Survival of the aristocratic estates

[Grey Wolf]

OTL the aristocratic estates in the UK were killed by inheritance tax raised by post-WW2 governments, mainly to pay for the Welfare State (at least according to their justifications)

But I have often wondered in response to "What if no XX war" threads (whether First World, or Second World War) what would have happened to these estates instead

With the UK not mortgaged out from under itself, and headed into eternal US debt, the estates could well have survived because inheritance tax would not have been a major weapon of the revenue-gatherers, no matter of what political persuasion they may be

On the one hand, this would have presumably have hampered the growth of the National Trust, but far more mansions/palaces and associated estates were destroyed rather than handed over, so the country could well have seen a marked division between landed estates and urban growth

The House of Lords was a very valuable counterweight to democratic tyranny, and remained such in OTL into John Major's government. New Labour have destroyed this, then run away from any real bicameralism to leave the second chamber emasculated, and the Commons the dominant political tool of the authoritarian streak which comes with a majority.

But with a large and surviving landed aristocracy, the second chamber, which in many ways IS democratic for it restocks itself, could have survived into the 21st century as the counterweight to the Commons it was supposed to be. For our American friends, imagine the Senate being emasculated as elitist, and the House of Reps becoming dominated by the governing party with no breaks on anything - thats how it is now. The Lords LOOKED obselete, but in actual fact saw its membership constantly reinvent itself as wealthy families in trade or industry gained peerages and in essence restocked the upper house with fresh blood. And none of the members was by necessity a member of any party, and even if identifying with the Tories could, and did, vote to delay or reject hurried, rushed or authoritarian legislation

The New Labour morons who own our souls these days never brooked any opposition, and saw resistance as evil, so celebrate the destruction of the upper house. They'll probably rue this one day, but letting them have the power to destroy the checks and balances was insane. But politics IS insane

In the ATL I propose, radical reform may be slower, but universal comprehensive schools, or even such things as Thatcher's scrapping of free school milk (the reform of a reform) would be more subject to calmer oversight. Insane rush legislation like the Dangerous Dogs Act or the banning of almost all guns in response to one or two tragedies would have been diluted with the breath of common sense.

Better to delay and think about reforms, than to rush ahead and reform so much than in the last resort the only choice is revolution and the annihilation of the entire political system - which is the only CHOICE now, since all parties have become identical, and all so beholden to the media that a synthesis of false ideals run every country.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Julius Vogel]

Sorry, this reads more of a statement of your political views rather than a timeline. That being said, it would be interesting to see different versions of the Lords.

I would like to see a scenario based on either no WW1 or a delayed WW1 - where the Liberals don't fragment and they carry on with their vaguely expressed desire to reform the Lords.

End of the day though in any Westminster system, the UK inclusive the Upper House has been clearly subserviant to the Lower House for sometime - for this to change or not happen would be quite a departure, and if say the system didn't change in the way it did IOTL then perhaps there would be far more pressure for root and branch reform

Besides, the UK, for all your dislike of "morons who don't brook opposition" still have your Upper House. In NZ in the late 40s early 50s a Tory led government spent signifcant time working on the abolishing our Upper House, to which they eventually succeeded, leaving us as one of the few unicameral democracies in the West,and the only one without any signficant restraint on the executive and a three year electoral term. So it could be worse eh?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well the latter part of my post was supposed to be about the political effects, but its hard to talk about politics without getting angry

There would of course be social effects, and those on agriculture etc

Best Regards
Grye Wolf

 

[Julius Vogel]

Fair enough - I personally get a little pissed off when I think we threw away our Upper House

One thing I would be interested about in your timeline would be whether or not a failure to break up the Estates (and therefore the HoL angle) would heat up the class debate. Perhaps the Communists or other 1930s political movements may have gathered more support in the UK if there were still a large, obviously powerful class of noble landowners?

