The Anglo-Saxon Social Model

Decimalisation of Sterling
Wait, so the next Labour leadership contest would be in 1976?? Okay....

That doesn't mean that there won't be another leader in the meantime though. Maybe the next leader doesn't have any competition, so they just get a coronation instead of an election.

I really should think about redacting the 'next' dates on those infoboxes. I just always thought it looked ugly when people did that.

* * *
Yet Another Brave New Commonwealth: The Launch of the Single Currency
Durbin.jpg

Father of Commonwealth Capitalism: Evan Durbin at his desk at the Bank of England, c.1965


Under the terms of the Lismore system, the Commonwealth had been entitled to count its bancor credits and debits in one net account. Among other effects, this had necessitated the continued pegging of the various Dominion currencies to sterling, something which had been further cemented by the 1946 devaluation and the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee (“MPC”). However, the currencies remained technically separate and each government adopted separate fiscal policies, with governments raising or weakening the value of their currencies (in each case against the UK pound) as suited their political needs. A notable successful devaluation was that of the Pakistani government in 1955, which substantially helped that country’s export industries.

However, the feeling in British circles was that this situation was ultimately unsustainable and, more than anything else, messy. Instead, it was argued that the risk sharing of a fiscal union would maximise economic efficiency. Over the course of a joint MPC-and-Prime Ministers meeting in 1956, the various governments and finance ministers agreed to fix their exchange rates for a period of seven years in advance of the launching of a new common currency. A further conference in 1959 agreed that this new currency would retain the name (and symbol) of the pound sterling in order to retain international market confidence. It was also agreed that the single currency would be decimalised, to bring it into line with international standards.

The remaining few years were devoted to technical negotiations about how the currency would work. The Bank of England would act as the central bank of the whole currency, with the beefed up MPC acting as its governing body. A complicated series of mechanisms were worked out whereby the idea of a multi-national currency could squared with the Keynesian (or Keynesian-adjacent) impulses of most of the member states’ macroeconomists. Each member state would be given an account at the Bank of England (similar to the Commonwealth’s account at the ICU), giving each country a limited power to order the Bank to print money. This would allow countries to conduct expansionary monetary policies if and when necessary.

Nonetheless, the establishment of the single currency did mark a significant break with previous Commonwealth economic orthodoxy, which had stressed the importance of national control over monetary supply. It was hoped that the beefed up Bank of England, with Commonwealth member states having their say, would be able to retain national control while gaining the benefits of supranationalism. But only the future could tell whether this hope would turn out to be a false one. Evan Durbin - first while Chancellor and then as Chairman of the Bank of England after 1960 - was the driving force behind the single currency, to the point that up until its launch it was informally known in economic circles as ‘the Durbin.’

The newly decimalised pound was introduced in non-physical form (traveller’s cheques, banks’ accounting etc.) on 1 January 1963, with coins and notes for the new currency being introduced on 1 January 1966. National currencies ceased to be legal tender on 1 March 1966, although after that they continued to be accepted for exchange by national central banks for different periods of time. The longest such period was the Newfoundland pound, whose banknotes remained exchangeable until 1983.
 
Interesting. Were any Commonwealth members harder to agree to the new currency, such as Canada? The Canadian dollar was pegged to the US dollar IIRC, for trade reasons.
 
Interesting. Were any Commonwealth members harder to agree to the new currency, such as Canada? The Canadian dollar was pegged to the US dollar IIRC, for trade reasons.

Canada dropped the CA$ and brought back the Canadian pound as part of the general agreement on trade and tariffs between the UK and the Dominions in 1892. See the first paragraph of this update https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-anglo-saxon-social-model.458146/#post-18071082 for an explanation, which is a remarkably small update, now that I think about it, for something that was pretty foundational for much of the TL. The essential difference from OTL is that the Conservative National Policy is rolled into a general protective tarriff barrier around the Dominions and the UK before it can be dismantled by the Liberals. Also worth remembering that US economic growth was less in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because of, first, a longer Civil War which made the economy more protectionist and aimed at internal consumption rather than international trade and, second, full participation in a longer Great War. So pegging the Canadian currency to the US$ isn't as obvious a choice TTL.

