Post war- save the UK

Tyr

The world wars were not great for Britain.
They utterly destroyed British power, both the obvious surface stuff in the empire, and the far more important but less tangible unofficial empire, the economy, etc...
Of course keeping Britain as number 1 in the world would require something to be done before WW1, that's where the damage was truly done.
However...Post WW2 there were a lot of missed opportunities too. Marshal aid squandered, attempts to project power in the wrong places..... To be frank, Britain rather fucked up its post war recovery. It wasn't really until the 60s that it got things back together again (badly timed as then we got the 70s and 80s which were the final nail in the coffin really).

So.
The challenge to you.
You have the gift of hindsight. You can see what went wrong. How could the post war British governments best ensure a British economic recovery and continued British strength internationally in this sphere?
I'm not asking for some sort of mis-placed "Save the empire" scenario here. I'm asking about the UK-proper (though some imperial possessions may well be part of this, enhanced relations with the commonwealth are likely).
 

Finbarr the Fair

A real puzzler

Tricky.

I think the key is to improve long-term economic performance, especially in 1945-75. The period is when British productivity fell behind Germany, Japan, France etc. Easier to say than to achieve of course. :roll eyes:

I'm dubious it could be done even with hindsight without ASB intervention. There were simply so many wrong decisions in the first decade post-war and so many entrenched vested interests and structural problems with governance, capitalism and labour relations.

Probably making the Attlee government more Social Democratic than Socialist would be a help. Making improved productivity a goal not a curse in nationalised industries and manufacturing generally. though you'd need enlightened capitalists and industrialists to do that.

I'll ponder on it but don't expect a fully detailed analysis of policy differences - the key change has to be almost 'spiritual'. In that economic not military power is critical plus a realisation that society needs to be changed not just to create a welfare state with better health and education (very necessary) but also build a stronger and different economy.

:eek:
 

sendô

Stay out of WW1, and re-structure the empire such that the dominions remain an integral and equal part - which is probably ASB in itself given the arrogance of some of the people running the UK at the time.
 

Finbarr the Fair

Hmm

sendô said:
Stay out of WW1, and re-structure the empire such that the dominions remain an integral and equal part - which is probably ASB in itself given the arrogance of some of the people running the UK at the time.
Click to expand...
Ah

Yes, maybe - see debate over whether Niall Ferguson is right that Britain could have lived with a German-domunated Europe

I thought the POD was post-1945, but a 1900 one is better!
 

Tyr

Yes, the point is post WW2 how to ensure the UK remains economically strong.
Saving the empire has been done quite a lot and doesn't automatically lead to a rich UK- there are a lot of arguments for it leading to the opposite in fact.
 

teg

Maybe butterfly the Korean War, so that Labour doesn't have to face an election in 1951? Labour continues in power until the end of the 1960s, by which time the welfare state is too entrenched to be dismantled and the Tories stop wasting time privatising industry and instead reform them?

teg
 

Matteo

All this sounds nice but is not the main issue.

A country can not economically prevail forever if it becomes economically dwarfed by other competitive countries.

You can't play in the top league if tour demography is not enough important. Basically, one country needs to have at least 100 million people. Otherwise there's a kind of physical phenomenon that makes the most populated among advanced countries to attract capital and talents.
 

The Oncoming Storm

For a start bite the bullet and have a bigger rundown of the Armed Forces, the Atlee Government apparently decided in 1946 to pull out of Suez by 1948 but didn't follow through, had they it would have prevented the 1956 debacle, also get rid of the Royal Navy's "stand by fleet" of near obsolete warships which were maintained in reserve until they were of no use. Use the money saved in the defence budget to invest in swept wing replacements for the Meteor and Vampire, the OTL governmebt's cancelling of advanced projects meant that Britain didn't have an F-86 class aircraft until the Hunter. Also don't try to finish the carriers and cruisers began during the war, instead spend the money on all new designs.

On the domestic economy encourage an earlier consolidation of industries to increase economies of scale, also encourage the adoption of modern means of production to improve productivity.

In truth I think that 1945 is too late a PoD, if you want to make Labour Social Democratic rather than Socialist then you need the interwar years to be different, especially make the Great Depression less severe.
 

Finbarr the Fair

Better UK Not a SuperPower UK I

Matteo said:
All this sounds nice but is not the main issue.

A country can not economically prevail forever if it becomes economically dwarfed by other competitive countries.

You can't play in the top league if tour demography is not enough important. Basically, one country needs to have at least 100 million people. Otherwise there's a kind of physical phenomenon that makes the most populated among advanced countries to attract capital and talents.
Click to expand...
Agree but I think the challenge is not to keep the UK as the 3rd Superpower, which is what it believed itself (with the empire) to be in 1945. But to have it be stronger economically, more prosperous and generally a significant force in world affairs.