 

[V-J]

I think that something else which you curiously overlook played a big role as well - rising social expectations. There just increasingly weren't going to be the same number of people willing to continue in service, certainly not for their entire careers.

The war itself played a big role as well - within the first year or so, the number of people in service collapsed and it never recovered. So avoiding WW2 would certainly help stately homes, but I highly doubt if they could ever have survived at their inter-war state indefinitely.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The class debate is an interesting one. On the one hand these people's wealth is in the land, so even tho they inherited it, its more or less tangible. They are big employers in the countryside, and and generate a lot of income for the rural economy. This may well prevent the collapse of a lot of that economy over time, keep the villages as vibrant communities able to support pubs, post offices, shops etc.

As I understood the service question, it was a combination of opening horizons and changing expectations on the one hand, and of wage levels on the other. Not sure where that leads to

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Julius Vogel]

Yeah, WW2 was the catylst for this type of transition all over. According to my grandparents it was pretty common on medium and large farms in NZ to have both domestic and farm labour right until WW2.

During the war most of these people left for the cities or the military and they never came back after the war, for whatever reason. Then mechanisation also vastly accelerated. So within a very short period of time we went from a farm being the centre of a small community of workers to a farm often being a one or two man operation (with the obligatory housewife). My great grandmothers would have never cooked for seasonal workers whereas my mother and her sisters (all farming families) did.

 

[jkochman]

For most Americans, the British political system is oddly familiar, but at the same time very confusing. I know the members of the House of Lords use to be members due to there hereditary lines. There were recent reforms that changed that, but are there any members that are there simply because of family ties? Also do most British citizens prefer elected officials for the House of Lords or would they rather have it the other way around? Just curious.... Personally I'm surprised it last as long as it did.

 

[Grey Wolf]

For most Americans, the British political system is oddly familiar, but at the same time very confusing. I know the members of the House of Lords use to be members due to there hereditary lines. There were recent reforms that changed that, but are there any members that are there simply because of family ties? Also do most British citizens prefer elected officials for the House of Lords or would they rather have it the other way around? Just curious.... Personally I'm surprised it last as long as it did.

Well, New Labour's authoritarian streak kicked in and they decided they preferred a monocameral system, so took away a lot of the Lords strengths and never got round to replacing it with anything. Its now a place for old politicos and hangers-on to go and talk a lot, but as soon as it tries to exert power and influence some government minister will pipe up about the "unelected" house trying to interfere with the elected house, and the media never calls them on it.

The original coterie of New Labour politicians had its fair share of authoritarians (Blair especially) but a substantial number of reformists and managed to get some stuff done, but over time these got squeezed out. With regards to Lords reform what they did was supposed to be the first part of a process leading to the creation of a fully-elected upper house, but they soon realised that such a beast would challenge their ability to railroad legislation through the Commons so never completed it.

It should either be one beast or the other. What we have is a halfway house that doesn't perform the role it was supposed to, and actually serves as a lightning rod for the government, allowing them to blame "unelected elements" every time they get into some kind of difficulty

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[V-J]

Uh, what? The Lords is greatly better since reform. I've got nothing whatsoever against the hereditary principle per se - I'd have been quite content to leave them in place in other circumstances - but the pre-reform House was far too politicised. It barely raised a hoot when the Conservatives were in power, and then started to reflexively attack Labour when they came in.

The pre-reform House was massively and ludicrously weighted in favour of the Conservatives, where they had 41% of the total membership, and a sufficiently substantial crossbench element which inclined towards them that they could get almost anything through. Here is the present composition of the House:

Conservative 197
Labour 216
Lib Dem 72
Crossbenchers 205
Lords Spiritual 26
Others 15

This, as you may notice, means that the House is not beholden to any one party, and leaves the crossbenchers (independents) with a strong swing vote. To me, this makes eminent sense; the Lords should clearly be left as it is. The danger now is in returning politicisation by making the Lords elected. I feel it would be a disaster if the Lords were elected, and I suspect would be the unwitting prelude to the Lords being absolished altogether.