As for whether there were countries which were more difficult to corral into the country, the answer is that there were problems, notably from countries focused on exports to the rest of the Commonwealth (Pakistan) or countries with a more left wing political culture, relatively (New Zealand). Both of those countries wanted to retain more control over domestic currencies, and there are notable (occasionally significant) opposition within other member states too. Ultimately the arguments about scale succeeded, though, something also helped by the fact that the pooling of bancor credits while using separate currencies was looking increasingly anomalous and generating more and more complaint from other members of the ICU.
 
Does the united monetary policy avoid the pitfall of the Euro, by making sure it takes the responsibilities, not just the power? It seems like it does, with the ability for member states to request printing of money if needed. And the mention of risk sharing.

Also yay for decimalization.
 
Does the united monetary policy avoid the pitfall of the Euro, by making sure it takes the responsibilities, not just the power? It seems like it does, with the ability for member states to request printing of money if needed. And the mention of risk sharing.

Also yay for decimalization.

It is definitely designed to avoid some of those problems, yeah. But also bear in mind that it's still the creation of a fiscal union without a political one...
 
First Castle Ministry (1963-1967)
When Barbara Castle Invented Sex: Social Change and Political Reform in the 1960s
London.jpg

Swinging London: The cultural changes of the 1960s confirmed London's place as a great world city and a centre for art, fashion, music and film.


Almost from the beginning of her time in office, Castle’s premiership was significant. In a small cabinet reshuffle, she promoted Alice Bacon from her position as Castle’s able lieutenant at the Ministry of Education to become Home Secretary. From a country that had never previously had a woman in one of the great offices of state, the UK suddenly had two. Castle’s first term would not be known as a period of substantial economic reform - with her government leaving the economic settlement of the 1940s and ‘50s, based on a combination of private enterprise, Commonwealth-cooperation, SWF investment and a technocratic cradle-to-grave welfare state, largely in place - but would instead become well known for its impressive record on social reform.

Bacon’s time at the Home Office included the final abolition of capital punishment for all crimes except treason (1964), full decriminalisation of homosexuality and the institution of civil partnerships for gay couples (1966) and the introduction of ‘no fault’ divorces (1967). The Health Secretary Roy Jenkins also oversaw the establishment of at least one NHS abortion clinic in every city and county in the United Kingdom (in the teeth of fierce church (Catholic and Protestant) opposition). None of these changes were completely out of the blue and, as many Liberals pointed out, they were largely building on or the culmination of the reforms instituted by the Chamberlain Lib-Lab coalition of the 1920s. But they served the wider point of portraying Britain to the world as a bastion of fairness and progressive values.

Also significantly, the government made significant advances on race issues. Since the end of the World War, the UK had seen significant immigration from the West Indies and Pakistan, mostly to work in the construction industry. This had set off a series of racial tensions that occasionally burst to the fore. A particular example was the Bristol bus boycott of 1963, over the refusal of the bus board in Bristol to hire black or Asian bus drivers. Rather than ducking the question (as Gaitskell and Attlee had preferred to do when the issue arose) Castle responded to it directly. Paul Stephenson, the organiser leading the boycott, was invited to a meeting at Downing Street, after which Castle made a speech defending racial integration as a “process of equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity.” The Race Relations Act 1965 was passed two years later, outlawing discrimination (including for employment and housing) on the grounds of race and setting up the Race Relations Board (of which Stephenson was a member) to help enforce it.