This requires basically its economy to recover faster than iOTL and maintain productivity per head around that of France and West Germany, especially in manufacturing. Snag is finding PODs to do that as it wasn't simply poor policy decisions but deep-rooted structures and industrial cultures that held the UK back.
 

Reydan

Not sure about this question...

To be honest I'm not sure I accept the premise of the question. It very much depends on how you define Britain's postwar place in the world.

If you look at recent studies that have been done of the period, actually Britain performs a lot better than the popular myth of decline that prevails. A lot of the declinist rhetoric stems from the late 1970s and was, in part, a product of the free-marketers and Thatcher who wanted to build a consensus around their political program.

Ongoing Storm has some good points, but you forget that military spending does account for a big part of British GDP in this period and, also, its not like the Labour government didn't want to plan more. Their hands were tied (see below).

Also, as another point, making Labour more social democratic would mean they were LESS interested in long-term planning for the economy.

To cover some of the points already raised (in no particular order):

*Britain's R and D spending, particularly in military affairs, is second to none in this period.

*Generally British industries, especially nationalised industries, perform well in this period. British Steel was, admittedly, a nightmare of underfunding and poor development but this was as much the fault of private managers as the BSC. British Rail, on the other hand, was a global force throughout the period "Organising for Quality" and the other reform I can't remember the name of both helped keep it at the top of its game, relatively speaking.

*You don't necessarily need to change the post-war Labour government. They actually handle reconstruction very well indeed considering the terms of the US loan agreements essentially tie their hands in what they can do. To suggest, for example, that channeling money into the newly nationalised coal industry in the late 1940s was a mistake is too much hindsight - no government in the immediate postwar would avoid that mistake because, at the time, it made sense.

Here are a couple of PoDs that might work:

*Have the Trade Union movement not throw their toys out of the pram over the 1969 In Place of Strife Whitepaper. It was Labour's attempt to end wildcat and radical strikes and would have, essentially, seen off the more radical program that followed.

*Callaghan doesn't dissolve the Lib-Lab pact in 1978, avoiding the minority government and the vote of no confidence. The economy was improving in this period and Labour probably could have ridden the wave back into power with (or without) Liberal votes. This means a more balanced approach to reforming national industries in the 1980s that would prevent some of the deep cuts that still bedevil Britain today.

*Have Atlee show some courage over joining European Coal and Steel Community. The miners would have been calmed down and, realistically, being a major part of the ECSC would have helped keep coal and steel, the poorer performing national industries, more modern and stable.
 

Blackfox5

In short, Britain consumed too much and invested too little. It also had some especially self-destructive and toxic leaders in the unions that harmed British industry.

Avoid nationalization of most industries. There may be a few - say railroads or the NHS - where government control could be justified, or at least not endanger the economy.

Abandon the pretense of being a great power at least temporarily. Britain cannot afford the expenditure and the results on its balance of payment. To get foreign currency to compensate temporarily, Britain did things that ate its seed corn and impaired its future economy.

Spend American aid to get new machine tooling and other capital plant like the Germans did instead of consumer goods or paying for overseas deployment (given British Cold War commitments, this will be hard to do). The aging capital tooling of British manufacture greatly impaired British quality and competitiveness once West Germany and others were rebuilt.

Prevent British unions from having so much political power. British firms were managed poorly as a result of so much union influence. Managers were making decisions based on politics (what the government wanted them to do) rather than the marketplace (reinvest in their industries to ensure future competitiveness). The industrial strife caused by British unions was just toxic.

Recognize the future is with Europe and not the Commonwealth. Join the ECSC (forerunner of the EU) early on. If they were original members, they'd be more likely to fashion EC policy in ways more favorable to it than waiting until 1973.

The problems of the 1970s were simply the fruits that arose from the seeds planted in the 1940s. Britain's problems were hidden because the temporary decline of its continental European competitors allowed Britain to appear strong. Once those countries recovered and began competing, the failure of British industries became apparent. Atlee's government was very successful in accomplishing its goals - many of those goals were not the right thing to do though. The Tories failed to provide a rival vision and didn't reverse enough Labor policies. Labor then proceeded with more follies in the 1960s and 1970s with their pursuit of industrial planning.

