage to Britain's economic development.

Nationalizations allowed the government to make business decisions based on political, not market reasons. It underminded the long term viability of a lot of British industry. It also directly contributed to the issue of running down the capital equipment and not reinvesting in new tooling.

Price controls distorted the market causing shortages of a lot of goods. It hurt the economy and British people. None of the wartime controls kepts by Labor made any sense.

Britain was going to recover from WWII anyway. "Full employment" was likely to happen under the Conservatives as much as Labor. A Churchill government would probably have done better because it would not have implemented the most bonehead ideas of Labor like the above. As long as Great Britain gets American aide to ease its financial situation, it'll do OK. If you look at the more free market moves done in the US and West Germany, both countries did better than Great Britain.

So Labor's actions were at best neutral, or even damaging in the short term. In the long term, they were disastrous for British indutry's competitiveness.

That Attlee was popular is irrelevant. He was certainly not a bad man, and some of his decisions were good. He certainly had good political skills. It is easy to overlook the rot he caused to set into the economy since it wouldn't come to its worst fruition for several decades. But they were still bad decisions.

I notice you also mention the British establishment should realise the empire's days are done and cut it off quicker...Churchill is the last person who is going to do this.

Well, this is completely true. Ultimately, neither the Conservatives or Labor or going to move fast enough in jettisoning the Empire. A Churchill ministry means more time will be wasted on India. But in retrospect, I think that will cause less damage than Labor's economic decisions.

Churchill is also likely to only last one term. He's old and will have health problems near the end. At that time, maybe the Conservatives will lose the election - the British are obviously going to tire of them at some point. But by then the wartime controls will be suspended, and the public might be much more wary of Labor's program of nationalization.

 

[stevep]

Let me be more specific then on Labor's screw ups: 1) nationalizations and 2) price controls. They did immense damage to Britain's economic development.

Nationalizations allowed the government to make business decisions based on political, not market reasons. It underminded the long term viability of a lot of British industry. It also directly contributed to the issue of running down the capital equipment and not reinvesting in new tooling.

The problem with that was most of the industries nationalised were done so to stop them collapsing. After generations of decline and under-investment. Most of them only became viable for sell-offs in Thatcher's time because of massive public investment in them.

Price controls distorted the market causing shortages of a lot of goods. It hurt the economy and British people. None of the wartime controls kepts by Labor made any sense.

It was necessary with the restrictions placed on Britain by the US. Massive exports were needed to meet US financial demands and hence public consumption inside Britain had to be kept low.

Britain was going to recover from WWII anyway. "Full employment" was likely to happen under the Conservatives as much as Labor. A Churchill government would probably have done better because it would not have implemented the most bonehead ideas of Labor like the above. As long as Great Britain gets American aide to ease its financial situation, it'll do OK. If you look at the more free market moves done in the US and West Germany, both countries did better than Great Britain.

The problem was that he and possibly the Tories of the time had plenty of their own daft ideas. Opposing investment in health and education especially.

That Attlee was popular is irrelevant. He was certainly not a bad man, and some of his decisions were good. He certainly had good political skills. It is easy to overlook the rot he caused to set into the economy since it wouldn't come to its worst fruition for several decades. But they were still bad decisions.

The steps taken by the Attlee government did a lot to delay the further decline, despite the harsh circumstances they found themselves in. They made mistakes, such as the aid to the Soviets and then getting tied up in Korea when Britain was just beginning to recover.

A nation in the modern world needs to work to stay ahead. It can't be done for free, as so many idealogs seem to think. It needs effort and thought and when a complacent ruling establishment has repeatedly refused to do that then the government must be dragged in. Excessive government interference can well be crippling but as recent history has shown more widely insufficient government can be as bad.

Steve

Steve

 

[abc123]

Some here saying about some Britain in ruins after WW2.
WTF???
What ruins?
A few bombs fell over southern England in 1940. and 1941., and that is "Britain in ruins"!?!?!?
So Atlee has some special accomplishments for resurecting of Britain?
What to tell about all post-WW2 german chancellors if Atlee is very sucessful man???

 

[Blackfox5]

I am certainly not a big expert on postwar Britain, but I will have to disagree.

The problem with that was most of the industries nationalised were done so to stop them collapsing.

I don't think any of the British industries nationalized by Attlee was in danger of failing in the 1940s. The coal mines, the railroads, the Bank of England, and everything else nationalized were not in danger of immediately going bankrupt. Attlee didn't nationalize them to "save" them, but because Labor wanted the government to command the heights of the economy and insure full employment.