With the economy healthy and her government continuing to be popular, Castle was encouraged to go to the polls in the summer of 1966, to take advantage of what was predicted to be a British victory in that year’s World Cup. Over the past few years, the introduction of an all-Britain Premier League had revolutionised the British Game, as had the appointment of Vic Buckingham as coach of the Great Britain national team. Buckingham, following a six-season tenure at Arsenal and three years at Ajax, had been appointed head coach in 1962 and had impressed his innovative brand of ‘Total Football’ on his charges. Being tournament hosts and boasting a mobile front three of George Best, Denis Law and Jimmy Johnstone, the British team were many people’s favourite.

In the final against Portugal, Britain went 0-1 down to a well-taken goal by Mario Coluna but roared back to take the lead with a goal each from Law and Johnstone. However, when victory looked certain, Portuguese forward Eusebio equalised in the 89th minutes. Eusebio went on to score twice more in extra time, becoming the first person to score a hattrick in a World Cup final and securing the trophy for Portugal in the first tournament they’d ever qualified for.

Plans for the election were shelved but, perhaps predictably, ended up leaking to the press. Tabloids making making fun of Castle’s perceived cowardice dominated the ‘silly season’ coverage for the rest of the summer. The new(ish) Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe skillfully took advantage of this weakness, hammering Labour for its staleness and cowardice in the face of the electorate. Thorpe was able to portray himself as comfortable with the social changes rapidly sweeping through the UK and his party’s qualified support (with notable individual rebels) for Castle’s social reforms meant that he was finally able to shed the Liberals’ old fashioned and out of touch image.

In the end, Castle announced a dissolution of Parliament in February 1967 and an election for March.
 
Last edited:
Decriminalising homosexuality is one thing. Civil partnerships for gay couples in the 60s is another - I'm not sure how much of the Labour party would support this, never mind everyone else.

Maybe if there are civil partnerships to recognise couples not currently/not wishing to get married, without mention of either partner's gender.
 
Decriminalising homosexuality is one thing. Civil partnerships for gay couples in the 60s is another - I'm not sure how much of the Labour party would support this, never mind everyone else.

Maybe if there are civil partnerships to recognise couples not currently/not wishing to get married, without mention of either partner's gender.

So I agree it's a bit of a stretch but I think you can probably say the same about a bunch of stuff in this TL.

More seriously, as an in-universe explanation, think about it this way: OTL the length of time between the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the creation of civil partnerships was 37 years (1967-2004), whereas TTL it was 39 years (1927-66). It's also worth noting that TTL's UK has a different set of attitudes thanks to the reforms of the 1920s. (Alan Turing, for example, wasn't arrested, with interesting results for the British computing industry.) Finally, I would also say that it's not as if there isn't homophobia TTL and the reforms were passed on a cross party basis by social liberals in all three parties and they weren't without controversy. I would also say that civil partnerships were portrayed as a largely administrative measure to allow property to transfer to people's partners.
 
I also thought at first that it was a bit early for civil partnership. But then again, the decriminalization occurred during the 1920s. From then to the 1960s, there probably were many couples living together in a kind of open secret throughout the U.K. which could help change minds and attitudes by the 60s.

It could also be a case where the Establishment was more liberal about this than the general population which might have interesting effect down the line. Moreover, if present right, as Rattigan suggested, this could be seen as just making things simpler and more fair for these couples who their neighbors have known them for decades. Just part of the general reforms and changes of the sweeping 60s, I guess.

I wonder though, what are the status of LGBT rights in the rest of the Commonwealth and the world?
 
Notice

Just to let you know that in about three weeks we're going to reach a big turning point in TTL's history and I'm going to use that as an opportunity to do a big update showing the heads of government of various countries in this period. I'm already planning to do the leaders of the Commonwealth and its member states, the US, the USSR, China, Italy, India and South Africa. I'm also currently working on lists for Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, which will give an idea of how things are different in central and south America.

Let me know if there are any other countries you'd like me to prepare and I'll see what I can do.

[EDIT] To clarify, I'd like any requests for country information to be 'reasonable.' I haven't put much thought into the leaders of Kuwait and Paraguay (for example and with all due to respect to those countries).
 