I can't believe there are people here who think the problem was Thatcherism. Note to people - what Thatcher did in the 1980s does not explain the decline of Britain from 1945 to 1979. By the time Thatcher came into power, the British economy had become a joke. Its technical lead had disappeared. British quality was an oxymoron. Once great British companies were pitiful shells of what they once were. British economy went from largest to Europe to falling behind Germany (early sixties), then France (mid sixties), and briefly by Italy (in 1987) before Thatcherite policies finally reversed the decline (just as it takes time for bad policies to become noticeable, it also takes time for reforms to achieve their effect). Manipulate statistics all you want - you can't hide from that.
 

BlueTrousers

Some thoughts, a few of which might be good ideas.
  • Try to get a better loan from the US. Might not be politically possible, but AIUI Keynes was a rather poor negotiator.
  • Quality improvement - most of the tools that transformed Japanese industry were known in Britain in the 1940s. A few were even British inventions. Have someone put two and two together; this is easily sold by the Labour government as applying wartime Operational Research success to industry.
  • Modernise - manufacturing industry and transport infrastructure really need it. The objective has to be to improve efficiency, and accept the associated unemployment. Once efficiency bites, industry will be competitive and start expanding, making up for the job losses. This is where aid money has to go, along with everything else that can be spared - the UK cannot be left playing catch-up.
  • Cut defence as far as possible. Not to the bone, the UK is still a major power, but drop the Empire and associated obligations as fast as is decorous. Get rid of conscription, the labour is more useful in the economy. Rationalise at every turn - the objective of defence policy is maximum effect for minimum cost, not the support of failing industries.
  • Sort out the Civil Service - Buggins' Turn has to go, and it isn't an employment scheme for the less-able sons of the middle classes. Professionalise the lot.
  • Remind industrial management that they are expected to get things done quickly and cheaply. If they can't do that, their firm will be allowed to go bust. A few examples to encourage the others will be needed. Once a few well-respected firms have sunk, and a few contracts gone to the Americans, the rest will get the idea.
  • Beat trade unions over the head with the idea that an honest day's pay requires an honest day's work, and that they don't run the company. It may be necessary to placate them with a say in how the company is run, German-style. Fine. Some exposure to commercial realities will work wonders for their entitlement culture. After all, workers laid off due to bankruptcy earn nothing at all.
  • Finally, and most controversially, ROBOT is worth a look. It's a risk. It would work wonders for British industry, but unemployment would rise, imported food would become more expensive, and the Bretton Woods system would be undermined. Economically, it's a no-brainer; politically and diplomatically, it's suicide.
 

The Oncoming Storm

RLBH said:
Some thoughts, a few of which might be good ideas.
  • Try to get a better loan from the US. Might not be politically possible, but AIUI Keynes was a rather poor negotiator.
  • Quality improvement - most of the tools that transformed Japanese industry were known in Britain in the 1940s. A few were even British inventions. Have someone put two and two together; this is easily sold by the Labour government as applying wartime Operational Research success to industry.
  • Modernise - manufacturing industry and transport infrastructure really need it. The objective has to be to improve efficiency, and accept the associated unemployment. Once efficiency bites, industry will be competitive and start expanding, making up for the job losses. This is where aid money has to go, along with everything else that can be spared - the UK cannot be left playing catch-up.
  • Cut defence as far as possible. Not to the bone, the UK is still a major power, but drop the Empire and associated obligations as fast as is decorous. Get rid of conscription, the labour is more useful in the economy. Rationalise at every turn - the objective of defence policy is maximum effect for minimum cost, not the support of failing industries.
  • Sort out the Civil Service - Buggins' Turn has to go, and it isn't an employment scheme for the less-able sons of the middle classes. Professionalise the lot.
  • Remind industrial management that they are expected to get things done quickly and cheaply. If they can't do that, their firm will be allowed to go bust. A few examples to encourage the others will be needed. Once a few well-respected firms have sunk, and a few contracts gone to the Americans, the rest will get the idea.
  • Beat trade unions over the head with the idea that an honest day's pay requires an honest day's work, and that they don't run the company. It may be necessary to placate them with a say in how the company is run, German-style. Fine. Some exposure to commercial realities will work wonders for their entitlement culture. After all, workers laid off due to bankruptcy earn nothing at all.
  • Finally, and most controversially, ROBOT is worth a look. It's a risk. It would work wonders for British industry, but unemployment would rise, imported food would become more expensive, and the Bretton Woods system would be undermined. Economically, it's a no-brainer; politically and diplomatically, it's suicide.
Click to expand...

