Admiral Beez
Banned
We've not addressed the question, what does Britain's economy look like without WW1? Instead we're comparing it to others.
Faster deindustrialization. I have mentioned above.We've not addressed the question, what does Britain's economy look like without WW1? Instead we're comparing it to others.
One thing the empire has going for it is agricultural and petroleum resources. If a preferential economic pact can be made with the Dominions, the empire would own much of the world's grain producing lands. And then there's oil.... with Nigeria and much of the Middle East in British hands, once these discoveries are made, BP will be one of most powerful firms in the world. Then there's rubber and tin in Malaya, diamonds in Africa, etc, etc.Faster deindustrialization. I have mentioned above.
It's a very good point. We forget that due to ill health much of the poverty-striken population of Britain was unable to serve, so it was the sons of the educated and upper classes that was lost.One thing that can't be under-emphasized is the demographic impact. The British and French lost an entire generation of productive young men, including some of the best, the brightest, the most talented and inventive. No WWI, all those young men live, they work, they write, create, invent, start businesses, travel, marry, have children.
The rise of Labour as the main opposition is no longer guaranteed, since the reform tendency of Liberals actually accelerated since 1910 until the ww1, and of course clearly outperformed the Tory. Actually, I prefer to see a strong Liberal Party going down the New Deal path. Becoming "the party of New Deal" would allow them to replace the Tory as the natural party. I like the Liberals' tendency to limit military spending for other more productive segments.Makes you wonder if Labour would have become a strong party, or if socialism would have taken such a hold in Britain.
The problem is that the pro-free trade faction would be much stronger than IOTL. If the Tory tries to call for Tariff Reform in their manifesto, they would be flayed like in 1906 election at least during 1920s.One thing the empire has going for it is agricultural and petroleum resources. If a preferential economic pact can be made with the Dominions, the empire would own much of the world's grain producing lands. And then there's oil.... with Nigeria and much of the Middle East in British hands, once these discoveries are made, BP will be one of most powerful firms in the world. Then there's rubber and tin in Malaya, diamonds in Africa, etc, etc.
Well, many of the sons of the landed gentry would be culled by Liberal land reforms (IOTL, after the war, as many of these men died, land reform was no longer a hot issue). In the worst case, it could wipe out a good deal of Tory power base.We forget that due to ill health much of the poverty-striken population of Britain was unable to serve, so it was the sons of the educated and upper classes that was lost.
Well, many of the sons of the landed gentry would be culled by Liberal land reforms (IOTL, after the war, as many of these men died, land reform was no longer a hot issue). In the worst case, it could wipe out a good deal of Tory power base.
I don't follow you? How would it give Britain another 3 million population-wise?
Are you under the impression that Ireland was self-governing before Home Rule and HR was about bringing it back into the Union? Because that definitely wasn't what HR was about.
I mean many of them would see their weath drop substantially due to land taxation and death duties. Many would see their power and influence dwindle with their wealth.Liberal land reform wouldn't have killed these people though, unless your ATL Liberal government has some terrible plans..?
I meant that without the war Home rule would have passed and the economy of the United Kingdom would have had more resources in the form of the south.
Well, if Sinn Fenn still wipe out the IPPNo it wouldn't if Home Rule passed. If Home Rule passed, Britain would have lost the resources of the South as they did OTL, only earlier.
Well, if Sinn Fenn still wipe out the IPP
I wonder if growing German economic might would lead to a closed British Imperial market, and an abandonment of Smith's free market ideas, instead putting in place his proposal for an imperial economic federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#In_British_Imperial_debates
If Britain and its empire (24% of the world's population and land area) block the import and sale of German goods, well, that forces Germany to find other markets or be limited in its continued success.
Germany was more of a commercial threat to British home market, but the US was more of a threat to Empire markets.If protective tariffs were to be implemented, the U.S. was far more of a commercial "threat" to trade between Britain and its Empire.
If they actually had a clue of industrial policy, they would have tried to industrialize South Ireland.
Economic disparity between Ulster and the rest of Ireland was a core reason for the Ulster problem.Why? What do they get out of the Republic (as it now is) that they don't get out of the English North and Midlands, Glasgow etc?
Especially considering that Home Rule was a major issue pre-1914 and any money put into industrialising what was to become the Republic would be lost post-1922 and would probably never achieve anything anyway considering the trouble in Ireland after 1916...
Economic disparity between Ulster and the rest of Ireland was a core reason for the Ulster problem.
Oddly enough, the Irish Land Acts had a retrograde effect on Irish economic growth. The old landlords get a very bad press since the Wyndham Acts as absentee bloodsuckers but it is impossible to read an old Irish agricultural journal of the late Victorian or early Edwardian period without noticing how much of a contribution the landed class actually made to agricultural improvement through introducing improved breeding stock and seed, new machinery and processing plant and new crop rotation and fertiliser techniques. Now they didn't do this entirely out of the goodness of their hearts obviously, they wanted a higher rate of return from their tenants and to increase the value of their land. Nevertheless they did it. Once of the consequences of land reform was a slowdown of farm modernisation and a growth of agricultural practices that degraded the quality of the soil. A bit out of period, but read Paul Rouse: Ireland's own soil 1945-65 which demonstrates some of these issues. It wasn't until the late sixties or early seventies that the Irish State got its act together in that regard. In fairness to them they had to go slowly and gently as the peasant farmers were the bulk of the electorate and resented interference.But not the only reason and (given the policies of UK governments before 1914) a reason that was gradually losing credibility thanks to various land reforms. I also doubt that there was all that much disparity between most of Ulster (ie, pretty much anywhere outside of Belfast, Lisburn and Londonderry) and the rest of the island. Outside of Belfast's heavy industry and the linen in parts of Down and Londonderry most of Ulster would have relied on agriculture just as the rest of the island did.