Last edited:
I wonder though, what are the status of LGBT rights in the rest of the Commonwealth and the world?

Pakistan has a history of good trans rights the British forced out with colonization (and gradually coming back today). That could be interesting.

Things are proceeding slightly unevenly but you're right to say that the are ahead of where we were by this point OTL. Similar provisions for civil partnerships will work their way through in Canada, Australia and New Zealand by 1970 and will flow out through the rest of the Commonwealth by 1980. Commonwealth regulations ending the criminalisation of homosexuality are passed in 1969 (think of OTL Council of Europe protocols outlawing capital punishment as a vague comparison).
 
Notice

Just to let you know that in about three weeks we're going to reach a big turning point in TTL's history and I'm going to use that as an opportunity to do a big update showing the heads of government of various countries in this period. I'm already planning to do the leaders of the Commonwealth and its member states, the US, the USSR, China, Italy, India and South Africa. I'm also currently working on lists for Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, which will give an idea of how things are different in central and south America.

Let me know if there are any other countries you'd like me to prepare and I'll see what I can do.
France and Germany please?
 
Anglo-American Split
Brothers in Arms: The Rise and Fall of the Anglo-American Alliance, 1941-1965

Nixon.jpg

The Enemy Within: then-Senator Richard Nixon spy-hunting in c. 1955

As with so many things during his many decades of public service, the fate of world geopolitics in the years after the World War seemed to hinge on the opinions and actions of Franklin Roosevelt. As well as masterminding the American war effort, Roosevelt also invested a lot of political capital in designing the skeleton framework for the postwar world. In February 1946, he shocked the world when he announced that he would be resigning the American presidency (the first person ever to do so) in order to take up the role of the first Secretary General of the United Nations (Gladwyn Jebb having previously served five months in that capacity on an interim basis), to which he was elected unanimously by the General Assembly.

Being the first person to hold the position enabled Roosevelt to put his stamp on the role, which was otherwise loosely defined in the UN Charter. Roosevelt interpreted his role as that of a world mediator and he was energetic in attempting to solve global flashpoints. He is credited as being key to preparing the Geneva Conference, mediating between the three sides of the Franco-Vietnamese conflict and bringing about a peaceful resolution of the dispute between Italy, Austria and Yugoslavia over control of the Istrian Peninsula. Furthermore, he was instrumental in arranging for the (relatively) orderly partition of Europe and the Middle East, as well as supervising the population transfers in those regions after partition.

Aside from all of this, Roosevelt’s personality, especially his role in brokering the wartime alliance between the United States, Commonwealth and Soviet Union, made him unique. During his tenure, Roosevelt skilfully worked to keep relations between the three superpowers peaceful and, to this extent, he was successful. Even the creation of the Anglo-American dominated NATO and the Soviet-dominated Bucharest Pact in 1949 and 1950 (respectively) were, while superficially statements of great power rivalry, in fact agreed in a relatively transparent manner and with Roosevelt’s tacit agreement as part of the world’s new multi-polar security structure. While there were many potential flashpoints during the Chinese Civil War - where the Anglo-Americans and the Soviets both deployed troops on opposing sides - all sides were careful to prevent them from ever taking to the field opposite each other and he was generally regarded as being very successful in this attempt (he was reelected to his position unanimously in February 1951) until his sudden death in November 1952. V.K. Wellington Koo was elected to complete Roosevelt's second term but, while an admirable figure in many ways, he lacked the authority and charisma of his predecessor.

While it would be simplistic to assert that this single event was totally decisive in and of itself, it does seem to have contributed to a moment of rupture. With a keystone in their relationship knocked away, the three superpowers began to move further apart from each other, with the Soviets going one way and the Anglo-Americans another. For example, even though it would not be true to say that the Soviets had not been supporting the communist insurgents in Malaya and the East Indies before this point, after 1952 they did step up their support (at least until a private agreement with the Commonwealth in 1958).