I did draft up a TL many years ago in which a late 1940's Tory government does ROBOT which effectively kills the Commonwealth meaning that Britain has no option but to go along with the Schuman Declaration and be a founding member of the ECSC. I gave up on it because I couldn't get the initial PoD's to work and I also came to the conclusion that ROBOT could only have worked if it had been part of the kind of comprehensive plan you set out above. One of Britain's post war problems was that politicians were obsessed with a "magic bullet" that would instantly solve all the economic issues because they were too afraid to address the underlying difficulties. Unless you can change that mindset then it's difficult to see how many of the post war mistakes could be avoided.
 
Maeglin

Maeglin

1945 is simply too late. Actually, 1918 is probably too late. What you're seeing with Britain was a country that reached peak economic domination in the 1850s by virtue of a world-spanning Empire, but was inevitably faced with rivals playing catch-up. Combine that with the exhaustion of two world wars, and Britain can only ever be a case of managed decline.

(Also note that West Germany and Japan had the advantage of not being allowed an army after 1945. They could spend stuff more usefully).

With that caveat, what could be done to help Britain? I think prolonging the Attlee Government is a start - it means you avoid Suez. Adopting German-style worker representation on company boards would mute the antagonism of labour relations. Stopping Thatcher means that North Sea Oil can be used to fund investment in infrastructure, rather than unemployment benefits and tax cuts.

Northern Ireland represents a massive financial drain on the UK too, but there's no easy way of getting rid of the damn thing.
 

The Oncoming Storm

Maeglin said:
With that caveat, what could be done to help Britain? I think prolonging the Attlee Government is a start - it means you avoid Suez. Adopting German-style worker representation on company boards would mute the antagonism of labour relations. Stopping Thatcher means that North Sea Oil can be used to fund investment in infrastructure, rather than unemployment benefits and tax cuts.
Click to expand...

But if the economy performs much better in the 1950's and 1960's there won't be Thatcherism, which was a backlash by the right against the failure of the Post War Consensus. No economic stagnation means no backlash.

Northern Ireland represents a massive financial drain on the UK too, but there's no easy way of getting rid of the damn thing.
Click to expand...

IIRC the total Northern Ireland budget is around £25 billion, UK government spending is around £742 billion. Hardly a massive drain! ;)
 

strangecircus

Blackfox5 said:
I can't believe there are people here who think the problem was Thatcherism. Note to people - what Thatcher did in the 1980s does not explain the decline of Britain from 1945 to 1979. By the time Thatcher came into power, the British economy had become a joke. Its technical lead had disappeared. British quality was an oxymoron. Once great British companies were pitiful shells of what they once were. British economy went from largest to Europe to falling behind Germany (early sixties), then France (mid sixties), and briefly by Italy (in 1987) before Thatcherite policies finally reversed the decline (just as it takes time for bad policies to become noticeable, it also takes time for reforms to achieve their effect). Manipulate statistics all you want - you can't hide from that.
Click to expand...

Only if you accept the premise that maximum GDP growth is the most important factor. People "blame Thatcher" because under her reign, poverty skyrocketed and 20-30% of the British lived under the poverty line. This isn't skewing statistics or anything, just the reality. It also requires to accept the premise that Britain's decline was due to too much big government and not to the death of colonialism. Colonialism being the ultimate form of big government that needed to die.

The only thing correct about Thatcherism is the monetarist aspect, where central banks are supposed to fight inflation rather than deflation. Other than that I see little redeeming qualities. Sure you can get very far with religion and appealing to nationalism and "Being British" and Victorian values but you will get eclipsed over time. If you want to think the long term and long haul, the only countries that survive and prosper are the ones who embrace immigrants and multiculturalism if only for the mathematical fact you need enough working people to pay for older people's pensions. If 9/11 hadn't happened multiculturalism wouldn't even be questioned, and if the War in Iraq hadn't created a terrorist state we wouldn't even be talking about the migrant problem. Given that a hypothetical Thatcher government would have gone into Iraq guns blazing you can absolutely blame Thatcherism or at the very least ensure it doesn't rear its head again (and is still relevant to current times to fight austerity).

Probably the biggest problem with Thatcherism is its lack of compassion, compared to say Germany... Germany is like Thatcherism with all its awful parts removed, due to WW2 war guilt but still much more welcoming. You can only crap on disabled, lower class, minorities, etc., for so long before the chickens come home to roost and you lose a generation. At best Thatcherism can hold the line which is better than stagflation but much worse than real economic growth.

By the way austerity is an extension of Thatcherism in every way... good luck to austerity the real economic growth will be from countries that spend wisely and well, not stick to balanced budgets when there's a recession or structural deficit going on. Good luck cutting yourself to growth the so-called "fat" doesn't exist anymore.
 
Last edited:

oreocruncher

The question is though, how come France isn't seen as declining as much as the UK has? I mean, they were also devastated by the war and all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top