The legitimacy of the Lords is heavier and stronger since it stopped becoming a creature of one party and became a more diverse, independent body, and I can't see any reason other than romantic attachment or narrow party interest as to why the old Lords shouldn't have been reformed. Frankly, it was long overdue.

There were recent reforms that changed that, but are there any members that are there simply because of family ties?

There are ninety-two (IIRC) heredtiary peers who still sit in the House of Lords, who were elected under a rather complicated system by their peers. (no pun intended) So there is still a hereditary element, but it's a fractional amount of the total membership. (About 10% as opposed to the 60% or so it was before)

 

[Julius Vogel]

Well just because it is reformed to include elections doesn't mean to say it will reflect the US system or even the current first past the post Commons electoral system.

There are all sorts of different ways this could be set up, ranging from some sort of pseudo federal arrangement (Each of the Nations getting XX number of seats appointed by their national government) through to any iteration of proportional (or other) representation you can dream up. All of which would result in quite different impacts on the UK

EDIT - oh and the Lords still does have its moments - they were able to stop the extension of the detention bill, which the Commons had passed.

 

[V-J]

oh and the Lords still does have its moments

I'm curious about this implied notion on the part of you and Grey Wolf that the Lords had some sort of recent but departed 'golden age' when attendance was frequent and widespread and Lords were hugely engaged and knowledgeable.

In reality, rates of non-attendance were absolutely horrendous pre-reform, for the simple reason that most members weren't there through choice, and the current Lords are probably at least if not more knowledgable than their number have ever been, as they're now drawn from an increasingly more diverse range of professional and social backgrounds.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I didn't intend to give the impression that I think the Lords is necessarily better or worse / more/less effective now than it was at some point in the past.

Far from it, I am actually rather in favour of some sort of reform, but I'm just not sure exactly what form that would take as there are so many different things to consider.

I believe that things are coming to a head though regarding the long term impact of Devolution and the upcoming fiscal crisis. That latter interests me as I think a chronic lack of cash often causes fundamental changes in government - and now that we have the devolved governments there could some issues between them and the central government

 

[mcdnab]

To go back to the original points -

The decline really doesn't essentially date from the second world war nor does the declining influence of the aristocracy and landed gentry in politics date from that era - the Conservative Governments of the fifties and early sixties still had a substantial number of what could be considered patrician members including a number of peers.

Declining incomes from agriculture particularly in the late 19th century, the introduction of much higher taxes on income in the first half of the 20th century (which true soared during and after the second world war) and the curbing of the Lords power to veto finance bills at the beginning of George V's reign (which might not have got through had Edward VII lived a bit longer) all played an equally significant role.
The national trust country houses acquisition was actually proposed in the thirties. It was during the teens twenties and thirties that the big sales of houses, art and land occurred and that the first of the great London houses went under the wreckers balls - not all of that was through financial need though - some believed it wasn't worth hanging on and wanted the cash to finance new lives in the colonies where arguably life was better and servants easier to find, others had lost their heirs on the fields of France and it no longer seemed worth the struggle - for many though the upkeep and maintenance of large houses with a growing labour shortage (where the security of domestic service no longer appealed and the wages simply didn't match those to be earned in industry) especially after the second world war was a major problem. Also many of the houses that were requisitioned by the Government during the second world war for either the armed forces or for evacuated schools, nursing homes and hospitals were in terrible condition and their owners simply couldn't afford to repair them.
A final point it worth drawing some distinctions in this - true higher income tax and inheritance tax was the death knell for a great swathe of the Country gentry (the untitled landowners) some have survived through careful management (for example getting rid of the great white elephant of a house, moving into a smaller home and managing their land effectively) but many have vanished. But let's be realistic if you look at the major aristocratic families some of them today might not have the political influence but they are still very asset rich...and still managing to make ends meet - largely because many of them owned so very much - the Devonshires are a prime example of this - yes they sold land, got rid of their lavish London home, sold a lot of their ground rents, had their mineral holdings nationalised, got rid of several of their minor country houses - but they kept Bolton Abbey in Yorkshire along with its great shooting, and held on to Chatsworth, hung on to most of their stunning art work and turned their estates into a very profitable business - I am sure Bess of Hardwicke who was really only a farmers daughter would still be proud of her descendants.