The most notable expression of this split was in the United States, where the so-called ‘Red Scare’ of 1952-56 was spearheaded by Senator Richard Nixon’s Committee on National Security, catapulting the Californian to global notoriety. Nixon was eventually selected as the Vice Presidential candidate by the Republican presidential hopeful Everett Dirksen and this trio (Charles Halleck was the GOP pick for Speaker) ended up defeating President A. Philip Randolph’s bid for re-election in 1956. Despite being the first GOP team to win the presidential election since 1928, the popularity that ushered the Dirksen-Nixon-Halleck ticket into power would not prove lasting. Dogged by revelations about his bullying and borderline-illegal actions while heading up the Committee on National Security, Nixon was almost forced to resign as early as 1957. A sharp economic downturn in 1959-60 put paid to their reelection hopes and they went down to the Progressive candidate of Estes Kefauver (along with his running mates Vice President John F. Kennedy and Speaker Roy Wilkins) in 1960. The anti-Soviet hysteria went down with them and American foreign policy towards the Soviets continued to be dominated by the ideas in George Kennan’s ‘Long Telegram,’ which had argued that the Soviets were ultimately a defensive and not an expansive power and that coexistence with them was possible.

During this time, however, the alliance between the Commonwealth and the Americans seemed to hold: the political leaders of both countries had a close personal rapport and a shared understanding that their nations’ interests were best served together. Key to this was the personal role of Clement Attlee, whose geopolitical view was strongly shaped by the War, viewing the Americans as friends and the Soviets as allies of convenience. In the decade after Roosevelt’s death and the cooling of relations with the Soviets, however, Anglo-American relations too began to cool. Partly this was an ideological split about who should lead the organisation variously referred to as the ‘English-speaking world,’ the ‘West,’ the ‘capitalist world’ or the ‘First World.’ But, more prosaically, it had to do with a growing geopolitical belief, on the part of both the Commonwealth and the United States, that, maybe, their strategic aims were no longer as united as they had once been.

Following Attlee’s departure in 1955, the British cabinet was left denuded of its old pro-American figures. Of the prominent Labour members of the old wartime coalition most were either dead (in the case of Ernest Bevin, Arthur Greenwood and Stafford Cripps) or retired (in the case of Attlee and Nicolson).* This left a cadre of ministers whose experience of the War involved either fighting it or generally living through it rather than politically managing it. As a result they had a more cynical attitude towards the Americans. After Gaitskell died in 1963, the Big Four were now led by men and women (Barbara Castle, Lester Pearson, Ayub Khan and George Cole) whose attitudes towards the Americans were, at best, ambivalent. The President of the Commonwealth Council, Robert Menzies, had a romantic attachment to Britain, which he still called the ‘mother country’, that overwhelmed any love he might have for America. Tony Crosland, the Speaker of the Assembly, had his own plans for the organisation and the United States was of far less interest to him.

Thus, when the split came, it came as a result not of active hostility but due to the fact that there really was nobody left to defend the idea of continuing close cooperation. In January 1966, the Commonwealth formally withdrew from NATO and ordered all foreign military personnel to leave Commonwealth territory by the end of the year. A furious G. Mennen Williams, the US Secretary of State, asked whether this removal should include the exhumation of the American war dead buried around the world on Commonwealth territory. The proximate cause of the split was the American government reaching an agreement with the Spanish monarchical government to station a US naval detachment in Guantanamo Bay, giving the Americans another major toehold in what the Commonwealth had traditionally considered their lake. In truth, however, the split had been coming for some time, as we have seen. The fact was that, by 1965, there were not enough people left in positions of significant authority to argue in favour of a close alliance with the Americans.