Britain didn't need to nationalize anything to get "full employment." None of the nations did after WWII. It is not the situation where Britain was a unique case where it would not have done well unless nationalization took place.

I think you may be confusing the nationalizations which took place much later when the British economy had been run down even more (like when the government forced the car industry to merge in the 1960s and nationalized them in the 1970s). If the Labor government in 1968 not forced those companies to merge, some of them would have remained competitive and stayed in business. Instead, the merger failed and became a financial eyesore to ruined the whole sector.

It was necessary with the restrictions placed on Britain by the US. Massive exports were needed to meet US financial demands and hence public consumption inside Britain had to be kept low.

Britain did have crushing debt, and this needed to be serviced. Certainly the initial end of Lend Lease in 1945 caused problems. But the US quickly extended loans to help Britain out, and then there was Marshall Plan funds later. If Britain had planned for the transition better between war and peace (including discussing financial options with the US), even these hiccups could have been averted.

But certainly it did not need to keep wartime controls in order to service the debt. It could have done away with them relatively soon after the war ended. What Britain needed was to end its financial commitments that diverted a lot of money away from this. Some of this has to do with the Empire, or European security (like its aid to the non-communist Greeks), and some of it had to do with the new financial obligations created by Labor's policies. That last bit could have been averted entirely. (Those nationalized industries were inefficient and needed subsidies. In private hands, they would have become more efficient and not needed support. No doubt they'd have let go of some employees, but I think they would have found employment easily in a freeer market in the economic conditions of the late '40s and early '50s. ) The other ones would have been difficult given the mentality of the time, but some form of triage could have been done with the most pressing concerns met, and others abandoned.

In any sense, policies like price controls inevitably create shortages. They don't end them. A more flexible economic policy would have alleviated things, not made them worse.

The problem was that he and possibly the Tories of the time had plenty of their own daft ideas. Opposing investment in health and education especially.

I am sure the Tories had plenty of daft ideas. All politicians do. However, even if investment in health and education was needed, it doesn't mean Labor's plans were the best alternative, or that Britain could not have done well by delaying such investments until after it recovered its finances.

A major problem with British industry was its workforce. Its unions were divided into very inefficient craft unions. British companies needed to negotiate with hundreds of unions instead of just one. Instead of nationalizing indutry, Labor would have done better addressing the real reasons for inefficient labour practices. Of course, that's not what would have been done. Labor was there to accomodate the British labor unions and not challenge them. The wind sown there would be reaped in the 1970s.

Labor's policies of nationalization, wartime controls, and high taxes created the situation where British industry were starved of funds to modernize. In thsi time period, Britain was the government with the highest form of socialism. None of the other European combatants did. They all did better. I don't think that's a coincidence.

The steps taken by the Attlee government did a lot to delay the further decline, despite the harsh circumstances they found themselves in.

I don't see any evidence of that. What are some examples that clearly demonstrate the situation would have been worse? I'm ignorant.

Britain faced a lot of major challenges in the postwar era. A non-Labor government would not have overcome all of them, and it would have made other mistakes.

Clearly, Britain also needed to take a leadership role in the economic integration of Europe. An early leadership role in what would become the common market would have given it benefits of an increased market, and allowed it to develop institutions in a way more favorable to Britain. Being outside the EEC hurt Britain once that area took off economically. Britain needs to be in it (or some version of it). In addition, a rational policy to allow the Pound to be properly valued also would ahve helped matters. The over valued Pound certainly hurt. Britain was spending far too much on military and security. It needs a rational plan to reduce that to levels it can actually maintain. It also needed to change its entire way of industrial labor relations. Above all Britain needs to retool its industries, and we know that Labor's policies won't allow that to happen.

None of these things were easy to do, and much of what needed to be done was apparent only in hindsight.

 

[Blackfox5]

Some here saying about some Britain in ruins after WW2.

Britain was not devastated as many other countries were, but its cities had been bombed, and not just in 1940 and 1941. Nor were those bombings limited in nature. Bombings had occurred way into 1944. Even after German bombers no longer flew over England, V-1s and V-2s were launched.

Britain should have recovered quickly, but it didn't. It was just another factor of the general economic decline of Britain. Long after cities in France and Germany were rebuilt, there were still areas of London not repaired.

 

[Arachnid]

The problem with that was most of the industries nationalised were done so to stop them collapsing. After generations of decline and under-investment. Most of them only became viable for sell-offs in Thatcher's time because of massive public investment in them.