To respond to some of your points about the second chamber - there were two major reforms before Blairs final one 1911 and 1949 which arguably had established the principle that the House of Lords power to block legislation should be considerably reduced - in fact in 1911 it was stated by Asquith's Liberal Government that the ideal would be to replace it with an elected second chamber of some sort and I agree it is shaming that Labour haven't completed or given us a choice over completing the reforms to make it an appropriate revising chamber.

The problem has continued - how can an unelected house block the legislative programme of the elected government (however well meaning) and because of the nature of the system there was invariably an in built Conservative majority in the Lords it has never been an unpartisan chamber lets be honest - to give you some examples from recent history -
The Lords defeated the Labour Government of 75/76 126 times, in the first year of Blairs government he was defeated in the Lords on 38 occassions - in 75 you could generally have argued that the government had a slender majority and had only narrowly won an election thereby the Lords were perhaps blocking legislation that they didn't believe reflected the opinions of the majority but in the 1997 case that's not so Blair won by a landslide of popular opinion however things eventually turned out.
And to go back to 1911 - reform was their own fault they opposed the Liberal budget of 1909 out of self interest because of the land tax proposals, they then blocked reform proposals in the Lords (there was also concern in the Upper House that if the Lords lost their veto then the Liberals would bring back Irish Home Rule) - in the end they voted for reform because Asquith got George V to agree to create enough new Liberal Peers to negate the Tory majority and rather than that they voted to reform themselves there powers were further limited in 1949 and finally under Tony Blair all but a handfull of the hereditaries were sent packing.
The naked self interest of the Peers between 1909 and 1911 did them serious damage up to that point whatever your political view you could listen to the arguement that they were individuals motivated only by doing their bit for King and Country after voting down the 1909 liberal budget it was clear that when it came to their cash noblesse oblige went out the window.

Personally if you are looking for a way to retain some of the sense of rural community that existed before the first world war or between the wars then you have to probably limit the impact of Victorian expansionism and industrialisation which by the way would also seriously impact on those merchant families who rose into the peerage. You also have to reduce personal expectations, remove the idea of bettering ones self, and reduce the growth of educational opportunities much of which was fostered and encouraged by some of our gentry and aristocratic landowners. I think in terms of rural community you have a point particularly in reference to the country gentry who often owned significant chunks of villages which means some amenities that might be uneconomic might survive a bit better but even benign paternalism doesn't suit everyone! (the family in my own village survived into the 70's and as a young boy remember going to the estate sale it wasn't taxes that killed them off but the only heir was living in Canada and didn't want the estate)

 

[Alratan]

Oddly, early and incremental introduction of something like land value taxes in preference to inheritance and and income taxes may act to preserve some of the great estates (although probably not the small ones), as it would compel the owners to realise more annual income from them whilst they still have access to the capital required rather than being hit with significant bullet payments from inheritance tax and suffering significant disincentives from income tax.

The downside of this is that the diversion of capital to the rural economy may serve to lower overall growth.

In any case, I think the world wars need to be prevented, as the associated social changes were too substantial. You may alternately be able to source domestic staff from outside the UK. It is just about possible to imagine some form of guest worker program being established which imports trained, English speaking Asian Christians to the UK. Pair that with not granting automatic citizenship to the children of these migrants, and you might sustain such a (rather unpleasant) set up for a couple of generations. Not having the World Wars really helps, as not having eugenics and the theories of racial hierarchies discredited so much is probably neccassary for this.