Despite the hyperbolic predictions of some at the time, the weakening of cooperation between the three superpowers did not presage the collapse of the postwar order. The tripartite Reykjavik conference of March 1967 was held in good spirits and is generally agreed to have laid the grounds for the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Afterwards, the supposed ‘spirit of Reykjavik’ animated the cordial and cooperative relations between the three superpowers, even if they shied away from the close cooperation of the war years. Although the summit communique referred to the principles of non-interference, many analysts saw this as a thinly-veiled reference to spheres of influence. However, with Dag Hammarskjold still at the helm of the UN, the institution retained a certain kind of informal primacy and the three superpowers were relatively happy to carry out their diplomacy within it, at least for now.

*The only one of that coterie still around in frontline politics was Malcolm MacDonald, whose post-1945 career had seen him serve in junior ministerial positions at the Ministry of Health (1945-49), Transport (1949-51) and Supply (1951-53), before becoming a Commonwealth AM (1953-62) and from then on the head of the Commonwealth secretariat until his retirement in 1966. In these later two roles he took a generally pro-Commonwealth (if not fully anti-American) line.

Secretaries General of the United Nations
  1. Gladwyn Jebb; United Kingdom; September 1945 - February 1946
  2. Franklin Roosevelt; United States; February 1946 - November 1952
  3. V.K. Wellington Koo; China; November 1952 - February 1956
  4. Dag Hammarskjold; Sweden; February 1956 - present
Nuclear-Armed States (with date of first weapon)
  1. United States; 1945
  2. Soviet Union; 1949
  3. Commonwealth; 1951
  4. Sweden; 1964
  5. French Union; 1966
 
What exactly happened in China? I don't remember if you talked about it yet?

Also, nuclear Sweden!

I wonder if the Nordic countries are following their OTL social democratic path here too. Or maybe with them not being alone in it, there's even less pushback and Sweden goes ahead with their proposed plan for gradual worker ownership?
 
What exactly happened in China? I don't remember if you talked about it yet?

After the Chinese Civil War the country evolved into a (relatively) stable democracy contested between the Democratic Socialist Party and the centre-right Progress and Development Party. It's basic structure is an enormous unicameral Legislative Yuan which is elected by (theoretically) universal franchise every five years. The leader of the largest party in the Yuan is then appointed Premier. Elections to the presidency take place every four years, with a voting system like TTL's United States (first round between multiple candidates and a second round run-off between the two most popular). The division between the President and the Premier is that the former takes control of foreign policy and certain executive actions (including a general and a line veto over legislation passed by the Yuan), whereas the Premier is in charge of day-to-day legislation and has most influence over budgetary measures. As you can imagine, these staggered elections mean there's divided government a lot of the time and thus a certain degree of compromise mixed with gridlock. Given their experience of powerful executive governments over the previous half-century, most Chinese don't regard this as a bad thing although the attitudes of the younger generation are thought to be changing. I would also note that, although technically a democracy, China is very much a flawed democracy, with bureaucratic corruption, sinecurism, and local power-brokers still rife. There is also a certain degree of legislative gerrymandering.

China will become more important for TTL after 1976 so we will be taking a greater look at it then. I'll also be posting a list of Premiers and Presidents along with the other countries I've promised.

Also, nuclear Sweden!

I wonder if the Nordic countries are following their OTL social democratic path here too. Or maybe with them not being alone in it, there's even less pushback and Sweden goes ahead with their proposed plan for gradual worker ownership?

IIRC the Swedish did seriously consider this in the late '50s and early '60s but I don't think it ever went anywhere.

As regards Swedish domestic politics, I've not worked them out in as much detail as I have for some other countries but it's definitely more recognisable to the visitor from OTL than would be, say, China. The Social Democratic Party still has a firm grip on the electoral process but it's more in hock to its more left wing factions than the centre (think Olof Palme rather than Tage Erlander). Generally thought of as 'the friendly nuclear power', the Swedes also put a lot of effort into the UN and are big and important figures in UN international mediation and peacekeeping.
 
Top