Absolutely false. That is the greatest myth about the nationalised industries. In terms of capital investment they were appalling and far below private sector levels. While they did receive considerable subsidies it all went to keeping old inefficient plants open and feather-bedding for the unions.
Also they weren't in danger of collapsing in 1945, while British industry worn down by 15 years of under investment and war and in bad shape, French and German industry was in even worse shape. The UK had a massive comparative advantage but instead of using that to re-invest in new equipment so that Britain could stay ahead it all went to the unions and government.

It was necessary with the restrictions placed on Britain by the US. Massive exports were needed to meet US financial demands and hence public consumption inside Britain had to be kept low.

Actually price controls weren't needed for that, devaluation of the pound and restrictions on capital movements would have been sufficient. All price controls did was create scarcity. Without prices rising to balance out supply and demand you had undervalued items where demand at that price point was much greater than supply, leading to rationing and shortage. It also encourages black markets which being outside the legitimate economy aren't taxed, shrinking the tax base.

The problem was that he and possibly the Tories of the time had plenty of their own daft ideas. Opposing investment in health and education especially.

Investment in Education was necessary (though not "comprehensive" schools) in order to close the education gap with the rest of Europe and some spending of health was demanded by public opinion, but a Public Insurance option would have been much cheaper and better in the long run than the insanely inefficient NHS.

The steps taken by the Attlee government did a lot to delay the further decline, despite the harsh circumstances they found themselves in. They made mistakes, such as the aid to the Soviets and then getting tied up in Korea when Britain was just beginning to recover.

Obviously the aid to the Soviets was a bad idea but Korea was probably necessary if Britain wants to tie in Australia and NZ into a CFTZ. Pulling back from East of Suez was not a good idea in 1945, there were plenty of profitable colonies (Malaya) that could still be milked that needed to be defended.

A nation in the modern world needs to work to stay ahead. It can't be done for free, as so many idealogs seem to think. It needs effort and thought and when a complacent ruling establishment has repeatedly refused to do that then the government must be dragged in. Excessive government interference can well be crippling but as recent history has shown more widely insufficient government can be as bad.

Government does have a role and can do things to help the economy other than getting out of the way. Its just Labour didn't do any of them. That said the Tory party wasn't much better with its enthusiastic embrace of Keynes and Butskilism.

 

[Jape]

Not to toot a horn but I'm starting a TL that deals with Britain doing better more or less in the Post-war world.

People are attacking the Labour Party here, and with good reason to an extent. Until 1979 whether in power or not Labour was the driving force of British politics in terms of economics, social reforms, decolonisation and the trade unions. Thats not to say the Conservatives were inactive merely to say if you realistically want to make Britain perform better you need to reform Labour, because its ASB you'll keep them out of power for 50 years.

This isn't all that hard really - Labour greatest problems were nationalising for the sake of it, trade union influence and Harold Wilson presenting the top-down approach as 'technocratic', effectively taking 1945 manifesto programmes and jazzing them up for a 1966 audience.

The nationalising influence can curtailed if you have the Revisionists come to dominate - namely Hugh Dalton and his heir Hugh Gaitskell - both preferred continental style dirigisme over the 'commanding heights'. Now despite what some are saying in this thread, certain industries were a complete mess by 1945, regardless of whether they needed to become public corporations, the Railways in particular were seen by all sides as in need of sorting out. Churchill considered nationalising the Railways a nessecary temporary measure to avoid Britain's infrastructure collapsing and frankly he was right.

Trade Union influence - In Place of Strife the 1969 White Paper proposed by left-wing Barbara Castle to curtail Trade Union power however PM Wilson ever the compromiser lacked the balls to take on the radical elements of the Union movement. Best bet is to have Gaitskell or a similar right-winger with a large majority push through legislation. Labour has to be the party to do it unless your looking at an earlier monetarist Tory government, which is pretty unlikely. Its very much a Nixon in China moment.

Harold Wilson - get rid of him, have Gaitskell live on and become PM and consign him to the wilderness. He pushed the second-wave of nationalisation, most of it doing little but propping up ancient factories, promoted 90% income tax, causing a major brain drain, did nothing to tackle growing Union radicalism. If he can be kept from the leadership into the 1970s, the likes of Denis Healy and Roy Jenkins will provide strong right-winger opposition that IOTL Gaitskell's death removed in the early 60s. He was good on TV though, lets be nice and see him get a chat show or documentary series on BBC Two (he did actually did start a TV career in the late 70s but ill health forced a quick end to it)!

I have other ideas regarding Britain dominating the *EU, stakeholder schemes to undermine the Unions, rationalisation over nationalisation, Land Value Tax but I intend to explore them in my TL when I've done more research.